Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59) - Petani Law & Tax<\/title>\r\n <script src=\"https:\/\/cdn.tailwindcss.com\"><\/script>\r\n <link href=\"https:\/\/fonts.googleapis.com\/css2?family=Inter:wght@300;400;500;600;700&family=Playfair+Display:ital,wght@0,400;0,600;0,700;1,400;1,700&display=swap\" rel=\"stylesheet\">\r\n \r\n <style>\r\n :root {\r\n --gold: #c5a059;\r\n --gold-light: #dfc493;\r\n --espresso: #1a0f0a;\r\n --brown-deep: #2c1810;\r\n --cream: #fdfcf9;\r\n }\r\n body { font-family: 'Inter', sans-serif; background-color: var(--cream); color: var(--espresso); line-height: 1.8; }\r\n .serif { font-family: 'Playfair Display', serif; }\r\n \r\n .lang-nav-container { width: 100%; display: flex; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 3rem; }\r\n .lang-nav { display: inline-flex; background-color: var(--espresso); padding: 4px; border-radius: 9999px; border: 1px solid var(--gold); }\r\n .language-btn { padding: 8px 24px; border-radius: 9999px; font-size: 0.875rem; font-weight: 600; color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.7); transition: all 0.3s ease; text-transform: uppercase; cursor: pointer; border: none; background: transparent; }\r\n .language-btn.active { background-color: var(--gold); color: white; box-shadow: 0 4px 12px rgba(0,0,0,0.1); }\r\n\r\n .content-section { display: none; }\r\n .content-section.active { display: block; animation: fadeIn 0.6s ease-out; }\r\n @keyframes fadeIn { from { opacity: 0; transform: translateY(15px); } to { opacity: 1; transform: translateY(0); } }\r\n\r\n .drop-cap::first-letter { float: left; font-family: 'Playfair Display', serif; font-size: 4.5rem; line-height: 3.5rem; padding-top: 8px; padding-right: 12px; color: var(--gold); font-weight: 700; }\r\n p { margin-bottom: 1.5rem; font-size: 1.125rem; color: #333; }\r\n \r\n .case-card { background-color: var(--brown-deep) !important; color: #ffffff !important; border-left: 4px solid var(--gold); }\r\n .case-card p, .case-card h3 { color: #ffffff !important; }\r\n <\/style>\r\n<\/head>\r\n<body class=\"antialiased\">\r\n\r\n <main class=\"max-w-4xl mx-auto px-6 py-12\">\r\n \r\n \r\n <div class=\"relative w-full h-[400px] rounded-3xl overflow-hidden shadow-2xl mb-12 border-b-4 border-[var(--gold)]\">\r\n <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/images.pexels.com\/photos\/32266781\/pexels-photo-32266781.jpeg\" alt=\"P\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsia Penale e Drejtuesve dhe Zyrtar\u00ebve\" class=\"w-full h-full object-cover brightness-[0.65]\">\r\n <div class=\"absolute inset-0 bg-gradient-to-t from-black\/90 to-transparent\"><\/div>\r\n <div class=\"absolute bottom-8 left-8 text-white pr-8\">\r\n <p class=\"text-[var(--gold)] tracking-widest uppercase font-semibold text-sm mb-2\">Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 Kolegji Penal<\/p>\r\n <h1 class=\"serif text-4xl font-bold leading-tight\">Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59)<\/h1>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n <div class=\"lang-nav-container sticky top-4 z-50\">\r\n <div class=\"lang-nav shadow-2xl backdrop-blur-md bg-[#1a0f0a]\/95\">\r\n <button onclick=\"switchLang('sq')\" id=\"btn-sq\" class=\"language-btn active\">Sq<\/button>\r\n <button onclick=\"switchLang('en')\" id=\"btn-en\" class=\"language-btn\">En<\/button>\r\n <button onclick=\"switchLang('it')\" id=\"btn-it\" class=\"language-btn\">It<\/button>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article id=\"lang-sq\" class=\"content-section active\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">P\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsia q\u00eb buron nga ushtrimi i nj\u00eb funksioni drejtues apo administrativ nuk mjafton apriori p\u00ebr t\u00eb gjeneruar p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsi penale, p\u00ebr sa koh\u00eb q\u00eb nuk provohet se i pandehuri ka kryer veprime apo mosveprime konkrete me dijeni dhe vullnet (pra me dashje direkte), t\u00eb drejtuara p\u00ebr cenimin e interesit publik dhe\/ose p\u00ebr shkaktimin e pasoj\u00ebs n\u00eb kuptim t\u00eb nenit 248 t\u00eb Kodit Penal. Mang\u00ebsit\u00eb administrative apo shkeljet disiplinore nuk mund\u00ebsojn\u00eb transformimin automatik n\u00eb faj\u00ebsi penale pa u provuar elementi subjektiv i vepr\u00ebs penale.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor<\/h3>\r\n <p>N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, Kolegji Penal i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb mori n\u00eb shqyrtim rekurset e paraqitura nga disa t\u00eb pandehur, t\u00eb cil\u00ebt ishin d\u00ebnuar nga Gjykata e Apelit t\u00eb Juridiksionit t\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm Durr\u00ebs p\u00ebrkat\u00ebsisht p\u00ebr veprat penale \u201cshp\u00ebrdorim i detyr\u00ebs\u201d dhe \u201cnd\u00ebrtim i paligjsh\u00ebm\u201d. \u00c7\u00ebshtja filloi nga procedurat e legalizimit t\u00eb nj\u00eb objekti shum\u00ebkat\u00ebsh n\u00eb Durr\u00ebs. Zyrtar\u00ebt akuzoheshin se kishin l\u00ebshuar nj\u00eb leje legalizimi p\u00ebr nj\u00eb godin\u00eb t\u00eb deklaruar si 10 kate mbi tok\u00eb, nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb q\u00eb objekti n\u00eb fakt rezultonte t\u00eb ishte 9 kate. Gjithashtu, shtetasi D.M. akuzohej se kishte kryer nd\u00ebrhyrje dhe nd\u00ebrtime pa leje shtes\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb objekt.<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Gjykata e Rrethit Gjyq\u00ebsor Durr\u00ebs vendosi pafaj\u00ebsi p\u00ebr rekursuesit. Ajo arsyetoi se zyrtar\u00ebt kishin vepruar konform kuadrit administrativ e n\u00ebnligjor t\u00eb koh\u00ebs, i cili lejonte procedura alternative t\u00eb verifikimit t\u00eb gjendjes bazuar n\u00eb akt-ekspertiza, duke p\u00ebrjashtuar k\u00ebshtu elementin thelb\u00ebsor t\u00eb dashjes. P\u00ebr shtetasin D.M., gjykata theksoi se kishte dyshime n\u00ebse b\u00ebhej fjal\u00eb p\u00ebr nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb ri apo thjesht punime rikonstruksioni sipas nj\u00eb leje t\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga bashkia. Gjykata e apelit e ndryshoi vendimin, duke i shpallur fajtor\u00eb t\u00eb pandehurit. Gjykata vler\u00ebsoi se zyrtar\u00ebt publik\u00eb nuk kishin kryer verifikimin e detyruesh\u00ebm n\u00eb terren dhe miratuan dokumentacionin e paplot\u00eb, gj\u00eb q\u00eb i solli subjektit nd\u00ebrtues nj\u00eb p\u00ebrfitim t\u00eb padrejt\u00eb material dhe d\u00ebmtoi r\u00ebnd\u00eb interesat shtet\u00ebrore, nd\u00ebrsa nd\u00ebrtuesi D.M. u d\u00ebnua me burgim p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb paligjsh\u00ebm.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Kolegji vendosi mospranimin e rekursit p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtuesin, duke l\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb fuqi vendimin e apelit q\u00eb e d\u00ebnonte p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb paligjsh\u00ebm, pasi pretendimet e tij kishin t\u00eb b\u00ebnin me \u00e7muarjen e provave q\u00eb dalin jasht\u00eb juridiksionit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb. N\u00eb lidhje me zyrtar\u00ebt publik\u00eb, Kolegji prishi vendimin e gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit dhe la n\u00eb fuqi pafaj\u00ebsin\u00eb e dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga shkalla e par\u00eb. Kolegji theksoi se mang\u00ebsit\u00eb e konstatuara n\u00eb procedur\u00ebn e nxjerrjes s\u00eb aktit administrativ, ndon\u00ebse mund t\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebjn\u00eb shkelje disiplinore, nuk provojn\u00eb dashjen direkte t\u00eb zyrtar\u00ebve p\u00ebr t\u00eb shkelur ligjin. N\u00ebnshkrimi i dokumenteve teknike pa kryerjen e nj\u00eb verifikimi fizik n\u00eb terren nuk mjafton p\u00ebr t'i kaluar k\u00ebto veprime n\u00eb sfer\u00ebn e p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsis\u00eb penale.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article id=\"lang-en\" class=\"content-section\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">Decision no. 00-2026-378 (59), dated 26.03.2026 of the Criminal College<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">The responsibility arising from the exercise of a managerial or administrative function is not sufficient <i>a priori<\/i> to generate criminal liability, as long as it is not proven that the defendant committed concrete actions or omissions with knowledge and intent (direct intent), aimed at violating the public interest and\/or causing consequences within the meaning of Article 248 of the Criminal Code. Administrative shortcomings or disciplinary violations cannot automatically be transformed into criminal guilt without proving the subjective element of the criminal offense.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">Case Summary & Legal Reasoning<\/h3>\r\n <p>In this case, the Criminal College of the Supreme Court reviewed the appeals filed by several defendants convicted by the Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction of Durr\u00ebs for the criminal offenses of \"abuse of office\" and \"unlawful construction\". The case originated from the legalization procedures of a multi-story building in Durr\u00ebs. Officials were accused of issuing a legalization permit for a building declared as 10 stories above ground, while it actually consisted of 9 stories. Additionally, citizen D.M. was accused of carrying out unauthorized additional interventions and constructions on the building.