The bill on the State Bureau for the Verification and Confiscation of Unjustified Assets has sparked disagreements among MPs on the Committee on Legislation. Opposition representatives questioned its provisions and how they might be implemented, while VV MPs defended the review process, stressing that deadlines had been met and comments had been considered.
Doarsa Kica-Xhelili, an LDK MP, opposed rushing to pass a law of such importance. She urged committee members to consider the problems that she said remained unresolved before deciding whether to vote for the bill.
Të lidhura
None found
Kica-Xhelili’s first concern was the procedure for electing the Bureau’s director, which she said had not changed. She explained that a simple majority of MPs taking part in the vote would suffice, meaning that if 61 MPs were present, the director could be elected with 31 votes.
The MP also raised the issue of judges’ specialization. She said the bill required this of first-instance judges but not appeals judges, even though it was precisely the second-instance court that would have to examine the merits of the first-instance request and decide whether its ruling should be overturned.
Another concern raised by Kica-Xhelili related to the professional experience of those selected as Bureau members. She said they had insisted on at least 7 years of professional experience and that the ministry had initially promised to consider the request, with agreement on 7 years reached on Wednesday. However, she said, a proposal had been put forward today to reduce the requirement back to 5 years.
Noting the absence of ministry representatives from today’s meeting, she said it was scandalous to consider 5 years of professional experience excessive for Bureau members.
Kica-Xhelili also opposed retaining the €25,000 threshold for initiating verification. She recalled that the issue had been raised on Wednesday but had not been accepted, while the ministry was due to bring amendments the following week. Despite this, the meeting had been scheduled for today. According to the MP, the threshold remains unchanged even though verification covers assets from the past 18 years, starting in 2008, and the period covered will grow longer in the future.
Besnik Tahiri, an Alliance MP, focused on the possibility of verifying an official’s assets even after they have left public office. He warned that some provisions risked turning the process from an investigation into what he described as persecution, involving intrusion into private life.
To illustrate his concern, Tahiri used himself and those he was addressing as examples, saying that a person might find another job after their term as an MP ended. He said the provisions allowed any investigator to examine what that person did and where they worked for 5 years, even though they were now acting as a private individual.
Tahiri argued that anyone who leaves a senior public office, anywhere in the world, becomes a private individual again and decides for themselves what to do, whether planting peppers in a field or working abroad. He questioned why the Bureau should launch an investigation into such a person on the basis of a report, calling such action persecution rather than investigation.
Meanwhile, the chair of the Committee on Legislation, Vigan Qorrolli, said the procedure had been conducted within the required deadlines. He explained that the mandatory 15-day period between the two readings had been observed and that invitations to participate had been extended repeatedly in a spirit of collegiality.
According to Qorrolli, the aim had been to complete the entire draft on Wednesday and for the working group to finish its work on the first day. Since this had not been achieved by the end of the working day, the remaining work had been left for today. He added that the work scheduled for the first part of the morning had also been completed and that, in his assessment, all concerns had been addressed.
The committee chair stressed that the proposals submitted by the Democratic Party MP who had put forward amendments, as well as those from representatives of the Supreme Court and civil society, had been examined in detail, one by one. He insisted that no comment, objection, suggestion or amendment had been overlooked and that they had been considered with the utmost seriousness.
Qorrolli said the law had been reviewed article by article, with particular attention to the core, substantive aspects of the issue. He also mentioned the unanimous acceptance of an amendment proposed by civil society, describing it as a sound change and asserting that the law met all standards.
In explaining the relationship between civil and criminal confiscation, Qorrolli referred to the Venice Commission’s opinion. He said the Commission itself had addressed the issue and determined that the two processes could not be linked.
He explained that data collected during proceedings at the Bureau and forwarded to the competent court for civil confiscation could be raised again or reused when a court or prosecutor initiated investigations on their own authority. At the same time, referring again to the Venice Commission, Qorrolli stressed that data used in civil confiscation could not be used in criminal proceedings. He added that part of Kica-Xhelili’s statement also acknowledged that this aspect was in order.
Vetëvendosje Movement MP Adnan Rrustemi also defended the bill. He described it as the bill that had undergone the most discussion and review in various forums and at different levels since Kosovo declared independence.
Rrustemi said that, while he could not rule out another such case, he believed no other bill had been reviewed in 2 readings across 3 parliamentary terms, voted on twice in 2 readings, examined twice by the Constitutional Court and 3 times by the Venice Commission, yet still remained under discussion.
He reminded MPs opposing the bill that, at some of these stages, it had also received their support and votes. According to Rrustemi, the current text contains no substantive changes that distinguish it from the version voted on 1 year ago or from the one the LDK supported when it was first put to a vote.
