{"id":8872,"date":"2024-12-19T15:54:01","date_gmt":"2024-12-19T15:54:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/?p=8872"},"modified":"2024-12-19T15:54:11","modified_gmt":"2024-12-19T15:54:11","slug":"a-gezon-mbrojtje-ligjore-rikthimi-ne-pune","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mustafajlawfirm.com\/en\/a-gezon-mbrojtje-ligjore-rikthimi-ne-pune\/","title":{"rendered":"A gezon mbrojtje ligjore rikthimi ne pune?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
A g\u00ebzon mbrojtje gjyq\u00ebsore rikthimi n\u00eb pun\u00eb i pun\u00ebmarresit n\u00ebse zgjidhja konsiderohet e menj\u00ebhershme dhe e pajustifikuar apo pa shkaqe t\u00eb arsyeshme<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. Q\u00ebndrimi i jurisprudenc\u00ebs lidhur me mund\u00ebsin\u00eb e rikthimit n\u00eb pun\u00eb (n\u00eb vend t\u00eb historis\u00eb)<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    N\u00eb jurisprudenc\u00eb dhe n\u00eb literatur\u00ebn juridike ka pasur jo pak diskutime q\u00eb prej miratimit t\u00eb Kodit t\u00eb Pun\u00ebs (KP), mbi faktin n\u00ebse g\u00ebzon mbrojtje gjyq\u00ebsore rikthimi n\u00eb pun\u00eb i pun\u00ebmarr\u00ebsit, n\u00eb rastet kur kemi t\u00eb b\u00ebjm\u00eb me zgjidhje t\u00eb pajustifikuar (neni 155) apo zgjidhje pa shkaqe t\u00eb arsyeshme t\u00eb kontrat\u00ebs s\u00eb pun\u00ebs (neni 146). Debati fillimisht ka qen\u00eb n\u00ebse g\u00ebzon mbrojtje gjyq\u00ebsore kthimi n\u00eb pun\u00eb n\u00eb sektorin publik, nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb ka pasur nj\u00eb konsensus se kjo nuk mund t\u00eb aplikohet n\u00eb sektorin privat. Jurisprudenca unifikuese ka luajtur nj\u00eb rol p\u00ebrcaktues n\u00eb k\u00ebto \u00e7\u00ebshtje.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    N\u00eb nenin 146 parashikohet se zgjidhja e kontrat\u00ebs pa shkaqe t\u00eb arsyeshme \u00ebsht\u00eb e pavlefshme. Sipas nj\u00eb mendimi, n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast duhet ti referohemi teoris\u00eb s\u00eb p\u00ebrgjithshme t\u00eb veprimeve juridike e cila dikton q\u00eb shpallja e pavlefshmris\u00eb i kthen pal\u00ebt n\u00eb gjenden e m\u00ebparshme. P\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb, bashk\u00eb me shpalljen e pavlefshm\u00ebris\u00eb, gjykata duhet t\u00eb urdh\u00ebroj\u00eb edhe kthimin n\u00eb pun\u00eb t\u00eb pun\u00ebmarr\u00ebsit. Qasja tjet\u00ebr, q\u00eb ka gjetur mb\u00ebshtetje edhe n\u00eb jurisprudenc\u00eb, pretendon se kthimi n\u00eb pun\u00eb, nuk g\u00ebzon mbrojtje ligjore. Brenda k\u00ebtij debati, lind edhe nj\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje tjet\u00ebr, n\u00ebse duhet t\u00eb ket\u00eb dallim mes t\u00eb pun\u00ebsuarve n\u00eb sektorin publik dhe t\u00eb pun\u00ebsuarve n\u00eb sektorin privat. Dispozitat parashikojn\u00eb se p\u00ebr pun\u00ebmarr\u00ebsit n\u00eb administrat\u00ebn publike, kur ka nj\u00eb vendim kthimi n\u00eb detyr\u00eb, ai duhet t\u00eb zbatohet.