After the publication of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, Erion Veliaj’s defense has turned to the Supreme Court with a request to expedite the trial. According to the version presented by his lawyer, any further delay risks rendering the retrial ineffective in practice, while directly affecting both the personal liberty of the mayor of Tirana and the exercise of his mandate.
Request after the Constitutional Court ruling
Plarent Ndreca, Erion Veliaj’s lawyer, has filed with the Supreme Court a request to expedite proceedings involving the mayor, after the Constitutional Court published the ruling in which, according to the defense, several tasks are left to this court.
The move comes at a time when the procedural battle is shifting to deadlines and the concrete effects of the retrial, not only to the substance of the defense’s claims. At this stage, the pressure is for the case not to remain hostage to the ordinary pace of the judicial system.
Defense argument: delay affects liberty and mandate
In the request addressed to the Supreme Court, the defense argues that any delay in the retrial has direct consequences not only for Veliaj’s personal liberty, but also for the exercise of his mandate as head of the Municipality of Tirana.
According to the filings cited in the source material, the defense claims that if the case is not reviewed as a priority, the retrial could lose its practical effectiveness. Under this reasoning, a delayed decision, when most of the mandate has already been used up, would not effectively restore the right to exercise public office or address the institutional consequences of the factual inability to perform the duty.
Review of the “arrest in prison” measure requested
The defense is also asking the Supreme Court to assess whether the security measure of “arrest in prison” continues to be necessary and proportionate.
In the same request, the lawyer asks for an examination of whether alternative security measures were actually taken into consideration. This is one of the main points in the defense’s claims, which is seeking for the Supreme Court not to limit itself only to deadlines, but also to examine the legal basis for the continuation of the current measure.
Debate over the glass cage in the hearing
Another point raised by the defense concerns Veliaj being kept in a glass cage during court hearings. According to the request, this should be assessed as to whether it violates human dignity, the presumption of innocence and the right to an effective defense.
According to the argument cited in the documents, the defense claims that isolating a defendant in a glass booth, without specific identification of a real and current risk, without individual reasoning and without consideration of less restrictive measures, raises a legal and constitutional issue, not merely a matter of courtroom organization.
In the same version, it is emphasized that placing a person presumed innocent in an isolated space visible to the public, the media and the judicial panel creates an image of dangerousness and guilt before this is proven. The defense also raises the claim that such an arrangement may hinder confidential communication with lawyers.
At this stage, it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will treat the request as a priority and whether it will enter into the substance of the defense’s claims regarding the security measure and the conditions of appearance at the hearing.
Beyond the procedural battle, the case is once again testing the pace of the judicial system and its ability to deliver a timely decision, especially when political and institutional consequences are used as a central argument by the parties.