<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">The Durr\u00ebs Judicial District Court acquitted the appellants. It reasoned that the officials acted in accordance with the administrative and sub-legal framework of the time, which allowed alternative verification procedures based on expert reports, thus excluding the essential element of intent. For citizen D.M., the court noted doubts regarding whether it was a new construction or merely reconstruction work under a municipal permit. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding the defendants guilty, holding that public officials failed to conduct mandatory on-site verifications and approved incomplete documentation, granting the builder undue material benefits and severely harming state interests. Builder D.M. was sentenced to imprisonment for illegal construction.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">The Supreme Court College dismissed the appeal regarding the builder, upholding the appellate court's conviction since his claims related to the assessment of evidence, which fall outside the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. Regarding the public officials, the College overturned the appellate ruling and reinstated the acquittal rendered by the first instance. The College emphasized that identified shortcomings in issuing the administrative act, although potentially constituting disciplinary violations, do not prove the officials' direct intent to break the law. Signing technical documents without physical on-site verification is insufficient to elevate such actions to criminal liability.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article id=\"lang-it\" class=\"content-section\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">Sentenza n. 00-2026-378 (59), del 26.03.2026 del Collegio Penale<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">La responsabilit\u00e0 derivante dall'esercizio di una funzione direttiva o amministrativa non \u00e8 sufficiente <i>a priori<\/i> per generare responsabilit\u00e0 penale, fintanto che non venga provato che l'imputato abbia compiuto azioni od omissioni concrete con coscienza e volont\u00e0 (dolo diretto), volte a ledere l'interesse pubblico e\/o a causare conseguenze ai sensi dell'articolo 248 del Codice Penale. Carenze amministrative o violazioni disciplinari non possono trasformarsi automaticamente in responsabilit\u00e0 penale senza la prova dell'elemento soggettivo del reato.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica<\/h3>\r\n <p>In questa causa, il Collegio Penale della Corte Suprema ha esaminato i ricorsi presentati da diversi imputati condannati dalla Corte d'Appello di Giurisdizione Generale di Durazzo rispettivamente per i reati di \"abuso d'ufficio\" e \"costruzione abusiva\". La vicenda trae origine dalle procedure di condono (legalizzazione) di un edificio a pi\u00f9 piani a Durazzo. I funzionari erano accusati di aver rilasciato un permesso di legalizzazione per un edificio dichiarato di 10 piani fuori terra, mentre in realt\u00e0 risultava essere di 9 piani. Inoltre, il cittadino D.M. era accusato di aver effettuato interventi e costruzioni non autorizzate sullo stesso stabile.<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Il Tribunale di Primo Grado di Durazzo ha assolto i ricorrenti, motivando che i funzionari avevano agito in conformit\u00e0 al quadro normativo e amministrativo dell'epoca, il quale consentiva procedure di verifica alternative basate su perizie tecniche, escludendo cos\u00ec l'elemento essenziale del dolo. Per il cittadino D.M., il tribunale ha evidenziato dubbi circa la natura di nuova costruzione rispetto a semplici lavori di ristrutturazione autorizzati dal comune. La Corte d'Appello ha riformato la decisione, dichiarando colpevoli gli imputati e ritenendo che i funzionari pubblici non avessero effettuato le verifiche obbligatorie in loco, approvando documentazione incompleta e recando grave danno agli interessi statali, mentre il costruttore D.M. veniva condannato alla pena detentiva.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Il Collegio della Corte Suprema ha dichiarato inammissibile il ricorso per il costruttore, confermando la condanna d'appello poich\u00e9 le doglianze attenevano alla valutazione delle prove, escluse dal sindacato di legittimit\u00e0. Per quanto riguarda i pubblici ufficiali, il Collegio ha annullato la sentenza d'appello e ha confermato l'assoluzione di primo grado. Il Collegio ha sottolineato che le carenze riscontrate nella procedura di adozione dell'atto amministrativo, pur potendo integrare illeciti disciplinari, non provano il dolo diretto dei funzionari di violare la legge. La sottoscrizione di documenti tecnici senza un preventivo accertamento fisico in loco non basta a traslare tali condotte nell'ambito della responsabilit\u00e0 penale.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/article>\r\n <\/main>\r\n\r\n <script>\r\n function switchLang(lang) {\r\n \/\/ Hide all sections\r\n document.querySelectorAll('.content-section').forEach(s => s.classList.remove('active'));\r\n \/\/ Show selected section\r\n document.getElementById('lang-' + lang).classList.add('active');\r\n \/\/ Update button states\r\n document.querySelectorAll('.language-btn').forEach(b => b.classList.remove('active'));\r\n document.getElementById('btn-' + lang).classList.add('active');\r\n \/\/ Smooth scroll to top of navigation\r\n window.scrollTo({ top: document.querySelector('.lang-nav-container').offsetTop - 20, behavior: 'smooth' });\r\n }\r\n <\/script>\r\n<\/body>\r\n<\/html>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59) – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 Kolegji Penal Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59) Sq En It Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal P\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsia q\u00eb buron nga ushtrimi i nj\u00eb funksioni drejtues apo administrativ nuk mjafton apriori p\u00ebr t\u00eb gjeneruar p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsi penale, p\u00ebr sa koh\u00eb q\u00eb nuk provohet se i pandehuri ka kryer veprime apo mosveprime konkrete me dijeni dhe vullnet (pra me dashje direkte), t\u00eb drejtuara p\u00ebr cenimin e interesit publik dhe\/ose p\u00ebr shkaktimin e pasoj\u00ebs n\u00eb kuptim t\u00eb nenit 248 t\u00eb Kodit Penal. Mang\u00ebsit\u00eb administrative apo shkeljet disiplinore nuk mund\u00ebsojn\u00eb transformimin automatik n\u00eb faj\u00ebsi penale pa u provuar elementi subjektiv i vepr\u00ebs penale. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, Kolegji Penal i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb mori n\u00eb shqyrtim rekurset e paraqitura nga disa t\u00eb pandehur, t\u00eb cil\u00ebt ishin d\u00ebnuar nga Gjykata e Apelit t\u00eb Juridiksionit t\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm Durr\u00ebs p\u00ebrkat\u00ebsisht p\u00ebr veprat penale \u201cshp\u00ebrdorim i detyr\u00ebs\u201d dhe \u201cnd\u00ebrtim i paligjsh\u00ebm\u201d. \u00c7\u00ebshtja filloi nga procedurat e legalizimit t\u00eb nj\u00eb objekti shum\u00ebkat\u00ebsh n\u00eb Durr\u00ebs. Zyrtar\u00ebt akuzoheshin se kishin l\u00ebshuar nj\u00eb leje legalizimi p\u00ebr nj\u00eb godin\u00eb t\u00eb deklaruar si 10 kate mbi tok\u00eb, nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb q\u00eb objekti n\u00eb fakt rezultonte t\u00eb ishte 9 kate. Gjithashtu, shtetasi D.M. akuzohej se kishte kryer nd\u00ebrhyrje dhe nd\u00ebrtime pa leje shtes\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb objekt. Gjykata e Rrethit Gjyq\u00ebsor Durr\u00ebs vendosi pafaj\u00ebsi p\u00ebr rekursuesit. Ajo arsyetoi se zyrtar\u00ebt kishin vepruar konform kuadrit administrativ e n\u00ebnligjor t\u00eb koh\u00ebs, i cili lejonte procedura alternative t\u00eb verifikimit t\u00eb gjendjes bazuar n\u00eb akt-ekspertiza, duke p\u00ebrjashtuar k\u00ebshtu elementin thelb\u00ebsor t\u00eb dashjes. P\u00ebr shtetasin D.M., gjykata theksoi se kishte dyshime n\u00ebse b\u00ebhej fjal\u00eb p\u00ebr nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb ri apo thjesht punime rikonstruksioni sipas nj\u00eb leje t\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga bashkia. Gjykata e apelit e ndryshoi vendimin, duke i shpallur fajtor\u00eb t\u00eb pandehurit. Gjykata vler\u00ebsoi se zyrtar\u00ebt publik\u00eb nuk kishin kryer verifikimin e detyruesh\u00ebm n\u00eb terren dhe miratuan dokumentacionin e paplot\u00eb, gj\u00eb q\u00eb i solli subjektit nd\u00ebrtues nj\u00eb p\u00ebrfitim t\u00eb padrejt\u00eb material dhe d\u00ebmtoi r\u00ebnd\u00eb interesat shtet\u00ebrore, nd\u00ebrsa nd\u00ebrtuesi D.M. u d\u00ebnua me burgim p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb paligjsh\u00ebm. Kolegji vendosi mospranimin e rekursit p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtuesin, duke l\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb fuqi vendimin e apelit q\u00eb e d\u00ebnonte p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb paligjsh\u00ebm, pasi pretendimet e tij kishin t\u00eb b\u00ebnin me \u00e7muarjen e provave q\u00eb dalin jasht\u00eb juridiksionit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb. N\u00eb lidhje me zyrtar\u00ebt publik\u00eb, Kolegji prishi vendimin e gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit dhe la n\u00eb fuqi pafaj\u00ebsin\u00eb e dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga shkalla e par\u00eb. Kolegji theksoi se mang\u00ebsit\u00eb e konstatuara n\u00eb procedur\u00ebn e nxjerrjes s\u00eb aktit administrativ, ndon\u00ebse mund t\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebjn\u00eb shkelje disiplinore, nuk provojn\u00eb dashjen direkte t\u00eb zyrtar\u00ebve p\u00ebr t\u00eb shkelur ligjin. N\u00ebnshkrimi i dokumenteve teknike pa kryerjen e nj\u00eb verifikimi fizik n\u00eb terren nuk mjafton p\u00ebr t’i kaluar k\u00ebto veprime n\u00eb sfer\u00ebn e p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsis\u00eb penale. Decision no. 00-2026-378 (59), dated 26.03.2026 of the Criminal College The responsibility arising from the exercise of a managerial or administrative function is not sufficient a priori to generate criminal liability, as long as it is not proven that the defendant committed concrete actions or omissions with knowledge and intent (direct intent), aimed at violating the public interest and\/or causing consequences within the meaning of Article 248 of the Criminal Code. Administrative shortcomings or disciplinary violations cannot automatically be transformed into criminal guilt without proving the subjective element of the criminal offense. Case Summary & Legal Reasoning In this case, the Criminal College of the Supreme Court reviewed the appeals filed by several defendants convicted by the Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction of Durr\u00ebs for the criminal offenses of “abuse of office” and “unlawful construction”. The case originated from the legalization procedures of a multi-story building in Durr\u00ebs. Officials were accused of issuing a legalization permit for a building declared as 10 stories above ground, while it actually consisted of 9 stories. Additionally, citizen D.M. was accused of carrying out unauthorized additional interventions and constructions on the building. The Durr\u00ebs Judicial District Court acquitted the appellants. It reasoned that the officials acted in accordance with the administrative and sub-legal framework of the time, which allowed alternative verification procedures based on expert reports, thus excluding the essential element of intent. For citizen D.M., the court noted doubts regarding whether it was a new construction or merely reconstruction work under a municipal permit. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding the defendants guilty, holding that public officials failed to conduct mandatory on-site verifications and approved incomplete documentation, granting the builder undue material benefits and severely harming state interests. Builder D.M. was sentenced to imprisonment for illegal construction. The Supreme Court College dismissed the appeal regarding the builder, upholding the appellate court’s conviction since his claims related to the assessment of evidence, which fall outside the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. Regarding the public officials, the College overturned the appellate ruling and reinstated the acquittal rendered by the first instance. The College emphasized that identified shortcomings in issuing the administrative act, although potentially constituting disciplinary violations, do not prove the officials’ direct intent to break the law. Signing technical documents without physical on-site verification is insufficient to elevate such actions to criminal liability. Sentenza n. 00-2026-378 (59), del 26.03.2026 del Collegio Penale La responsabilit\u00e0 derivante dall’esercizio di una funzione direttiva o amministrativa non \u00e8 sufficiente a priori per generare responsabilit\u00e0 penale, fintanto che non venga provato che l’imputato abbia compiuto azioni od omissioni concrete con coscienza e volont\u00e0 (dolo diretto), volte a ledere l’interesse pubblico e\/o a causare conseguenze ai sensi dell’articolo 248 del Codice Penale. Carenze amministrative o violazioni disciplinari non possono trasformarsi automaticamente in responsabilit\u00e0 penale senza la prova dell’elemento soggettivo del reato. Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica In questa causa, il Collegio Penale della Corte Suprema ha esaminato i ricorsi presentati da diversi imputati condannati dalla Corte d’Appello di Giurisdizione Generale di Durazzo rispettivamente per i reati di “abuso d’ufficio” e “costruzione abusiva”. La vicenda trae origine dalle procedure di condono (legalizzazione) di un edificio a pi\u00f9 piani a Durazzo. I funzionari erano accusati di aver rilasciato un permesso di<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3637,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"elementor_header_footer","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4217","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-petani-blog"],"yoast_head":"\n<title>Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal - Petani Law Firm<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"it_IT\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal - Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59) – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 Kolegji Penal Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59) Sq En It Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal P\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsia q\u00eb buron nga ushtrimi i nj\u00eb funksioni drejtues apo administrativ nuk mjafton apriori p\u00ebr t\u00eb gjeneruar p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsi penale, p\u00ebr sa koh\u00eb q\u00eb nuk provohet se i pandehuri ka kryer veprime apo mosveprime konkrete me dijeni dhe vullnet (pra me dashje direkte), t\u00eb drejtuara p\u00ebr cenimin e interesit publik dhe\/ose p\u00ebr shkaktimin e pasoj\u00ebs n\u00eb kuptim t\u00eb nenit 248 t\u00eb Kodit Penal. Mang\u00ebsit\u00eb administrative apo shkeljet disiplinore nuk mund\u00ebsojn\u00eb transformimin automatik n\u00eb faj\u00ebsi penale pa u provuar elementi subjektiv i vepr\u00ebs penale. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, Kolegji Penal i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb mori n\u00eb shqyrtim rekurset e paraqitura nga disa t\u00eb pandehur, t\u00eb cil\u00ebt ishin d\u00ebnuar nga Gjykata e Apelit t\u00eb Juridiksionit t\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm Durr\u00ebs p\u00ebrkat\u00ebsisht p\u00ebr veprat penale \u201cshp\u00ebrdorim i detyr\u00ebs\u201d dhe \u201cnd\u00ebrtim i paligjsh\u00ebm\u201d. \u00c7\u00ebshtja filloi nga procedurat e legalizimit t\u00eb nj\u00eb objekti shum\u00ebkat\u00ebsh n\u00eb Durr\u00ebs. Zyrtar\u00ebt akuzoheshin se kishin l\u00ebshuar nj\u00eb leje legalizimi p\u00ebr nj\u00eb godin\u00eb t\u00eb deklaruar si 10 kate mbi tok\u00eb, nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb q\u00eb objekti n\u00eb fakt rezultonte t\u00eb ishte 9 kate. Gjithashtu, shtetasi D.M. akuzohej se kishte kryer nd\u00ebrhyrje dhe nd\u00ebrtime pa leje shtes\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb objekt. Gjykata e Rrethit Gjyq\u00ebsor Durr\u00ebs vendosi pafaj\u00ebsi p\u00ebr rekursuesit. Ajo arsyetoi se zyrtar\u00ebt kishin vepruar konform kuadrit administrativ e n\u00ebnligjor t\u00eb koh\u00ebs, i cili lejonte procedura alternative t\u00eb verifikimit t\u00eb gjendjes bazuar n\u00eb akt-ekspertiza, duke p\u00ebrjashtuar k\u00ebshtu elementin thelb\u00ebsor t\u00eb dashjes. P\u00ebr shtetasin D.M., gjykata theksoi se kishte dyshime n\u00ebse b\u00ebhej fjal\u00eb p\u00ebr nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb ri apo thjesht punime rikonstruksioni sipas nj\u00eb leje t\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga bashkia. Gjykata e apelit e ndryshoi vendimin, duke i shpallur fajtor\u00eb t\u00eb pandehurit. Gjykata vler\u00ebsoi se zyrtar\u00ebt publik\u00eb nuk kishin kryer verifikimin e detyruesh\u00ebm n\u00eb terren dhe miratuan dokumentacionin e paplot\u00eb, gj\u00eb q\u00eb i solli subjektit nd\u00ebrtues nj\u00eb p\u00ebrfitim t\u00eb padrejt\u00eb material dhe d\u00ebmtoi r\u00ebnd\u00eb interesat shtet\u00ebrore, nd\u00ebrsa nd\u00ebrtuesi D.M. u d\u00ebnua me burgim p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb paligjsh\u00ebm. Kolegji vendosi mospranimin e rekursit p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtuesin, duke l\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb fuqi vendimin e apelit q\u00eb e d\u00ebnonte p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb paligjsh\u00ebm, pasi pretendimet e tij kishin t\u00eb b\u00ebnin me \u00e7muarjen e provave q\u00eb dalin jasht\u00eb juridiksionit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb. N\u00eb lidhje me zyrtar\u00ebt publik\u00eb, Kolegji prishi vendimin e gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit dhe la n\u00eb fuqi pafaj\u00ebsin\u00eb e dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga shkalla e par\u00eb. Kolegji theksoi se mang\u00ebsit\u00eb e konstatuara n\u00eb procedur\u00ebn e nxjerrjes s\u00eb aktit administrativ, ndon\u00ebse mund t\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebjn\u00eb shkelje disiplinore, nuk provojn\u00eb dashjen direkte t\u00eb zyrtar\u00ebve p\u00ebr t\u00eb shkelur ligjin. N\u00ebnshkrimi i dokumenteve teknike pa kryerjen e nj\u00eb verifikimi fizik n\u00eb terren nuk mjafton p\u00ebr t’i kaluar k\u00ebto veprime n\u00eb sfer\u00ebn e p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsis\u00eb