[[1]<\/a>]<\/sup> Interpretimi q\u00eb i \u00ebsht\u00eb b\u00ebr\u00eb dispozit\u00ebs lidhet me faktin se sa koh\u00eb nuk ka nj\u00eb parashikim t\u00eb posa\u00e7\u00ebm edhe p\u00ebr sektorin privat, nuk duhet garantuar e drejta e kthimit n\u00eb pun\u00eb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    N\u00eb k\u00ebto debate q\u00eb zhvillohen n\u00eb juridiksionin e brendsh\u00ebm, jo pak her\u00eb kan\u00eb influencuar edhe rymat e jurisprudenc\u00ebs s\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Evropiane p\u00ebr t\u00eb Drejtat e Njeriut (GjEDNj). N\u00eb jurisprudenc\u00ebn e hershme, GjEDNj ka theksuar se mosmarr\u00ebveshjet lidhur me rekrutimin, karrier\u00ebn dhe p\u00ebrfundimin (e sh\u00ebrbimit t\u00eb n\u00ebpun\u00ebsve civil\u00eb) ishin si rregull jasht\u00eb fush\u00ebs s\u00eb veprimit t\u00eb nenit 6 (1) t\u00eb Konvent\u00ebs.[<\/sup>[2]<\/a>]<\/sup> Jurisprudenca e GjEDNj ka evoluar duke ngushtuar rrethin e \u00e7\u00ebshtjeve p\u00ebr t\u00eb cilat nuk mund t\u00eb jepet mbrojtje gjyq\u00ebsore duke theksuar se neni 6 (1) i Konvent\u00ebs nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb i aplikuesh\u00ebm vet\u00ebm p\u00ebr mbajt\u00ebsit e posteve q\u00eb p\u00ebrfshijn\u00eb p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsit\u00eb n\u00eb interesin e p\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm t\u00eb shtetit ose jan\u00eb pjes\u00eb e ushtrimit t\u00eb kompetencave t\u00eb dh\u00ebna nga e drejta publike. Kjo e drejt\u00eb u kufizohet vet\u00ebm atyre individ\u00ebve q\u00eb ushtrojn\u00eb nj\u00eb pjes\u00eb t\u00eb pushtetit sovran dhe shteti ka nj\u00eb interes legjitim p\u00ebr t\u00eb k\u00ebrkuar prej k\u00ebtyre zyrtar\u00ebve nj\u00eb lidhje speciale besimi dhe besnik\u00ebrie.[<\/sup>[3]<\/a>] <\/sup>Si shembull i k\u00ebtyre marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnieve, citohen raportet e pun\u00ebs n\u00eb forcat e armatosura apo policin\u00eb e shtetit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Duke u influencuar edhe nga kjo jurisprudenc\u00eb, Gjykta e Lart\u00eb (GjL) ka mbajtur q\u00ebndrimin se nuk mund t\u00eb realizohet gjyq\u00ebsisht e drejta e rikthimit n\u00eb pun\u00eb, edhe n\u00eb qoft\u00eb se provohet se jan\u00eb larguar prej saj pashkaqe t\u00eb p\u00ebrligjura. Sipas jurisprudenc\u00ebs unifikuese e drejta e rikthimit n\u00eb pun\u00eb nuk g\u00ebzon mbrojtje gjyq\u00ebsore, nd\u00ebrsa e drejta e d\u00ebmshp\u00ebrblimit \u00ebsht\u00eb nj\u00eb e drejt\u00eb q\u00eb g\u00ebzon mbrojtje.[<\/sup>[4]<\/a>]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Megjithat\u00eb n\u00eb vitin 2007, GjEDNj ndryshoi qasje duke njohur mund\u00ebsin\u00eb e aksesit n\u00eb gjykat\u00eb p\u00ebr punonj\u00ebsit publik. Ajo p\u00ebrcaktoi se kufizimi i aksesit mund t\u00eb b\u00ebhet vet\u00ebm n\u00ebse (i). shteti ka p\u00ebrjashtuar shprehimisht aksesin n\u00eb gjykat\u00eb p\u00ebr postin ose kategorin\u00eb e personelit n\u00eb fjal\u00eb dhe (ii). p\u00ebrjashtimi duhet t\u00eb justifikohet mbi baza objektive n\u00eb interes t\u00eb shtetit. N\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjen Vilho Eskelinen <\/em>GjEDNj u shpreh se vet\u00ebm fakti q\u00eb pun\u00ebmarr\u00ebsi \u00ebsht\u00eb n\u00eb marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnie pune q\u00eb ushtron pushtet t\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga e drejta publike nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb vendimtar p\u00ebr kufizimin e t\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb aksesit dhe mbrojtjes.