{"id":8848,"date":"2024-11-11T19:44:06","date_gmt":"2024-11-11T19:44:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/?p=8848"},"modified":"2024-11-11T19:44:07","modified_gmt":"2024-11-11T19:44:07","slug":"analiza-e-nenit-511-d-te-kodit-te-procedures-civile","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/analiza-e-nenit-511-d-te-kodit-te-procedures-civile\/","title":{"rendered":"Analiza e nenit 511 (d) t\u00eb kodit t\u00eb procedur\u00ebs civile"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
KONTEKSTI DHE VENDIMARRJA E GJYKAT\u00cbS KUSHTETUESE<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. Gjykata Kushtetuese (GjK) me vendimin nr. 30\/2023 ka vler\u00ebsuar se zbatimi i nenit 511 (d), t\u00eb KPC-s\u00eb, n\u00eb shprehjen \u201cq\u00eb rregullon pagesat e vonuara n\u00eb detyrimet kontraktore dhe tregtare<\/em>\u201d, nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb n\u00eb p\u00ebrputhje me Kushtetut\u00ebn n\u00eb rastet e akteve p\u00ebr dh\u00ebnie kredie bankare konsumatore, me q\u00ebllim q\u00eb kjo dispozit\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtohet nga rendi juridik vet\u00ebm p\u00ebr k\u00ebto lloj aktesh.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. N\u00eb arsyetimin e vendimit GjK shprehet se dispozita b\u00ebn t\u00eb zbatueshme t\u00eb nj\u00ebjtat rregulla ligjore p\u00ebr kamatat me ato p\u00ebr titujt ekzekutiv\u00eb \u201ckredi bankare\u201d p\u00ebr q\u00ebllime t\u00eb veprimtaris\u00eb tregtare, ndon\u00ebse k\u00ebto dy kategori kredimarr\u00ebsish jan\u00eb t\u00eb ndryshme. Gjithashtu, formulimi i dispozit\u00ebs s\u00eb kund\u00ebrshtuar ia delegon pa p\u00ebrjashtim p\u00ebrllogaritjen e kamatave ligjore p\u00ebr titujt ekzekutiv\u00eb \u201ckredi konsumatore\u201d dhe \u201ckredi tregtare\u201d rregullave t\u00eb ligjit nr. 48\/2014, ndon\u00ebse ky i fundit shprehimisht p\u00ebrjashton nga fusha e zbatimit t\u00eb tij detyrimet ose pagesat q\u00eb rrjedhin nga kontratat me konsumator\u00ebt. N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb, dispozita e kund\u00ebrshtuar nuk p\u00ebrmbush kriterin e parashikueshm\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb k\u00ebrkuar nga parimi i siguris\u00eb juridike n\u00eb rastin e nd\u00ebrhyrjeve q\u00eb b\u00ebn ligjv\u00ebn\u00ebsi n\u00eb t\u00eb drejtat kushtetuese, p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e pron\u00ebs.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Vendimi i GjK ka efekt t\u00eb menj\u00ebhersh\u00ebm sipas arsyetimit q\u00eb ka b\u00ebr\u00eb vet\u00eb gjykata. Kjo \u00ebsht\u00eb reflektuar menj\u00ebher\u00eb edhe n\u00eb praktik\u00ebn gjyq\u00ebsore t\u00eb gjykatave t\u00eb shkall\u00ebve t\u00eb para, t\u00eb cilat duket se jan\u00eb t\u00eb paqarta lidhur me efektet e vendimit dhe m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn e aplikimit ose jo t\u00eb kamatave ligjore.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
    PASOJAT E VENDIMIT T\u00cb GJK N\u00cb JURISPRUDENC\u00cbN E GJYKATAVE T\u00cb JURIDIKSIONIT T\u00cb ZAKONSH\u00cbM<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
      \n
