At the session held today, High Prosecutorial Council (HPC), accepted the request of the High Inspector of Justice (HIJ) for the imposition of the disciplinary measure “Public reprimand” against magistrate A.K., prosecutor at the Prosecution Office of the Court of First Instance of General Jurisdiction of Kor\u00e7\u00eb. The measure was requested by the HIJ for violations of the provisions regulating the organization and functioning of the prosecution office, as well as for violations of the rules on confidentiality and the prohibition of disseminating information related to an ongoing or completed investigation.<\/p>\n
These proceedings came after the reconsideration of the HPC’s previous decision of October 2, 2025, by which the HIJ’s request for the imposition of a disciplinary measure against the prosecutor had been rejected. Following the HIJ’s appeal, the Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the claim, instructing the HPC to re-examine the request for disciplinary proceedings.<\/p>\n
According to the HIJ’s investigative report, prosecutor A.K. signed official documents without having the relevant competence and also extracted and sent copies of documents, which were part of the case file of a matter still under investigation, to third parties. According to the HIJ, these actions bypassed the authority of the head of the prosecution office, undermined the institutional image of the prosecution body, and created a risk to the proper conduct of the investigation. Furthermore, the publication of procedural documents, it is noted in the HIJ’s investigative report concerning A.K., may negatively affect public trust, since the prosecution office operates in accordance with the law and not on the basis of the individual will of the magistrate.<\/p>\n
During the reconsideration of the case, HIJ once again requested that the HPC accept the request for the imposition of the disciplinary measure “Public reprimand” against prosecutor A.K., for the disciplinary violations provided for in Article 102, paragraph 1, letters “g” and “j” of Law No. 96\/2016 “On Status” as amended. The HPC decided to accept this request and impose the disciplinary measure proposed by the HIJ.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
At the session held today, High Prosecutorial Council (HPC), accepted the request […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":31340,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[53],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31342","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31342","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31342"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31342\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":31343,"href":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31342\/revisions\/31343"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/31340"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31342"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31342"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ild.al\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31342"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}