[<\/sup>[5]<\/a>]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Pavar\u00ebsisht evolucionit q\u00eb pati jurisprudenca e GjEDNj prej viteve ’90 deri n\u00eb vitin 2007 kur u publikua vendimi Eskelinen, <\/em>jurisprudenca e GjL nuk ka ecur n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn linj\u00eb me t\u00eb. GjL n\u00eb vendimin unifikues t\u00eb vitit 2011 ka mbajtur q\u00ebndrimin se n\u00eb rast t\u00eb zgjidhjes s\u00eb kontrat\u00ebs s\u00eb pun\u00ebs, pavar\u00ebsisht se organi administrativ shprehet me nj\u00eb akt t\u00eb marr\u00eb nga drejtuesi i organit, kjo nuk do t\u00eb thot\u00eb q\u00eb jemi p\u00ebrpara marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnieve administrative por jemi p\u00ebrpara shprehjes s\u00eb vullnetit t\u00eb pun\u00ebdh\u00ebn\u00ebsit p\u00ebr zgjidhjen e kontrat\u00ebs s\u00eb pun\u00ebs. Pra me k\u00ebt\u00eb do t\u00eb kuptojm\u00eb se kemi t\u00eb b\u00ebjm\u00eb me nj\u00eb marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnie pune midis pun\u00ebdh\u00ebn\u00ebsit dhe pun\u00ebmarr\u00ebsit dhe jo m\u00eb me nj\u00eb marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnie administrative.[<\/sup>[6]<\/a>] <\/sup>Ky q\u00ebndrim q\u00eb ka mbajtur shumica, \u00ebsht\u00eb sfiduar me argumente bind\u00ebse nga pakica. Pakica niset nga premisa se marr\u00ebdh\u00ebniet e pun\u00ebs kan\u00eb nj\u00eb begraund t\u00eb fort\u00eb social dhe nd\u00ebrpreja e tyre pa asnj\u00eb shkak, mund t\u00eb c\u00ebnoj\u00eb raporte shum\u00eb t\u00eb ndjeshme ekonomike dhe sociale. P\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb thekson se p\u00ebr kategori t\u00eb caktuar pun\u00ebmarr\u00ebsish, q\u00eb ushtrojn\u00eb nj\u00eb veprimtari publike, gjykata mund t\u00eb urdh\u00ebroj\u00eb edhe kthimin n\u00eb vendin e m\u00ebparsh\u00ebm t\u00eb pun\u00ebs.[<\/sup>[7]<\/a>]<\/sup> Q\u00ebndrimi i pakic\u00ebs tashm\u00eb po gjen vend n\u00eb praktik\u00eb n\u00eb disa vendime t\u00eb gjykatave t\u00eb shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb dhe apelit. Nisur nga e nj\u00ebjta linj\u00eb arsyetimi dhe duke u mb\u00ebshtetur n\u00eb ligjet e posa\u00e7me q\u00eb rregullojn\u00eb veprimtarin\u00eb e disa institucioneve publike,[<\/sup>[8]<\/a>]<\/sup> gjykatat administrative kan\u00eb njohur t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e kthimit n\u00eb pun\u00eb t\u00eb pun\u00ebmarr\u00ebsve q\u00eb kan\u00eb pasur nj\u00eb status juridik t\u00eb caktuar.