penale. Decision no. 00-2026-378 (59), dated 26.03.2026 of the Criminal College The responsibility arising from the exercise of a managerial or administrative function is not sufficient a priori to generate criminal liability, as long as it is not proven that the defendant committed concrete actions or omissions with knowledge and intent (direct intent), aimed at violating the public interest and\/or causing consequences within the meaning of Article 248 of the Criminal Code. Administrative shortcomings or disciplinary violations cannot automatically be transformed into criminal guilt without proving the subjective element of the criminal offense. Case Summary & Legal Reasoning In this case, the Criminal College of the Supreme Court reviewed the appeals filed by several defendants convicted by the Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction of Durr\u00ebs for the criminal offenses of “abuse of office” and “unlawful construction”. The case originated from the legalization procedures of a multi-story building in Durr\u00ebs. Officials were accused of issuing a legalization permit for a building declared as 10 stories above ground, while it actually consisted of 9 stories. Additionally, citizen D.M. was accused of carrying out unauthorized additional interventions and constructions on the building. The Durr\u00ebs Judicial District Court acquitted the appellants. It reasoned that the officials acted in accordance with the administrative and sub-legal framework of the time, which allowed alternative verification procedures based on expert reports, thus excluding the essential element of intent. For citizen D.M., the court noted doubts regarding whether it was a new construction or merely reconstruction work under a municipal permit. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding the defendants guilty, holding that public officials failed to conduct mandatory on-site verifications and approved incomplete documentation, granting the builder undue material benefits and severely harming state interests. Builder D.M. was sentenced to imprisonment for illegal construction. The Supreme Court College dismissed the appeal regarding the builder, upholding the appellate court’s conviction since his claims related to the assessment of evidence, which fall outside the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. Regarding the public officials, the College overturned the appellate ruling and reinstated the acquittal rendered by the first instance. The College emphasized that identified shortcomings in issuing the administrative act, although potentially constituting disciplinary violations, do not prove the officials’ direct intent to break the law. Signing technical documents without physical on-site verification is insufficient to elevate such actions to criminal liability. Sentenza n. 00-2026-378 (59), del 26.03.2026 del Collegio Penale La responsabilit\u00e0 derivante dall’esercizio di una funzione direttiva o amministrativa non \u00e8 sufficiente a priori per generare responsabilit\u00e0 penale, fintanto che non venga provato che l’imputato abbia compiuto azioni od omissioni concrete con coscienza e volont\u00e0 (dolo diretto), volte a ledere l’interesse pubblico e\/o a causare conseguenze ai sensi dell’articolo 248 del Codice Penale. Carenze amministrative o violazioni disciplinari non possono trasformarsi automaticamente in responsabilit\u00e0 penale senza la prova dell’elemento soggettivo del reato. Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica In questa causa, il Collegio Penale della Corte Suprema ha esaminato i ricorsi presentati da diversi imputati condannati dalla Corte d’Appello di Giurisdizione Generale di Durazzo rispettivamente per i reati di “abuso d’ufficio” e “costruzione abusiva”. La vicenda trae origine dalle procedure di condono (legalizzazione) di un edificio a pi\u00f9 piani a Durazzo. I funzionari erano accusati di aver rilasciato un permesso di\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-30T09:42:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-30T09:43:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Stafi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Scritto da\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Stafi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Tempo di lettura stimato\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minuti\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Stafi\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90\"},\"headline\":\"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-30T09:42:30+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-30T09:43:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1365,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"articleSection\":[\"Petani Blog\"],\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/\",\"name\":\"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal - Petani Law Firm\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-30T09:42:30+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-30T09:43:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":2560},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/\",\"name\":\"Petani Law Firm\",\"description\":\"Law Firm in Durr\u00ebs\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Petani Law Firm\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/04\\\/logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/04\\\/logo.png\",\"width\":500,\"height\":155,\"caption\":\"Petani Law Firm\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90\",\"name\":\"Stafi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"caption\":\"Stafi\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/it\\\/author\\\/admin\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal - Petani Law Firm","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/","og_locale":"it_IT","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal - Petani Law Firm","og_description":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59) – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 Kolegji Penal Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59) Sq En It Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal P\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsia q\u00eb buron nga ushtrimi i nj\u00eb funksioni drejtues apo administrativ nuk mjafton apriori p\u00ebr t\u00eb gjeneruar p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsi penale, p\u00ebr sa koh\u00eb q\u00eb nuk provohet se i pandehuri ka kryer veprime apo mosveprime konkrete me dijeni dhe vullnet (pra me dashje direkte), t\u00eb drejtuara p\u00ebr cenimin e interesit publik dhe\/ose p\u00ebr shkaktimin e pasoj\u00ebs n\u00eb kuptim t\u00eb nenit 248 t\u00eb Kodit Penal. Mang\u00ebsit\u00eb administrative apo shkeljet disiplinore nuk mund\u00ebsojn\u00eb transformimin automatik n\u00eb faj\u00ebsi penale pa u provuar elementi subjektiv i vepr\u00ebs penale. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, Kolegji Penal i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb mori n\u00eb shqyrtim rekurset e paraqitura nga disa t\u00eb pandehur, t\u00eb cil\u00ebt ishin d\u00ebnuar nga Gjykata e Apelit t\u00eb Juridiksionit t\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm Durr\u00ebs p\u00ebrkat\u00ebsisht p\u00ebr veprat penale \u201cshp\u00ebrdorim i detyr\u00ebs\u201d dhe \u201cnd\u00ebrtim i paligjsh\u00ebm\u201d. \u00c7\u00ebshtja filloi nga procedurat e legalizimit t\u00eb nj\u00eb objekti shum\u00ebkat\u00ebsh n\u00eb Durr\u00ebs. Zyrtar\u00ebt akuzoheshin se kishin l\u00ebshuar nj\u00eb leje legalizimi p\u00ebr nj\u00eb godin\u00eb t\u00eb deklaruar si 10 kate mbi tok\u00eb, nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb q\u00eb objekti n\u00eb fakt rezultonte t\u00eb ishte 9 kate. Gjithashtu, shtetasi D.M. akuzohej se kishte kryer nd\u00ebrhyrje dhe nd\u00ebrtime pa leje shtes\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb objekt. Gjykata e Rrethit Gjyq\u00ebsor Durr\u00ebs vendosi pafaj\u00ebsi p\u00ebr rekursuesit. Ajo arsyetoi se zyrtar\u00ebt kishin vepruar konform kuadrit administrativ e n\u00ebnligjor t\u00eb koh\u00ebs, i cili lejonte procedura alternative t\u00eb verifikimit t\u00eb gjendjes bazuar n\u00eb akt-ekspertiza, duke p\u00ebrjashtuar k\u00ebshtu elementin thelb\u00ebsor t\u00eb dashjes. P\u00ebr shtetasin D.M., gjykata theksoi se kishte dyshime n\u00ebse b\u00ebhej fjal\u00eb p\u00ebr nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb ri apo thjesht punime rikonstruksioni sipas nj\u00eb leje t\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga bashkia. Gjykata e apelit e ndryshoi vendimin, duke i shpallur fajtor\u00eb t\u00eb pandehurit. Gjykata vler\u00ebsoi se zyrtar\u00ebt publik\u00eb nuk kishin kryer verifikimin e detyruesh\u00ebm n\u00eb terren dhe miratuan dokumentacionin e paplot\u00eb, gj\u00eb q\u00eb i solli subjektit nd\u00ebrtues nj\u00eb p\u00ebrfitim t\u00eb padrejt\u00eb material dhe d\u00ebmtoi r\u00ebnd\u00eb interesat shtet\u00ebrore, nd\u00ebrsa nd\u00ebrtuesi D.M. u d\u00ebnua me burgim p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb paligjsh\u00ebm. Kolegji vendosi mospranimin e rekursit p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtuesin, duke l\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb fuqi vendimin e apelit q\u00eb e d\u00ebnonte p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb paligjsh\u00ebm, pasi pretendimet e tij kishin t\u00eb