21.05.2021 – 12:15
In the Commission of Inquiry set up to investigate the conduct of President Ilir Meta in the election campaign, legal experts referred to the practices of the Venice Commission, or the Constitutional Courts in other countries, to determine the ‘frameworks’ that know the behavior of the head of state especially in the period when it comes to the people electing their representatives in the Assembly.
Expert Erind Mercury said that the president “with his language should not create institutional conflicts, lower or raise the reputation of institutions, his language should be correct.”
“From the analyzed practices of the Venice Commission and the doctrine, it is related that the president should be impartial and above the parties, his behavior should not be perceived as biased in favor, even against. “There may be political attitudes, but this should not be understood as in favor of or against certain political entities.”
Question by Spartak Braho: I dwell a little on the provisions on the role of the president as a factor of unity, which we often find in the references of our president who considers himself a factor of unity, but also a guarantor of the Constitution, what do you think about this?
Expert: Yes, he is the guarantor of the constitution, like any other institution, the logic of who should be the guarantor of the constitution is an old debate, in Albania there has been a expressed constitutional guarantor at different times.
As long as the final interpretation remains with the Constitutional Court, it means that it is what it should guarantee in the last instance, in the narrow sense the constitutional court remains the guarantor of the constitution, in the general sense every institution is the guarantor of the constitution.
Vasilika Hysi: Let us dwell on the freedom of expression, the relationship that the president has between what we say is not responsible for freedom of expression, based on the films, the statuses we read, it is understood that the language of expression and hatred and threat, especially for the organs of special of the justice system that we by law have decided to investigate electoral crimes, was one of the reasons the signatories are concerned.
In the studied practice what is the position of the Venice Commission or other constitutional courts? Since you brought cases where presidents are semi-dependent, where freedom of expression in the election campaign, the president can not take over the powers of parliament, I wanted something more concrete that we should consider?
Expert: Concrete cases, a quote from the Constitutional Court of Kosovo, 2010, every citizen has the right to be guaranteed by the impartiality and integrity of the president, especially in the case of political elections, that we are dealing with elections that the citizen will make.
In the case of Italian doctrine, messages of the president, in atypical expressions, speeches in the homeland, greetings to the Armed Forces, in case he can reach the message to the people through typical messages there is no need to use atypicals, so he should refrain from atypical, ie if uses atypical messages, should do so with extreme caution to avoid expressions sounding implied as if he is condemning, or as disapproving of the conduct of public bodies.
Confidentiality essential for its role in the constitutional order.
Vasilika Hysi: Does the Venice Commission have a decision on this?
Expert: Attitude to the Albanian case, when the commune was discussed for the date of the elections in Albania, 2019, where he expresses the fact that the president can not maintain political bias, can not support a certain force.
On this basis, the 2004 decision of the Korean Constitutional Court… not grounded in denying the obligation to maintain political neutrality regarding elections, refrain from expressing his personal views when making statements about elections to maintain political neutrality in relation to elections, it should appear to behave independently