[<\/sup>[9]<\/a>]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Nga gjetjet e deritanishme, konstatojm\u00eb se sipas jurisprudenc\u00ebs, kthimi n\u00eb pun\u00eb n\u00eb sektorin privat nuk g\u00ebzon mbrojtje ligjore. Ajo i garantohet vet\u00ebm nj\u00eb kategorie t\u00eb caktuar punonj\u00ebsish n\u00eb sektorin publik, veprimtaria e t\u00eb cil\u00ebve \u00ebsht\u00eb e regulluar me ligj t\u00eb posa\u00e7\u00ebm. N\u00eb vijim do t\u00eb analizojm\u00eb n\u00ebse mund t\u00eb aplikohet garancia e kthimit n\u00eb pun\u00eb edhe p\u00ebr raportet e krijuara me KP n\u00eb rast se zgjidhja \u00ebsht\u00eb b\u00ebr\u00eb sipas neneve 155 dhe 146.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. V\u00ebshtrim i krahasuar dhe akte nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtare mbi t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e kthimit n\u00eb pun\u00eb<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                  – V\u00ebshtrim i krahasuar mes vendeve t\u00eb BE<\/em>[[10]<\/sup><\/a>]<\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Neni 30 i Kart\u00ebs s\u00eb t\u00eb Drejtave dhe Lirive Themelore t\u00eb BE (Karta), k\u00ebrkon q\u00eb \u00e7do pun\u00ebmarr\u00ebs duhet t\u00eb ket\u00eb mjete mbrojt\u00ebse kund\u00ebr pushimit t\u00eb padrejt\u00eb nga puna, sipas ligjeve t\u00eb BE dhe ligjeve t\u00eb shteteve an\u00ebtare. Lidhur me t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e kthimit n\u00eb pun\u00eb, vendet e BE kan\u00eb praktika t\u00eb ndryshme. N\u00eb nj\u00eb studim t\u00eb b\u00ebr\u00eb, n\u00eb shumic\u00ebn prej tyre garantohet e drejta e kthimit n\u00eb pun\u00eb. N\u00eb Danimark\u00eb, n\u00ebse zgjidhja konsiderohet e paligjshme, marr\u00ebdh\u00ebniet e pun\u00ebs, konsiderohet se ekzistojn\u00eb. N\u00eb Estoni, Irland\u00eb dhe Finland\u00eb, i japin t\u00eb drejt\u00eb gjyqtarit q\u00eb shqyrton \u00e7\u00ebshtjen t\u00eb urdh\u00ebroj\u00eb edhe kthimin  n\u00eb vendin e m\u00ebparsh\u00ebm t\u00eb pun\u00ebs. Kjo procedur\u00eb ndiqet kryesisht n\u00eb shumic\u00ebn e vendeve. Vlefshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e procedurave, mund ta vler\u00ebsoj\u00eb edhe nj\u00eb panel i pavarur, jo domosdoshm\u00ebrisht me atribute gjyq\u00ebsore. Kthimi n\u00eb vendin e m\u00ebparsh\u00ebm t\u00eb pun\u00ebs mund t\u00eb urdh\u00ebrohet p\u00ebr shkelje t\u00eb procedur\u00ebs apo edhe p\u00ebr shkelje t\u00eb t\u00eb drejtave kushtetuese.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      N\u00eb legjislacione t\u00eb tjera, praktikohet marr\u00ebveshja mes pal\u00ebve. N\u00eb Luksemburg dhe Holland\u00eb, n\u00ebse nj\u00ebra nga pal\u00ebt nuk pranon (dhe p\u00ebrgjith\u00ebsisht ky \u00ebsht\u00eb pun\u00ebdh\u00ebn\u00ebsi), at\u00ebher\u00eb detyrohet t\u00eb paguaj\u00eb nj\u00eb d\u00ebmshp\u00ebrblim ndaj pun\u00ebmarr\u00ebsit. N\u00eb k\u00ebto vende, nuk ka nj\u00eb mas\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktuar t\u00eb d\u00ebmshp\u00ebrblimit q\u00eb mund t\u00eb akordoj\u00eb gjykata. N\u00eb 15 shtete t\u00eb marra n\u00eb studim, vet\u00ebm Bullgaria ka nj\u00eb parashikim p\u00ebr mos njohjen e