b\u00ebnin me \u00e7muarjen e provave q\u00eb dalin jasht\u00eb juridiksionit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb. N\u00eb lidhje me zyrtar\u00ebt publik\u00eb, Kolegji prishi vendimin e gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit dhe la n\u00eb fuqi pafaj\u00ebsin\u00eb e dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga shkalla e par\u00eb. Kolegji theksoi se mang\u00ebsit\u00eb e konstatuara n\u00eb procedur\u00ebn e nxjerrjes s\u00eb aktit administrativ, ndon\u00ebse mund t\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebjn\u00eb shkelje disiplinore, nuk provojn\u00eb dashjen direkte t\u00eb zyrtar\u00ebve p\u00ebr t\u00eb shkelur ligjin. N\u00ebnshkrimi i dokumenteve teknike pa kryerjen e nj\u00eb verifikimi fizik n\u00eb terren nuk mjafton p\u00ebr t’i kaluar k\u00ebto veprime n\u00eb sfer\u00ebn e p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsis\u00eb penale. Decision no. 00-2026-378 (59), dated 26.03.2026 of the Criminal College The responsibility arising from the exercise of a managerial or administrative function is not sufficient a priori to generate criminal liability, as long as it is not proven that the defendant committed concrete actions or omissions with knowledge and intent (direct intent), aimed at violating the public interest and\/or causing consequences within the meaning of Article 248 of the Criminal Code. Administrative shortcomings or disciplinary violations cannot automatically be transformed into criminal guilt without proving the subjective element of the criminal offense. Case Summary & Legal Reasoning In this case, the Criminal College of the Supreme Court reviewed the appeals filed by several defendants convicted by the Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction of Durr\u00ebs for the criminal offenses of “abuse of office” and “unlawful construction”. The case originated from the legalization procedures of a multi-story building in Durr\u00ebs. Officials were accused of issuing a legalization permit for a building declared as 10 stories above ground, while it actually consisted of 9 stories. Additionally, citizen D.M. was accused of carrying out unauthorized additional interventions and constructions on the building. The Durr\u00ebs Judicial District Court acquitted the appellants. It reasoned that the officials acted in accordance with the administrative and sub-legal framework of the time, which allowed alternative verification procedures based on expert reports, thus excluding the essential element of intent. For citizen D.M., the court noted doubts regarding whether it was a new construction or merely reconstruction work under a municipal permit. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding the defendants guilty, holding that public officials failed to conduct mandatory on-site verifications and approved incomplete documentation, granting the builder undue material benefits and severely harming state interests. Builder D.M. was sentenced to imprisonment for illegal construction. The Supreme Court College dismissed the appeal regarding the builder, upholding the appellate court’s conviction since his claims related to the assessment of evidence, which fall outside the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. Regarding the public officials, the College overturned the appellate ruling and reinstated the acquittal rendered by the first instance. The College emphasized that identified shortcomings in issuing the administrative act, although potentially constituting disciplinary violations, do not prove the officials’ direct intent to break the law. Signing technical documents without physical on-site verification is insufficient to elevate such actions to criminal liability. Sentenza n. 00-2026-378 (59), del 26.03.2026 del Collegio Penale La responsabilit\u00e0 derivante dall’esercizio di una funzione direttiva o amministrativa non \u00e8 sufficiente a priori per generare responsabilit\u00e0 penale, fintanto che non venga provato che l’imputato abbia compiuto azioni od omissioni concrete con coscienza e volont\u00e0 (dolo diretto), volte a ledere l’interesse pubblico e\/o a causare conseguenze ai sensi dell’articolo 248 del Codice Penale. Carenze amministrative o violazioni disciplinari non possono trasformarsi automaticamente in responsabilit\u00e0 penale senza la prova dell’elemento soggettivo del reato. Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica In questa causa, il Collegio Penale della Corte Suprema ha esaminato i ricorsi presentati da diversi imputati condannati dalla Corte d’Appello di Giurisdizione Generale di Durazzo rispettivamente per i reati di “abuso d’ufficio” e “costruzione abusiva”. La vicenda trae origine dalle procedure di condono (legalizzazione) di un edificio a pi\u00f9 piani a Durazzo. I funzionari erano accusati di aver rilasciato un permesso di","og_url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/","og_site_name":"Petani Law Firm","article_published_time":"2026-07-30T09:42:30+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-30T09:43:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":2560,"url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"Stafi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Scritto da":"Stafi","Tempo di lettura stimato":"6 minuti"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/"},"author":{"name":"Stafi","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/person\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90"},"headline":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal","datePublished":"2026-07-30T09:42:30+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-30T09:43:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/"},"wordCount":1365,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","articleSection":["Petani Blog"],"inLanguage":"it-IT","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/","name":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal - Petani Law Firm","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","datePublished":"2026-07-30T09:42:30+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-30T09:43:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"it-IT","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"it-IT","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","width":2560,"height":2560},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/","name":"Petani Law Firm","description":"Law Firm in Durr\u00ebs","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"it-IT"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization","name":"Petani Law Firm","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"it-IT","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/logo.png","width":500,"height":155,"caption":"Petani Law Firm"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/person\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90","name":"Stafi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"it-IT","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","caption":"Stafi"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com"],"url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4217","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4217"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4217\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4224,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4217\/revisions\/4224"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3637"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4217"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4217"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4217"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59) - Petani Law & Tax<\/title>\r\n <script src=\"https:\/\/cdn.tailwindcss.com\"><\/script>\r\n <link href=\"https:\/\/fonts.googleapis.com\/css2?family=Inter:wght@300;400;500;600;700&family=Playfair+Display:ital,wght@0,400;0,600;0,700;1,400;1,700&display=swap\" rel=\"stylesheet\">\r\n \r\n <style>\r\n :root {\r\n --gold: #c5a059;\r\n --gold-light: #dfc493;\r\n --espresso: #1a0f0a;\r\n --brown-deep: #2c1810;\r\n --cream: #fdfcf9;\r\n }\r\n body { font-family: 'Inter', sans-serif; background-color: var(--cream); color: var(--espresso); line-height: 1.8; }\r\n .serif { font-family: 'Playfair Display', serif; }\r\n \r\n .lang-nav-container { width: 100%; display: flex; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 3rem; }\r\n .lang-nav { display: inline-flex; background-color: var(--espresso); padding: 4px; border-radius: 9999px; border: 1px solid var(--gold); }\r\n .language-btn { padding: 8px 24px; border-radius: 9999px; font-size: 0.875rem; font-weight: 600; color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.7); transition: all 0.3s ease; text-transform: uppercase; cursor: pointer; border: none; background: transparent; }\r\n .language-btn.active { background-color: var(--gold); color: white; box-shadow: 0 4px 12px rgba(0,0,0,0.1); }\r\n\r\n .content-section { display: none; }\r\n .content-section.active { display: block; animation: fadeIn 0.6s ease-out; }\r\n @keyframes fadeIn { from { opacity: 0; transform: translateY(15px); } to { opacity: 1; transform: translateY(0); } }\r\n\r\n .drop-cap::first-letter { float: left; font-family: 'Playfair Display', serif; font-size: 4.5rem; line-height: 3.5rem; padding-top: 8px; padding-right: 12px; color: var(--gold); font-weight: 700; }\r\n p { margin-bottom: 1.5rem; font-size: 1.125rem; color: #333; }\r\n \r\n .case-card { background-color: var(--brown-deep) !important; color: #ffffff !important; border-left: 4px solid var(--gold); }\r\n .case-card p, .case-card h3 { color: #ffffff !important; }\r\n <\/style>\r\n<\/head>\r\n<body class=\"antialiased\">\r\n\r\n <main class=\"max-w-4xl mx-auto px-6 py-12\">\r\n \r\n \r\n <div class=\"relative w-full h-[400px] rounded-3xl overflow-hidden shadow-2xl mb-12 border-b-4 border-[var(--gold)]\">\r\n <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/images.pexels.com\/photos\/32266781\/pexels-photo-32266781.jpeg\" alt=\"P\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsia Penale e Drejtuesve dhe Zyrtar\u00ebve\" class=\"w-full h-full object-cover brightness-[0.65]\">\r\n <div class=\"absolute inset-0 bg-gradient-to-t from-black\/90 to-transparent\"><\/div>\r\n <div class=\"absolute bottom-8 left-8 text-white pr-8\">\r\n <p class=\"text-[var(--gold)] tracking-widest uppercase font-semibold text-sm mb-2\">Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 Kolegji Penal<\/p>\r\n <h1 class=\"serif text-4xl font-bold leading-tight\">Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59)<\/h1>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n <div class=\"lang-nav-container sticky top-4 z-50\">\r\n <div class=\"lang-nav shadow-2xl backdrop-blur-md bg-[#1a0f0a]\/95\">\r\n <button onclick=\"switchLang('sq')\" id=\"btn-sq\" class=\"language-btn active\">Sq<\/button>\r\n <button onclick=\"switchLang('en')\" id=\"btn-en\" class=\"language-btn\">En<\/button>\r\n <button onclick=\"switchLang('it')\" id=\"btn-it\" class=\"language-btn\">It<\/button>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article id=\"lang-sq\" class=\"content-section active\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">P\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsia q\u00eb buron nga ushtrimi i nj\u00eb funksioni drejtues apo administrativ nuk mjafton apriori p\u00ebr t\u00eb gjeneruar p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsi penale, p\u00ebr sa koh\u00eb q\u00eb nuk provohet se i pandehuri ka kryer veprime apo mosveprime konkrete me dijeni dhe vullnet (pra me dashje direkte), t\u00eb drejtuara p\u00ebr cenimin e interesit publik dhe\/ose p\u00ebr shkaktimin e pasoj\u00ebs n\u00eb kuptim t\u00eb nenit 248 t\u00eb Kodit Penal. Mang\u00ebsit\u00eb administrative apo shkeljet disiplinore nuk mund\u00ebsojn\u00eb transformimin automatik n\u00eb faj\u00ebsi penale pa u provuar elementi subjektiv i vepr\u00ebs penale.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor<\/h3>\r\n <p>N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, Kolegji Penal i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb mori n\u00eb shqyrtim rekurset e paraqitura nga disa t\u00eb pandehur, t\u00eb cil\u00ebt ishin d\u00ebnuar nga Gjykata e Apelit t\u00eb Juridiksionit t\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm Durr\u00ebs p\u00ebrkat\u00ebsisht p\u00ebr veprat penale \u201cshp\u00ebrdorim i detyr\u00ebs\u201d dhe \u201cnd\u00ebrtim i paligjsh\u00ebm\u201d. \u00c7\u00ebshtja filloi nga procedurat e legalizimit t\u00eb nj\u00eb objekti shum\u00ebkat\u00ebsh n\u00eb Durr\u00ebs. Zyrtar\u00ebt akuzoheshin se kishin l\u00ebshuar nj\u00eb leje legalizimi p\u00ebr nj\u00eb godin\u00eb t\u00eb deklaruar si 10 kate mbi tok\u00eb, nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb q\u00eb objekti n\u00eb fakt rezultonte t\u00eb ishte 9 kate. Gjithashtu, shtetasi D.M. akuzohej se kishte kryer nd\u00ebrhyrje dhe nd\u00ebrtime pa leje shtes\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb objekt.<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Gjykata e Rrethit Gjyq\u00ebsor Durr\u00ebs vendosi pafaj\u00ebsi p\u00ebr rekursuesit. Ajo arsyetoi se zyrtar\u00ebt kishin vepruar konform kuadrit administrativ e n\u00ebnligjor t\u00eb koh\u00ebs, i cili lejonte procedura alternative t\u00eb verifikimit t\u00eb gjendjes bazuar n\u00eb akt-ekspertiza, duke p\u00ebrjashtuar k\u00ebshtu elementin thelb\u00ebsor t\u00eb dashjes. P\u00ebr shtetasin D.M., gjykata theksoi se kishte dyshime n\u00ebse b\u00ebhej fjal\u00eb p\u00ebr nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb ri apo thjesht punime rikonstruksioni sipas nj\u00eb leje t\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga bashkia. Gjykata e apelit e ndryshoi vendimin, duke i shpallur fajtor\u00eb t\u00eb pandehurit. Gjykata vler\u00ebsoi se zyrtar\u00ebt publik\u00eb nuk kishin kryer verifikimin e detyruesh\u00ebm n\u00eb terren dhe miratuan dokumentacionin e paplot\u00eb, gj\u00eb q\u00eb i solli subjektit nd\u00ebrtues nj\u00eb p\u00ebrfitim t\u00eb padrejt\u00eb material dhe d\u00ebmtoi r\u00ebnd\u00eb interesat shtet\u00ebrore, nd\u00ebrsa nd\u00ebrtuesi D.M. u d\u00ebnua me burgim p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb paligjsh\u00ebm.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Kolegji vendosi mospranimin e rekursit p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtuesin, duke l\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb fuqi vendimin e apelit q\u00eb e d\u00ebnonte p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb paligjsh\u00ebm, pasi pretendimet e tij kishin t\u00eb b\u00ebnin me \u00e7muarjen e provave q\u00eb dalin jasht\u00eb juridiksionit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb. N\u00eb lidhje me zyrtar\u00ebt publik\u00eb, Kolegji prishi vendimin e gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit dhe la n\u00eb fuqi pafaj\u00ebsin\u00eb e dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga shkalla e par\u00eb. Kolegji theksoi se mang\u00ebsit\u00eb e konstatuara n\u00eb procedur\u00ebn e nxjerrjes s\u00eb aktit administrativ, ndon\u00ebse mund t\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebjn\u00eb shkelje disiplinore, nuk provojn\u00eb dashjen direkte t\u00eb zyrtar\u00ebve p\u00ebr t\u00eb shkelur ligjin. N\u00ebnshkrimi i dokumenteve teknike pa kryerjen e nj\u00eb verifikimi fizik n\u00eb terren nuk mjafton p\u00ebr t'i kaluar k\u00ebto veprime n\u00eb sfer\u00ebn e p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsis\u00eb penale.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article id=\"lang-en\" class=\"content-section\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">Decision no. 00-2026-378 (59), dated 26.03.2026 of the Criminal College<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">The responsibility arising from the exercise of a managerial or administrative function is not sufficient <i>a priori<\/i> to generate criminal liability, as long as it is not proven that the defendant committed concrete actions or omissions with knowledge and intent (direct intent), aimed at violating the public interest and\/or causing consequences within the meaning of Article 248 of the Criminal Code. Administrative shortcomings or disciplinary violations cannot automatically be transformed into criminal guilt without proving the subjective element of the criminal offense.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">Case Summary & Legal Reasoning<\/h3>\r\n <p>In this case, the Criminal College of the Supreme Court reviewed the appeals filed by several defendants convicted by the Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction of Durr\u00ebs for the criminal offenses of \"abuse of office\" and \"unlawful construction\". The case originated from the legalization procedures of a multi-story building in Durr\u00ebs. Officials were accused of issuing a legalization permit for a building declared as 10 stories above ground, while it actually consisted of 9 stories. Additionally, citizen D.M. was accused of carrying out unauthorized additional interventions and constructions on the building.<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">The Durr\u00ebs Judicial District Court acquitted the appellants. It reasoned that the officials acted in accordance with the administrative and sub-legal framework of the time, which allowed alternative verification procedures based on expert reports, thus excluding the essential element of intent. For citizen D.M., the court noted doubts regarding whether it was a new construction or merely reconstruction work under a municipal permit. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding the defendants guilty, holding that public officials failed to conduct mandatory on-site verifications and approved incomplete documentation, granting the builder undue material benefits and severely harming state interests. Builder D.M. was sentenced to imprisonment for illegal construction.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">The Supreme Court College dismissed the appeal regarding the builder, upholding the appellate court's conviction since his claims related to the assessment of evidence, which fall outside the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. Regarding the public officials, the College overturned the appellate ruling and reinstated the acquittal rendered by the first instance. The College emphasized that identified shortcomings in issuing the administrative act, although potentially constituting disciplinary violations, do not prove the officials' direct intent to break the law. Signing technical documents without physical on-site verification is insufficient to elevate such actions to criminal liability.