    1. Vendimi i GjK, p\u00ebrtej qart\u00ebsis\u00eb q\u00eb duhet t\u00eb sillte, ka \u00e7uar n\u00eb sjelljen e praktikave t\u00eb diversifikuara lidhur me k\u00ebt\u00eb problematik\u00eb. N\u00eb rrethe t\u00eb ndryshme gjyq\u00ebsore, madje edhe brenda nj\u00eb gjykate, vihen re praktika t\u00eb ndryshme lidhur me efektet e zbatimit t\u00eb vendimit t\u00eb GjK. Disa gjykata nuk aplikojn\u00eb kamata ligjore me argumentin se tashm\u00eb norma \u00ebsht\u00eb shfuqizuar nga GjK, nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb disa t\u00eb tjera, b\u00ebjn\u00eb nj\u00eb referim n\u00eb normat e interesit t\u00eb aplikuara nga Banka e Shqip\u00ebris\u00eb (BSh). M\u00eb posht\u00eb po japim n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrmbledhur q\u00ebndrimet e gjykatave mbi m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn e aplikimit t\u00eb nenit 511 (d) t\u00eb KPC pas vendimarrjes s\u00eb GjK.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
      Rasti Nr. 1 – Mosnjohja e interesave[[1]<\/strong><\/a>]<\/sup><\/strong><\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
      N\u00eb lidhje me parashikimin e kamat\u00ebvonesave sipas nenit 5 t\u00eb ligjit nr. 48\/2014 \u201cP\u00ebr pagesat e vonuara n\u00eb detyrimet kontraktore e tregtare\u201d deri n\u00eb ekzekutimin e titullit ekzekutiv nga p\u00ebrmbaruesi, gjykata v\u00ebren se n\u00eb zbatim t\u00eb vendimit Nr. 30, dat\u00eb 02.11.2022 t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese, i botuar n\u00eb Fletoren Zyrtare Nr. 162, dat\u00eb 07.12.2022, n\u00eb t\u00eb cilin arsyetohet se: […] nenit 132, pika 2 t\u00eb Kushtetut\u00ebs, nenit 76, pika 7, shkronja \u201cb\u201d dhe nenit 44, pika 3 t\u00eb ligjit Nr. 9902, dat\u00eb 17.4.2008 \u201cP\u00ebr mbrojtjen e konsumator\u00ebve\u201d, t\u00eb ndryshuar, n\u00eb rastin konkret nuk mund t\u00eb p\u00ebrllogariten kamatat ligjore p\u00ebr titullin ekzekutiv kontrata e huas\u00eb<\/strong> Nr. […], dat\u00eb […] e lidhur midis kreditorit midis shoq\u00ebris\u00eb \u201c[…]\u201d sh.a. dhe kredimarr\u00ebsit […].<\/td><\/tr>
      Rasti Nr. 2 – Referenca n\u00eb normat e interesit t\u00eb BSh[[2]<\/strong><\/a>]<\/sup><\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
      […] nisur nga fakti se subjekti q\u00eb i kund\u00ebrdrejtohet detyrimi rezulton person fizik-individ, kredimarr\u00ebsja […] at\u00ebher\u00eb si i till\u00eb nuk eshte subjekt i ligjit 48\/2014, ndaj rrjedhimisht k\u00ebrkesa p\u00ebr t\u00eb qen\u00eb pjes\u00eb e l\u00ebshimit t\u00eb urdhrit t\u00eb ekzekutimit, kamatat e llogaritura sipas k\u00ebtij ligji \u00ebsht\u00eb e pa mb\u00ebshtetur ne ligj dhe si e till\u00eb duhet t\u00eb rrezohet. Pala k\u00ebrkuese t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e saj p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrllogaritur kamatat ligjore n\u00eb faz\u00ebn e ekzekutimit ndaj k\u00ebtij debitori mbi detyrimin mund ta ushtroj\u00eb, duke aplikuar normat e interesit p\u00ebr depozitat me afat maturimi sipas normave t\u00eb interesit t\u00eb emetuara nga Banka e Shqip\u00ebris\u00eb p\u00ebr bankat e nivelit t\u00eb dyt\u00eb q\u00eb operojn\u00eb n\u00eb treg.<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