t\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb kthimit n\u00eb pun\u00eb, edhe pas nj\u00eb vendimi q\u00eb konstaton shkeljen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  – Standarde t\u00eb Organizat\u00ebs Nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtare t\u00eb Pun\u00ebs (ILO)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Organizata Nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtare e Pun\u00ebs (ILO), ka miratuar Konvent\u00ebn Nr. 158 “P\u00ebr nd\u00ebrprerjen e marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnieve t\u00eb pun\u00ebs” (Konventa Nr. 158) e cila ka hyr\u00eb n\u00eb fuqi n\u00eb vitin 1985. Kjo \u00ebsht\u00eb nj\u00eb konvent\u00eb me natyr\u00eb teknike dhe nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb futur n\u00eb rendin e dokumentave fondamental\u00eb. Vet\u00ebm 34 shtete e kan\u00eb ratifikuar. Vendi jon\u00eb nuk e ka ratifikuar.[[11]<\/a>]<\/sup> Megjithat\u00eb, ajo ka disa parashikime t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsishme lidhur me nd\u00ebrprerjen e marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnieve t\u00eb pun\u00ebs dhe m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn e regullimit t\u00eb pasojave. N\u00eb nenin 4 parashikohet se marr\u00ebdh\u00ebniet e pun\u00ebs nuk do t\u00eb nd\u00ebrpriten n\u00ebse n\u00ebse nuk ka nj\u00eb arsye t\u00eb vlefshme bazuar n\u00eb aft\u00ebsit\u00eb apo sjelljen e punonj\u00ebsit ose bazuar n\u00eb k\u00ebrkesat operacionale t\u00eb nd\u00ebrmarrjes.[[12]<\/a>]<\/sup> Ky parashikim \u00ebsht\u00eb huazuar edhe nga KP. Nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb n\u00eb nenin 10,[[13]<\/a>]<\/sup> parashikohet se n\u00ebse marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnia e pun\u00ebs konsiderohet se \u00ebsht\u00eb zgjidhur n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb pajustifikuar, at\u00ebher\u00eb duhet t\u00eb vendoset pavlefshm\u00ebria e zgjidhjes dhe t\u00eb urdh\u00ebrohet ose t\u00eb propozohet kthimi n\u00eb vendin e m\u00ebparsh\u00ebm t\u00eb pun\u00ebs ose t\u00eb paguhet nj\u00eb kompensim i p\u00ebrshtatsh\u00ebm apo \u00e7do mas\u00eb tjet\u00ebr e p\u00ebrshtatshme.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Komiteti p\u00ebr Monitorimit t\u00eb Konvent\u00ebs, vler\u00ebson se n\u00eb rastin e p\u00ebrfundimit t\u00eb marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnies s\u00eb pun\u00ebs c\u00ebnohet nj\u00eb e drejt\u00eb themelore dhe p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb duhet t\u00eb synohet kompensim i plot\u00eb, si n\u00eb aspektin financiar ashtu edhe n\u00eb at\u00eb profesional. Zgjidhja m\u00eb e mir\u00eb n\u00eb p\u00ebrgjith\u00ebsi \u00ebsht\u00eb rikthimi i pun\u00ebtorit n\u00eb pun\u00eb dhe pagesa e pagave t\u00eb papaguara.