In his remarks, Jakaj emphasized the importance of addressing the bottlenecks in the review processes of Administrative Court.
“There are procedures for private enterprises and citizens because 90% of the cases in the Administrative Court are created by public administration. Today, there are cases left pending 3 or 5 years on one instance or another. We are all cognizant that the initiative for the Administrative Court was intended to set a minimal time line for reviewing cases,” Jakaj emphasized.
Jakaj emphasized that “on the other hand, we need to conduct an analysis, considering that the public administration is the producer of all these cases in the Administrative Court. Moreover, the Agency for Monitoring Public Administration Acts is often absent when cases are won in the Administrative Court by parties challenging the administration. There is no measure or response for what has caused this marathon of problem-solving over 7-8 years, which has an extraordinary cost for businesses, as well as a cost for public administration and the state budget.”

“We, he continued, need to encourage the public administration to demonstrate integrity when it comes to decisionmaking, as inaction is another problem.”
“Very soon, businesses will respond to the inaction of the public administration by treating it as a criminal offense. We need to encourage the public administration, and the role of the Supreme State Audit Institution (KLSH) remains to be addressed. In all our communications with central institutions, we are told that KLSH does not allow us. The administration must comply with and enforce the law. KLSH is an institution that provides its opinions, but in no case can it be executive, and Supreme State Audit faces the administration in court on one side and the affected party on the other,” said Jakaj.

/k.s/a.f/sm/