      \n\n\n\n

      <\/a>[[1]] Sipas vendimit Nr. 41-2022-4027 (794 UE), Dat\u00eb 29.12.2022, t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb Par\u00eb Kor\u00e7\u00eb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      <\/a>[[2]] Sipas vendimit nr. 7053 Regj Themeltar, dat\u00eb 13.04.2023 t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb Par\u00eb Tiran\u00eb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n
      1. M\u00eb sip\u00ebr konstatojm\u00eb dy praktika krejt t\u00eb ndryshme gjyq\u00ebsore t\u00eb cilat b\u00ebjn\u00eb zbatim t\u00eb ndrysh\u00ebm t\u00eb vendimarrjes s\u00eb GjK. Kjo ka sjell\u00eb edhe nj\u00eb dyzim dhe paqart\u00ebsi lidhur me efektet e vendimit dhe m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn e aplikimit t\u00eb tij. Ve\u00e7 k\u00ebtyre disponimeve nj\u00eb mendim i tret\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb edhe mospranimi i k\u00ebrkesave p\u00ebr p\u00ebrllogaritjen e kamateve duke vler\u00ebsuar se individ\u00ebt mund t\u00eb paraqesin nj\u00eb padi t\u00eb ve\u00e7ant\u00eb n\u00eb gjykat\u00eb.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      2. N\u00eb vler\u00ebsimin ton\u00eb, p\u00ebrfundimet e aritura n\u00eb rastin e par\u00eb dhe mendimin e shfaqur mbi ngritjen e nj\u00eb padie t\u00eb posa\u00e7me, duket se nuk jan\u00eb bind\u00ebse, nuk i sh\u00ebrbejn\u00eb, mbrojtjes t\u00eb s\u00eb drejtave t\u00eb kreditor\u00ebve dhe c\u00ebnojn\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e pal\u00ebve p\u00ebr akses n\u00eb gjykat\u00eb. N\u00eb vler\u00ebsimin ton\u00eb, q\u00ebndrimi i mbajtur n\u00eb rastin e dyt\u00eb m\u00eb sip\u00ebr, duket m\u00eb bind\u00ebs dhe garanton t\u00eb drejtat e kreditor\u00ebve. N\u00eb vijim do t\u00eb analizojm\u00eb q\u00ebndrimin ton\u00eb duke ju referuar parashikimeve t\u00eb Kodit Civil, KPC dhe jurisprudenc\u00ebs unifikuese t\u00eb GjL.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
        VLER\u00cbSIME P\u00cbR NJ\u00cb ZGJIDHJE ALTERNATIVE <\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
          \n
        1. N\u00eb vler\u00ebsimin ton\u00eb, duhet p\u00ebrjashtuar si mund\u00ebsi mosllogaritja e kamatave nga ana e gjykat\u00ebs edhe n\u00eb kushtet e disponimit t\u00eb GjK mbi m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn e zbatimit t\u00eb nenit 511 (d) t\u00eb KPC. N\u00eb vler\u00ebsimin ton\u00eb, nuk mund t\u00eb sh\u00ebrbej\u00eb si argument, mos pasja e ligjit dhe p\u00ebr rrjedhoj\u00eb edhe mos njohja (humbja) e t\u00eb drejt\u00ebs p\u00ebr t\u00eb k\u00ebrkuar kamatat nga debitori. N\u00eb shum\u00eb vendime t\u00eb saj, jurisprudenca e GjK \u00ebsht\u00eb shprehur se gjykatat nuk mund t\u00eb pretendojn\u00eb mos ekzsitenc\u00ebn e norm\u00ebs me pasoj\u00eb mospranimin e t\u00eb drejtave (shiko vendimin nr. 32\/2005). Pavar\u00ebsisht k\u00ebsaj vler\u00ebsojm\u00eb se nuk jemi n\u00eb kushtet e mosekzistenc\u00ebs s\u00eb norm\u00ebs.