[[14]<\/a>]<\/sup> Sipas k\u00ebtij interpretimi, nuk duhet t\u00eb b\u00ebhet diferencim mes t\u00eb pun\u00ebsuarve n\u00eb sektorin publik dhe atyre n\u00eb privat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  – Standarde t\u00eb K\u00ebshillit t\u00eb Evrop\u00ebs<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Dokumenti m\u00eb i r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm i K\u00ebshillit t\u00eb Europ\u00ebs (KE) n\u00eb fush\u00ebn e mbrojtjes s\u00eb marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnieve t\u00eb pun\u00ebs \u00ebsht\u00eb Karta Social Evropiane dhe instrumenti i saj, Komiteti p\u00ebr t\u00eb Drejtat Sociale.[[15]<\/a>]<\/sup> N\u00eb nenin 24 Karta huazon parashikimet e Konvent\u00ebs Nr. 158 t\u00eb ILO dhe k\u00ebrkon nga shtetet an\u00ebtare garantimin e t\u00eb drejtave t\u00eb pun\u00ebmarr\u00ebsve n\u00eb rastet e largimit pa t\u00eb drejt\u00eb nga puna. Dispozita parashikon se marr\u00ebdh\u00ebniet e pun\u00ebs nuk mund t\u00eb nd\u00ebrpriten pa dh\u00ebn\u00eb nj\u00eb arsye t\u00eb vlefshme q\u00eb ka t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb me aft\u00ebsit\u00eb, sjelljen e pun\u00ebmarr\u00ebsve apo me k\u00ebrkesat operacionale t\u00eb kompanis\u00eb. N\u00eb rast t\u00eb nd\u00ebrprerjes s\u00eb marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnieve t\u00eb pun\u00ebs, pun\u00ebmarr\u00ebsit duhet t\u00eb ken\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr nj\u00eb kompensim t\u00eb p\u00ebrshtatsh\u00ebm.[[16]<\/a>]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      N\u00eb interpretimin q\u00eb i \u00ebsht\u00eb b\u00ebr\u00eb nenit 24 t\u00eb Kart\u00ebs nga Komiteti, \u00ebsht\u00eb vler\u00ebsuar se t\u00eb drejtat e pun\u00ebmarr\u00ebsve n\u00eb rast t\u00eb largimit pa t\u00eb drejt\u00eb nga puna, mund t\u00eb garantohen sipas nj\u00eb sistemi me disa nivele. Komiteti vler\u00ebson se (i). duhet t\u00eb garantohet nj\u00eb d\u00ebmshp\u00ebrblim i drejt\u00eb nga data e nd\u00ebrprerjes s\u00eb marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnieve t\u00eb pun\u00ebs, deri n\u00eb dat\u00ebn e vendimit gjyq\u00ebsor dhe (ii). duhet siguruar mund\u00ebsia e rikthimit n\u00eb pun\u00eb.[[17]<\/a>]<\/sup> Referuar kritereve m\u00eb sip\u00ebr, Komiteti vler\u00ebson se \u00e7do legjislacion i shteteve pal\u00eb, duhet tu ofroj\u00eb pun\u00ebmarr\u00ebsve mund\u00ebsin\u00eb e rikthimit n\u00eb vendin e m\u00ebparsh\u00ebm t\u00eb pun\u00ebs, n\u00ebse nd\u00ebrpreja ka qen\u00eb e paligjshme.[[18]<\/a>]<\/sup> K\u00ebto p\u00ebrfundime tashm\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebjn\u00eb jurisprudenc\u00eb t\u00eb konsoliduar t\u00eb Komitetit Social Europian.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      N\u00eb monitorimet e vazhdueshme q\u00eb i jan\u00eb b\u00ebr\u00eb Republik\u00ebs s\u00eb Shqip\u00ebris\u00eb, \u00ebsht\u00eb vler\u00ebsuar se nuk ka p\u00ebrmbushur detyrimet e marra p\u00ebrsip\u00ebr n\u00eb Nenin 24 t\u00eb Kart\u00ebs. N\u00eb raportin e monitorimit t\u00eb vitit 2013, vler\u00ebsohet se kompensimi maksimal p\u00ebr p\u00ebrfundimin e paligjsh\u00ebm t\u00eb marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnieve t\u00eb pun\u00ebs \u00ebsht\u00eb i pamjaftuesh\u00ebm dhe legjislacioni nuk parashikon mund\u00ebsin\u00eb e rikthimit n\u00eb pun\u00eb n\u00eb sektorin privat.[[19]<\/a>]<\/sup> N\u00eb monitorimin e vitit 2020, Komiteti ka arritur n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjtat p\u00ebrfundime.[[20]<\/a>]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n
