TIRANA, Feb.29 – The Venice Commission has delivered its final draft opinion regarding the justice reform in Albania. The 20-page document praised the work of the experts of the Ad Hoc Parliamentary Committee stating that “the revised draft amendments have taken into account most of the criticism previously made by the Commission and that remaining issues should not prove insoluble.”
Overall, it deemed the text as “coherent and compatible with European standards.”
Regarding the issue which has been at the center of political debate in the country, the appointment of members of top justice institutions such as the High Judicial Council or the High Prosecutorial Council, the Venice Commission says that both proposed qualified majorities are legitimate.
The opposition has insisted the lay members of these institutions are elected with two thirds of votes in parliament, while the draft prepared by experts envisages a qualified majority of three fifths or 84 votes, which the opposition fears will lead to the capture of the justice system by the government.
The Venice Commission says it considers the three fifths version as a more viable option since “the two thirds requirement without proper deadlock breaking mechanisms could result in a stalemate and jeopardize the entire process of the reform.”
However, the Commission highlights the need for the representation of the opposition in these bodies without necessarily using high voting thresholds and it provides a few alternatives how the issue can be addressed.
It recommends the same thing for the election of the three members of the Constitutional Court who are going to be elected by Parliament. In case of lack of political consensus, Venice Commission experts suggest a mechanism which would guarantee that the opposition has an influence over the process.
The Venice Commission is against the premature interruption of the mandate of General Prosecutor Adriatik Llalla, whose term in office is set to end in mid 2017. Again the Venice Commission stresses that the election of the General Prosecutor and High Justice Inspector are characterized by a high degree of consensus. It suggests that since the current majority already has the three thirds of the votes required, a transitional rule be applied which involves a higher voting threshold for the first election of the heads of these institutions by the current legislature.
The Venice Commission also highlights the need to clarify the role of the special anticorruption body and the clarification of accountability with regards to the head of the institution.
It considers the measures proposed for the vetting of judges and prosecutors “as not only justified but also necessary considering the situation in Albania’s judicial system.”
However, it maintains that judges and prosecutors that will undergo the vetting process have the right to complain to the Constitutional Court about violations of their rights. It also raised some privacy concerns in relation to the vetting process.
Also international observers that will oversee the process should have no decision making powers, but simply procedural rights, the Venice Commission notes.
The Venice Commission concludes its opinion by stating that “the reform should not stop only at constitutional level, but a whole legal package is required to regulate the operation of the country’s top justice institutions.”