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        2. Neni 1051 parashikon se huadh\u00ebn\u00ebsi duhet ti paguaj\u00eb huamarr\u00ebsit kamatat p\u00ebr shum\u00ebn e marr\u00eb hua. Ky detyrim nuk aplikohet vet\u00ebm n\u00eb rastet kur pal\u00ebt me vullnet t\u00eb tyre t\u00eb lir\u00eb parashikojn\u00eb se nuk do t\u00eb aplikojn\u00eb kamata. Duke pasur parasysh k\u00ebt\u00eb parashikim, vler\u00ebsojm\u00eb se qasja se sa koh\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb shfuqizuar norma nga GjK, nuk do t\u00eb mund t\u00eb aplikohen kamatat, n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb norm\u00ebs, nuk duket e drejt\u00eb. Parashikimet e p\u00ebrgjithshme t\u00eb KC lidhur me kontrat\u00ebn e huas i japin hap\u00ebsir\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs p\u00ebr ti dh\u00ebn\u00eb jet\u00eb k\u00ebrkimit p\u00ebr p\u00ebrllogaritjen e kamatave. \u00c7\u00ebshtja q\u00eb diskutohet mund t\u00eb ket\u00eb t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb vet\u00ebm me mas\u00ebn n\u00eb t\u00eb cil\u00ebn ato do t\u00eb aplikohen, por jo me faktin e njohjes apo mosnjohjes s\u00eb tyre. Individualizimi i mas\u00ebs s\u00eb kamatave n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb parashikimeve ligjore, nuk mund t\u00eb jet\u00eb kusht p\u00ebr mosnjohjen e k\u00ebsaj t\u00eb drejt\u00eb.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        3. Edhe p\u00ebr \u00e7\u00ebshtje t\u00eb caktimit t\u00eb mas\u00ebs s\u00eb kamat\u00ebs, vler\u00ebsojm\u00eb se ekzistojn\u00eb mekanizma, t\u00eb detyruesh\u00ebm madje, q\u00eb mund t\u00eb orientojn\u00eb gjykat\u00ebn. K\u00ebshtu n\u00eb vendimin nr. 932 dat\u00eb 14.11.2000, Kolegjet e Bashkuara t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, kan\u00eb orientuar praktik\u00ebn gjyq\u00ebsore lidhur me element\u00ebt e vlefshm\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb kontrat\u00ebs s\u00eb huas\u00eb p\u00ebrsa i takon pjes\u00ebs s\u00eb interesave. GjL pranon se KC nuk parashikon marzhe maksimale t\u00eb interesave bankare, por nga ana tjet\u00ebr, vler\u00ebson se parimet e parashikuara n\u00eb KC, mbi detyrimin e pal\u00ebve n\u00eb nj\u00eb marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnie p\u00ebr tu sjellj\u00eb me korrektes\u00eb, detyrojn\u00eb ata q\u00eb t\u00eb mos aplikojn\u00eb kushte haptazi disfavorizuese (neni 422). P\u00ebrmbajtja e k\u00ebsaj dispozite dhe atyre qe percaktojne kushtet e pergjitheshme te kontratave, con ne perfundimin qe edhe liria e kontraktimit nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb absolute. N\u00eb p\u00ebrpjekje p\u00ebr t\u00eb disiplinuar marr\u00ebdh\u00ebniet n\u00eb kontrat\u00ebn e huas\u00eb p\u00ebr \u00e7\u00ebshtje t\u00eb marzhit t\u00eb interesave GjL evokon edhe parashikimet e nenit 662 t\u00eb KC q\u00eb i konsideron t\u00eb pavlefshme kushtet kontraktore q\u00eb sjellin d\u00ebmtim t\u00eb shp\u00ebrpjestuar t\u00eb interesave t\u00eb nj\u00ebr\u00ebs pal\u00eb.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        4. Nisur nga k\u00ebto parime, GjL shprehet se n\u00eb kushtet kur jemi p\u00ebrball\u00eb interesave t\u00eb tilla, jo t\u00eb barabarta dhe p\u00ebrpjestimore do t\u00eb ishte e pranueshme q\u00eb t\u00eb aplikohen kamatat e parashikuara nga BSh. Kjo qasje e GjL mund t\u00eb jet\u00eb e aplikueshme edhe n\u00eb kushtet n\u00eb t\u00eb cilat ndodhemi pas vendimarrjes s\u00eb GjK. N\u00eb rastet kur gjykata do t\u00eb konstatoj\u00eb interesa jo p\u00ebrpjestimore, ajo mund ti referohet parashikimeve t\u00eb kamatave t\u00eb aplikuara nga BSh. Legjislacion i aplikush\u00ebm n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast do t\u00eb jet\u00eb Rregullorja e BSh \u201cP\u00ebr Kredin\u00eb Konsumatore dhe Kredin\u00eb Hipotekare\u201d.[[1]<\/a>]<\/sup><\/li>\n\n\n\n