      1. Nj\u00eb lexim alternativ i KP sipas akteve t\u00eb s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtare<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        Sipas analiz\u00ebs t\u00eb b\u00ebr\u00eb m\u00eb sip\u00ebr, nga jurisprudenca jon\u00eb, kthimi n\u00eb vendin e m\u00ebparsh\u00ebm t\u00eb pun\u00ebs nuk g\u00ebzon mbrojtje ligjore. Megjithat\u00eb vler\u00ebsojm\u00eb se n\u00eb legjislacionin ton\u00eb, mund t\u00eb gjenden hap\u00ebsirat p\u00ebr t\u00eb b\u00ebr\u00eb nj\u00eb interpretim pajtues t\u00eb dispozitave t\u00eb KP me aktet e s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtare. Referuar legjislacionit, vler\u00ebsojm\u00eb se vet\u00ebm neni 146 i KP mund t\u00eb ket\u00eb instrumentin p\u00ebr t\u00eb lejuar kthimin n\u00eb pun\u00eb, ndwrkoh\u00eb neni 155 duket se nuk ka instrumenta zbatues. K\u00ebt\u00eb e vler\u00ebsojm\u00eb si mang\u00ebsi t\u00eb legjislacionit dhe n\u00eb kund\u00ebrshtim me parashikimet e Kart\u00ebs. Neni 146 parashikon se zgjidhja e kontrat\u00ebs pa shkaqe t\u00eb arsyeshme konsiderohet e pavlefshme. N\u00ebse do t\u00eb b\u00ebnim nj\u00eb interpretim literal t\u00eb konceptit pavlefshm\u00ebri, duke huazuar edhe konceptet e t\u00eb drejt\u00ebs civile apo administrative, padiskutim shkojm\u00eb n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundimin se shpallja si t\u00eb till\u00eb e veprimit q\u00eb ka zgjidhur kontrat\u00ebn e pun\u00ebs, do t\u00eb \u00e7oj\u00eb n\u00eb vendosjen e pal\u00ebve n\u00eb gjendjen e m\u00ebparshme. N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast, nuk b\u00ebhet asnj\u00eb dallim mes t\u00eb pun\u00ebsuarve n\u00eb sektorin publik apo privat. P\u00ebrfitues mund t\u00eb jen\u00eb t\u00eb dy kategorit\u00eb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Duke aplikuar k\u00ebt\u00eb standard, neni 146 i KP mund t\u00eb interpretohet n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb pajtuese edhe me parashikimet e Kart\u00ebs dhe Konvent\u00ebs Nr. 158 t\u00eb ILO. T\u00eb dyja dokumentet njohin disa shkall\u00eb p\u00ebr kompensimin, nga akodrimi i nj\u00eb d\u00ebmshp\u00ebrblimi deri n\u00eb kthimin n\u00eb vendin e m\u00ebparsh\u00ebm t\u00eb pun\u00ebs. K\u00ebt\u00eb hap\u00ebsir\u00eb mund ta lejoj\u00eb edhe neni 146. N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast mund t\u00eb aplikohet n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb alternative pavlefshm\u00ebria e zgjidhjes dhe kthimi i pun\u00ebmarr\u00ebsit n\u00eb vendin e m\u00ebparsh\u00ebm t\u00eb pun\u00ebs, ose aplikimi i nj\u00eb mase nd\u00ebshkimore deri n\u00eb 12 muaj pag\u00eb. N\u00eb var\u00ebsi t\u00eb natyr\u00ebs s\u00eb k\u00ebrkimit, gjyqtari i ka t\u00eb gjitha hap\u00ebsirat p\u00ebr t\u00eb