The President of the Constitutional Court, Holta Zaçaj, declares that she will turn to the Venice Commission to interpret the constitutional term of office of constitutional judges. Zaçaj says that despite what has been published in some media, that her mandate as a judge has ended, this is not true.
"Judge Holta Zaçaj began to exercise her duties as a member of the Constitutional Court on January 25, 2023 and succeeded Judge Vitore Tusha, who completed her duties as a constitutional judge on March 10, 2017.
The mandate of judge Holta Zaçaj is regulated by article 179, point 3, of the Constitution, which provides that, in order to regularly renew the composition of the Constitutional Court, the judge who will replace the judge whose mandate ends in 2017, will stay in office until 2025.
On the basis of this constitutional provision, the Supreme Court in its decision no. 2, dated 16.01.2023 stated: "The election of Ms. Holta Zaçaj as a member of the Constitutional Court with a partial mandate until renewal in 2025."
Given that, neither the constitutional provision, therefore nor the decision of the Supreme Court for the election of the constitutional judge, has a date determined for the completion of this task, based on the general legal rules for the calculation of deadlines, as a deadline of the exercise of the duty will have to be considered the end of 2025.
The date of the end of the office of the previous judge, in cases where he has completed the full mandate, is not referred to by the Constitution or the law as a legal event, which also determines the end of the mandate of the subsequent judge.
Even in institutional practice, such a rule does not appear to have been applied in determining the date of completion of the exercise of the duty of constitutional judges", says Zaçaj.
"Consequently, the date March 10, 2017, which refers to the date on which Judge Vitore Tusha finished her duty, is not decisive for the termination of Ms. Holta Zaçaj as subsequent judge. Regardless of the above, taking into account the importance of the principle of the duration of the mandate of the constitutional judge, triggered by this case but also, eventually, to prevent similar situations in the future, I have considered immediately addressing the Venice Commission, as an advisory body, for obtaining an amicus curiae opinion regarding the interpretation of the constitutional term of office of constitutional judges in general and, in particular, according to the provisions of the article 179, point 3, of the Constitution". (A2 Televizion)
A2 CNN Livestream
MUND TE LEXONI GJITHASHTU