        5. Sa m\u00eb sip\u00ebr, vler\u00ebsojm\u00eb se n\u00ebse gjykatat do t\u00eb vepronin me diligjenc\u00ebn e duhur, mund t\u00eb garantojn\u00eb t\u00eb drejtat e pal\u00ebve n\u00eb proces duke respektuar n\u00eb t\u00ebr\u00ebsi t\u00eb gjith\u00eb kuadrin ligjor dhe jurisprudenc\u00ebn e GjL. Mbetur po tek i nj\u00ebjti argument, mund t\u00eb sjellim n\u00eb v\u00ebmednje raste t\u00eb praktikave t\u00eb mira nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtare nga GjEDNj e cila n\u00eb formulimit t\u00eb dispozitivit t\u00eb vendimit ve\u00e7 mas\u00ebs s\u00eb shp\u00ebrblimit t\u00eb d\u00ebmit, p\u00ebrcakton edhe norm\u00ebn e interesit si\u00e7 p\u00ebrcaktohet nga Banka Q\u00ebndrore Europiane plus 3% p\u00ebr \u00e7do muaj vones\u00eb.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
          \n\n\n\n

          <\/a>[[1]] Shiko vendimin Nr. 48 dat\u00eb 1.7.2015 t\u00eb K\u00ebshillit Mbik\u00ebqyr\u00ebs t\u00eb BSh<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          P\u00cbRFUNDIME<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
            \n
          1. Duke qen\u00eb se GJK ka shpallur antikushtetues vet\u00ebm togfjalshin \u201cq\u00eb rregullon pagesat e vonuara n\u00eb detyrimet kontraktore dhe tregtare\u201d <\/em>gjykatat kan\u00eb detyrimin q\u00eb t\u00eb vazhdoj\u00eb t\u00eb parashikoj\u00eb kamatvonesat sipas jurisprudenc\u00ebs unifikuese n\u00eb vendimin nr. 932\/2000 duke referuar n\u00eb aktet regullatore t\u00eb BSh p\u00ebr caktimin e interesave.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

            KONTEKSTI DHE VENDIMARRJA E GJYKAT\u00cbS KUSHTETUESE PASOJAT E VENDIMIT T\u00cb GJK N\u00cb JURISPRUDENC\u00cbN E GJYKATAVE T\u00cb JURIDIKSIONIT T\u00cb ZAKONSH\u00cbM Rasti Nr. 1 – Mosnjohja e interesave[[1]] N\u00eb lidhje me parashikimin e kamat\u00ebvonesave sipas nenit 5 t\u00eb ligjit nr. 48\/2014 \u201cP\u00ebr pagesat e vonuara n\u00eb detyrimet kontraktore e tregtare\u201d deri n\u00eb ekzekutimin e titullit ekzekutiv nga […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":8849,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8848","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8848","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8848"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8848\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8851,"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8848\/revisions\/8851"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8849"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8848"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8848"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8848"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}