disponuar n\u00eb nj\u00ebr\u00ebn nga format q\u00eb ai do ta konsideronte m\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrshtatshme. N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast p\u00ebrmbushet edhe detyrimi i vendosur nga Karta dhe Konventa Nr. 158 q\u00eb nd\u00ebrprerja e marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnieve t\u00eb pun\u00ebs t\u00eb vler\u00ebsohet nga nj\u00eb autoritet i pavarur ose gjyq\u00ebsor. Sipas k\u00ebsaj qasje, neni 146 p\u00ebr t\u00eb pun\u00ebsuarit n\u00eb sektorin privat, ofron mbrojtje ligjore n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet pagimit t\u00eb d\u00ebmshp\u00ebrblimit [sipas nenit 146 (3) fjalia e dyt\u00eb] ose kthimit n\u00eb vendin e m\u00ebparsh\u00ebm t\u00eb pun\u00ebs [sipas nenit 146 (3) fjalia e par\u00eb], duke vlerwsuar zgjidhjen e pavlefshme. Duke vazhduar analiz\u00ebn, fjalia e tret\u00eb e dispozit\u00ebs, do t\u00eb aplikohet specifikisht n\u00eb marr\u00ebdh\u00ebniet e pun\u00ebs n\u00eb sektorin publik dhe \u00ebsht\u00eb e pavarur nga parashikimet m\u00eb sip\u00ebr. Ajo do t\u00eb sh\u00ebrbej\u00eb si garanci shtes\u00eb ndaj t\u00eb pun\u00ebsuarve n\u00eb sektorin publik, pavar\u00ebsisht natyr\u00ebs s\u00eb marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnies s\u00eb pun\u00ebs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Kjo m\u00ebnyr\u00eb interpretimi p\u00ebrputhet me parashikimet e Kart\u00ebs e cila k\u00ebrkon q\u00eb mekanizmat e d\u00ebmshp\u00ebrblimit t\u00eb ken\u00eb si mund\u00ebsin\u00eb e d\u00ebmshp\u00ebrblimit ashtu edhe t\u00eb kthimit n\u00eb pun\u00eb. Gjithashtu, p\u00ebrve\u00e7 interpretimit pajtues, kjo do t\u00eb respektonte parashikimet e nenit 11 (1) germat (b) dhe (c), p\u00ebr respektimin e hierarkis\u00eb mes akteve. Kjo m\u00ebnyr\u00eb interpretimi \u00ebsht\u00eb n\u00eb p\u00ebrputhje edhe me jurisprudenc\u00ebn e GjEDNj e cila ka vler\u00ebsuar se refuzimi i gjykatave p\u00ebr t\u00eb kthyer k\u00ebrkuesen n\u00eb vendin e m\u00ebparsh\u00ebm t\u00eb pun\u00ebs, p\u00ebrb\u00ebn shkelje t\u00eb Konvent\u00ebs dhe nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb proporcionale.[[21]<\/a>]<\/sup> Duke pasur parasysh edhe jurisprudenc\u00ebn e GjEDNj, do t\u00eb vler\u00ebsonim se neni 146 i KP, mund t\u00eb interpretohet n\u00eb drit\u00ebn e nenit 6 t\u00eb KEDNj dhe nenit 24 t\u00eb Kart\u00ebs, duke njohur t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e kthimit n\u00eb pun\u00eb t\u00eb pun\u00ebmarr\u00ebsve t\u00eb larguar pa shkaqe t\u00eb arsyeshme.[[22]<\/a>]<\/sup> Kjo m\u00ebnyr\u00eb leximi, vler\u00ebsojm\u00eb se k\u00ebnaq standardet e aplikuara nga k\u00ebto dy dokumente nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtare dhe korrigjon pjes\u00ebrisht problematikat q\u00eb ne kemi n\u00eb legjislacionin e pun\u00ebs, lidhur me mbrojtjen gjyq\u00ebsore t\u00eb kthimit n\u00eb pun\u00eb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          \n
        1. P\u00ebrfundime<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n