The Constitutional Court has rejected the Democratic Party’s request regarding the appointment of the Ombudsman, leaving in force the procedure followed by Parliament. After the ruling, Endrit Shabani reacted by stating that he respects the verdict and that the matter has received answers to the points raised about the selection process.
The Democratic Party’s request did not pass before the Constitutional Court
According to the published ruling, the Constitutional Court rejected the Democratic Party’s request regarding the appointment of Endrit Shabani as Ombudsman.
In essence, the court reviewed the procedure followed by Parliament for the election of the head of the institution and concluded that it is in line with the Constitution.
Shabani: The ruling answers questions about the procedure
After the ruling was announced, Endrit Shabani said he respects the position of the Constitutional Court.
According to his response, today’s ruling answers every question about the selection procedure.
Declared impartiality during the review
His response states that the Ombudsman maintained impartiality toward both the applicants and Parliament, without taking a position on the substance of the case.
According to this position, the assessment was left entirely in the hands of the Constitutional Court, as the institution with the final interpretation of the Constitution.
What remains after the ruling
The ruling closes, at least on the constitutional level, the debate over the procedure followed for the election of the Ombudsman, a process that had been challenged by the opposition.
At the end of his response, Shabani stressed that the institution will continue its work to protect human rights.
The rejection of the Democratic Party’s request adds weight to the institutional version of the procedure followed by Parliament, although the political debate over selection standards remains open.
At this stage, the Constitutional Court’s ruling is the final point of legal interpretation in this clash.