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article id=\"lang-it\" class=\"content-section\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">Sentenza n. 00-2026-378 (59), del 26.03.2026 del Collegio Penale<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">La responsabilit\u00e0 derivante dall'esercizio di una funzione direttiva o amministrativa non \u00e8 sufficiente <i>a priori<\/i> per generare responsabilit\u00e0 penale, fintanto che non venga provato che l'imputato abbia compiuto azioni od omissioni concrete con coscienza e volont\u00e0 (dolo diretto), volte a ledere l'interesse pubblico e\/o a causare conseguenze ai sensi dell'articolo 248 del Codice Penale. Carenze amministrative o violazioni disciplinari non possono trasformarsi automaticamente in responsabilit\u00e0 penale senza la prova dell'elemento soggettivo del reato.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica<\/h3>\r\n <p>In questa causa, il Collegio Penale della Corte Suprema ha esaminato i ricorsi presentati da diversi imputati condannati dalla Corte d'Appello di Giurisdizione Generale di Durazzo rispettivamente per i reati di \"abuso d'ufficio\" e \"costruzione abusiva\". La vicenda trae origine dalle procedure di condono (legalizzazione) di un edificio a pi\u00f9 piani a Durazzo. I funzionari erano accusati di aver rilasciato un permesso di legalizzazione per un edificio dichiarato di 10 piani fuori terra, mentre in realt\u00e0 risultava essere di 9 piani. Inoltre, il cittadino D.M. era accusato di aver effettuato interventi e costruzioni non autorizzate sullo stesso stabile.<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Il Tribunale di Primo Grado di Durazzo ha assolto i ricorrenti, motivando che i funzionari avevano agito in conformit\u00e0 al quadro normativo e amministrativo dell'epoca, il quale consentiva procedure di verifica alternative basate su perizie tecniche, escludendo cos\u00ec l'elemento essenziale del dolo. Per il cittadino D.M., il tribunale ha evidenziato dubbi circa la natura di nuova costruzione rispetto a semplici lavori di ristrutturazione autorizzati dal comune. La Corte d'Appello ha riformato la decisione, dichiarando colpevoli gli imputati e ritenendo che i funzionari pubblici non avessero effettuato le verifiche obbligatorie in loco, approvando documentazione incompleta e recando grave danno agli interessi statali, mentre il costruttore D.M. veniva condannato alla pena detentiva.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Il Collegio della Corte Suprema ha dichiarato inammissibile il ricorso per il costruttore, confermando la condanna d'appello poich\u00e9 le doglianze attenevano alla valutazione delle prove, escluse dal sindacato di legittimit\u00e0. Per quanto riguarda i pubblici ufficiali, il Collegio ha annullato la sentenza d'appello e ha confermato l'assoluzione di primo grado. Il Collegio ha sottolineato che le carenze riscontrate nella procedura di adozione dell'atto amministrativo, pur potendo integrare illeciti disciplinari, non provano il dolo diretto dei funzionari di violare la legge. La sottoscrizione di documenti tecnici senza un preventivo accertamento fisico in loco non basta a traslare tali condotte nell'ambito della responsabilit\u00e0 penale.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/article>\r\n <\/main>\r\n\r\n <script>\r\n function switchLang(lang) {\r\n \/\/ Hide all sections\r\n document.querySelectorAll('.content-section').forEach(s => s.classList.remove('active'));\r\n \/\/ Show selected section\r\n document.getElementById('lang-' + lang).classList.add('active');\r\n \/\/ Update button states\r\n document.querySelectorAll('.language-btn').forEach(b => b.classList.remove('active'));\r\n document.getElementById('btn-' + lang).classList.add('active');\r\n \/\/ Smooth scroll to top of navigation\r\n window.scrollTo({ top: document.querySelector('.lang-nav-container').offsetTop - 20, behavior: 'smooth' });\r\n }\r\n <\/script>\r\n<\/body>\r\n<\/html>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59) – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 Kolegji Penal Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59) Sq En It Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal P\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsia q\u00eb buron nga ushtrimi i nj\u00eb funksioni drejtues apo administrativ nuk mjafton apriori p\u00ebr t\u00eb gjeneruar p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsi penale, p\u00ebr sa koh\u00eb q\u00eb nuk provohet se i pandehuri ka kryer veprime apo mosveprime konkrete me dijeni dhe vullnet (pra me dashje direkte), t\u00eb drejtuara p\u00ebr cenimin e interesit publik dhe\/ose p\u00ebr shkaktimin e pasoj\u00ebs n\u00eb kuptim t\u00eb nenit 248 t\u00eb Kodit Penal. Mang\u00ebsit\u00eb administrative apo shkeljet disiplinore nuk mund\u00ebsojn\u00eb transformimin automatik n\u00eb faj\u00ebsi penale pa u provuar elementi subjektiv i vepr\u00ebs penale. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, Kolegji Penal i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb mori n\u00eb shqyrtim rekurset e paraqitura nga disa t\u00eb pandehur, t\u00eb cil\u00ebt ishin d\u00ebnuar nga Gjykata e Apelit t\u00eb Juridiksionit t\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm Durr\u00ebs p\u00ebrkat\u00ebsisht p\u00ebr veprat penale \u201cshp\u00ebrdorim i detyr\u00ebs\u201d dhe \u201cnd\u00ebrtim i paligjsh\u00ebm\u201d. \u00c7\u00ebshtja filloi nga procedurat e legalizimit t\u00eb nj\u00eb objekti shum\u00ebkat\u00ebsh n\u00eb Durr\u00ebs. Zyrtar\u00ebt akuzoheshin se kishin l\u00ebshuar nj\u00eb leje legalizimi p\u00ebr nj\u00eb godin\u00eb t\u00eb deklaruar si 10 kate mbi tok\u00eb, nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb q\u00eb objekti n\u00eb fakt rezultonte t\u00eb ishte 9 kate. Gjithashtu, shtetasi D.M. akuzohej se kishte kryer nd\u00ebrhyrje dhe nd\u00ebrtime pa leje shtes\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb objekt. Gjykata e Rrethit Gjyq\u00ebsor Durr\u00ebs vendosi pafaj\u00ebsi p\u00ebr rekursuesit. Ajo arsyetoi se zyrtar\u00ebt kishin vepruar konform kuadrit administrativ e n\u00ebnligjor t\u00eb koh\u00ebs, i cili lejonte procedura alternative t\u00eb verifikimit t\u00eb gjendjes bazuar n\u00eb akt-ekspertiza, duke p\u00ebrjashtuar k\u00ebshtu elementin thelb\u00ebsor t\u00eb dashjes. P\u00ebr shtetasin D.M., gjykata theksoi se kishte dyshime n\u00ebse b\u00ebhej fjal\u00eb p\u00ebr nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb ri apo thjesht punime rikonstruksioni sipas nj\u00eb leje t\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga bashkia. Gjykata e apelit e ndryshoi vendimin, duke i shpallur fajtor\u00eb t\u00eb pandehurit. Gjykata vler\u00ebsoi se zyrtar\u00ebt publik\u00eb nuk kishin kryer verifikimin e detyruesh\u00ebm n\u00eb terren dhe miratuan dokumentacionin e paplot\u00eb, gj\u00eb q\u00eb i solli subjektit nd\u00ebrtues nj\u00eb p\u00ebrfitim t\u00eb padrejt\u00eb material dhe d\u00ebmtoi r\u00ebnd\u00eb interesat shtet\u00ebrore, nd\u00ebrsa nd\u00ebrtuesi D.M. u d\u00ebnua me burgim p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb paligjsh\u00ebm. Kolegji vendosi mospranimin e rekursit p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtuesin, duke l\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb fuqi vendimin e apelit q\u00eb e d\u00ebnonte p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb paligjsh\u00ebm, pasi pretendimet e tij kishin t\u00eb b\u00ebnin me \u00e7muarjen e provave q\u00eb dalin jasht\u00eb juridiksionit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb. N\u00eb lidhje me zyrtar\u00ebt publik\u00eb, Kolegji prishi vendimin e gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit dhe la n\u00eb fuqi pafaj\u00ebsin\u00eb e dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga shkalla e par\u00eb. Kolegji theksoi se mang\u00ebsit\u00eb e konstatuara n\u00eb procedur\u00ebn e nxjerrjes s\u00eb aktit administrativ, ndon\u00ebse mund t\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebjn\u00eb shkelje disiplinore, nuk provojn\u00eb dashjen direkte t\u00eb zyrtar\u00ebve p\u00ebr t\u00eb shkelur ligjin. N\u00ebnshkrimi i dokumenteve teknike pa kryerjen e nj\u00eb verifikimi fizik n\u00eb terren nuk mjafton p\u00ebr t’i kaluar k\u00ebto veprime n\u00eb sfer\u00ebn e p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsis\u00eb penale. Decision no. 00-2026-378 (59), dated 26.03.2026 of the Criminal College The responsibility arising from the exercise of a managerial or administrative function is not sufficient a priori to generate criminal liability, as long as it is not proven that the defendant committed concrete actions or omissions with knowledge and intent (direct intent), aimed at violating the public interest and\/or causing consequences within the meaning of Article 248 of the Criminal Code. Administrative shortcomings or disciplinary violations cannot automatically be transformed into criminal guilt without proving the subjective element of the criminal offense. Case Summary & Legal Reasoning In this case, the Criminal College of the Supreme Court reviewed the appeals filed by several defendants convicted by the Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction of Durr\u00ebs for the criminal offenses of “abuse of office” and “unlawful construction”. The case originated from the legalization procedures of a multi-story building in Durr\u00ebs. Officials were accused of issuing a legalization permit for a building declared as 10 stories above ground, while it actually consisted of 9 stories. Additionally, citizen D.M. was accused of carrying out unauthorized additional interventions and constructions on the building. The Durr\u00ebs Judicial District Court acquitted the appellants. It reasoned that the officials acted in accordance with the administrative and sub-legal framework of the time, which allowed alternative verification procedures based on expert reports, thus excluding the essential element of intent. For citizen D.M., the court noted doubts regarding whether it was a new construction or merely reconstruction work under a municipal permit. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding the defendants guilty, holding that public officials failed to conduct mandatory on-site verifications and approved incomplete documentation, granting the builder undue material benefits and severely harming state interests. Builder D.M. was sentenced to imprisonment for illegal construction. The Supreme Court College dismissed the appeal regarding the builder, upholding the appellate court’s conviction since his claims related to the assessment of evidence, which fall outside the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. Regarding the public officials, the College overturned the appellate ruling and reinstated the acquittal rendered by the first instance. The College emphasized that identified shortcomings in issuing the administrative act, although potentially constituting disciplinary violations, do not prove the officials’ direct intent to break the law. Signing technical documents without physical on-site verification is insufficient to elevate such actions to criminal liability. Sentenza n. 00-2026-378 (59), del 26.03.2026 del Collegio Penale La responsabilit\u00e0 derivante dall’esercizio di una funzione direttiva o amministrativa non \u00e8 sufficiente a priori per generare responsabilit\u00e0 penale, fintanto che non venga provato che l’imputato abbia compiuto azioni od omissioni concrete con coscienza e volont\u00e0 (dolo diretto), volte a ledere l’interesse pubblico e\/o a causare conseguenze ai sensi dell’articolo 248 del Codice Penale. Carenze amministrative o violazioni disciplinari non possono trasformarsi automaticamente in responsabilit\u00e0 penale senza la prova dell’elemento soggettivo del reato. Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica In questa causa, il Collegio Penale della Corte Suprema ha esaminato i ricorsi presentati da diversi imputati condannati dalla Corte d’Appello di Giurisdizione Generale di Durazzo rispettivamente per i reati di “abuso d’ufficio” e “costruzione abusiva”. La vicenda trae origine dalle procedure di condono (legalizzazione) di un edificio a pi\u00f9 piani a Durazzo. I funzionari erano accusati di aver rilasciato un permesso di<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3637,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"elementor_header_footer","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4217","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-petani-blog"],"yoast_head":"\n<title>Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal - Petani Law Firm<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"it_IT\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal - Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59) – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 Kolegji Penal Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59) Sq En It Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal P\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsia q\u00eb buron nga ushtrimi i nj\u00eb funksioni drejtues apo administrativ nuk mjafton apriori p\u00ebr t\u00eb gjeneruar p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsi penale, p\u00ebr sa koh\u00eb q\u00eb nuk provohet se i pandehuri ka kryer veprime apo mosveprime konkrete me dijeni dhe vullnet (pra me dashje direkte), t\u00eb drejtuara p\u00ebr cenimin e interesit publik dhe\/ose p\u00ebr shkaktimin e pasoj\u00ebs n\u00eb kuptim t\u00eb nenit 248 t\u00eb Kodit Penal. Mang\u00ebsit\u00eb administrative apo shkeljet disiplinore nuk mund\u00ebsojn\u00eb transformimin automatik n\u00eb faj\u00ebsi penale pa u provuar elementi subjektiv i vepr\u00ebs penale. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, Kolegji Penal i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb mori n\u00eb shqyrtim rekurset e paraqitura nga disa t\u00eb pandehur, t\u00eb cil\u00ebt ishin d\u00ebnuar nga Gjykata e Apelit t\u00eb Juridiksionit t\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm Durr\u00ebs p\u00ebrkat\u00ebsisht p\u00ebr veprat penale \u201cshp\u00ebrdorim i detyr\u00ebs\u201d dhe \u201cnd\u00ebrtim i paligjsh\u00ebm\u201d. \u00c7\u00ebshtja filloi nga procedurat e legalizimit t\u00eb nj\u00eb objekti shum\u00ebkat\u00ebsh n\u00eb Durr\u00ebs. Zyrtar\u00ebt akuzoheshin se kishin l\u00ebshuar nj\u00eb leje legalizimi p\u00ebr nj\u00eb godin\u00eb t\u00eb deklaruar si 10 kate mbi tok\u00eb, nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb q\u00eb objekti n\u00eb fakt rezultonte t\u00eb ishte 9 kate. Gjithashtu, shtetasi D.M. akuzohej se kishte kryer nd\u00ebrhyrje dhe nd\u00ebrtime pa leje shtes\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb objekt. Gjykata e Rrethit Gjyq\u00ebsor Durr\u00ebs vendosi pafaj\u00ebsi p\u00ebr rekursuesit. Ajo arsyetoi se zyrtar\u00ebt kishin vepruar konform kuadrit administrativ e n\u00ebnligjor t\u00eb koh\u00ebs, i cili lejonte procedura alternative t\u00eb verifikimit t\u00eb gjendjes bazuar n\u00eb akt-ekspertiza, duke p\u00ebrjashtuar k\u00ebshtu elementin thelb\u00ebsor t\u00eb dashjes. P\u00ebr shtetasin D.M., gjykata theksoi se kishte dyshime n\u00ebse b\u00ebhej fjal\u00eb p\u00ebr nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb ri apo thjesht punime rikonstruksioni sipas nj\u00eb leje t\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga bashkia. Gjykata e apelit e ndryshoi vendimin, duke i shpallur fajtor\u00eb t\u00eb pandehurit. Gjykata vler\u00ebsoi se zyrtar\u00ebt publik\u00eb nuk kishin kryer verifikimin e detyruesh\u00ebm n\u00eb terren dhe miratuan dokumentacionin e paplot\u00eb, gj\u00eb q\u00eb i solli subjektit nd\u00ebrtues nj\u00eb p\u00ebrfitim t\u00eb padrejt\u00eb material dhe d\u00ebmtoi r\u00ebnd\u00eb interesat shtet\u00ebrore, nd\u00ebrsa nd\u00ebrtuesi D.M. u d\u00ebnua me burgim p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb paligjsh\u00ebm. Kolegji vendosi mospranimin e rekursit p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtuesin, duke l\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb fuqi vendimin e apelit q\u00eb e d\u00ebnonte p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb paligjsh\u00ebm, pasi pretendimet e tij kishin t\u00eb b\u00ebnin me \u00e7muarjen e provave q\u00eb dalin jasht\u00eb juridiksionit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb. N\u00eb lidhje me zyrtar\u00ebt publik\u00eb, Kolegji prishi vendimin e gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit dhe la n\u00eb fuqi pafaj\u00ebsin\u00eb e dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga shkalla e par\u00eb. Kolegji theksoi se mang\u00ebsit\u00eb e konstatuara n\u00eb procedur\u00ebn e nxjerrjes s\u00eb aktit administrativ, ndon\u00ebse mund t\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebjn\u00eb shkelje disiplinore, nuk provojn\u00eb dashjen direkte t\u00eb zyrtar\u00ebve p\u00ebr t\u00eb shkelur ligjin. N\u00ebnshkrimi i dokumenteve teknike pa kryerjen e nj\u00eb verifikimi fizik n\u00eb terren nuk mjafton p\u00ebr t’i kaluar k\u00ebto veprime n\u00eb sfer\u00ebn e p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsis\u00eb penale. Decision no. 00-2026-378 (59), dated 26.03.2026 of the Criminal College The responsibility arising from the exercise of a managerial or administrative function is not sufficient a priori to generate criminal liability, as long as it is not proven that the defendant committed concrete actions or omissions with knowledge and intent (direct intent), aimed at violating the public interest and\/or causing consequences within the meaning of Article 248 of the Criminal Code. Administrative shortcomings or disciplinary violations cannot automatically be transformed into criminal guilt without proving the subjective element of the criminal offense. Case Summary & Legal Reasoning In this case, the Criminal College of the Supreme Court reviewed the appeals filed by several defendants convicted by the Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction of Durr\u00ebs for the criminal offenses of “abuse of office” and “unlawful construction”. The case originated from the legalization procedures of a multi-story building in Durr\u00ebs. Officials were accused of issuing a legalization permit for a building declared as 10 stories above ground, while it actually consisted of 9 stories. Additionally, citizen D.M. was accused of carrying out unauthorized additional interventions and constructions on the building. The Durr\u00ebs Judicial District Court acquitted the appellants. It reasoned that the officials acted in accordance with the administrative and sub-legal framework of the time, which allowed alternative verification procedures based on expert reports, thus excluding the essential element of intent. For citizen D.M., the court noted doubts regarding whether it was a new construction or merely reconstruction work under a municipal permit. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding the defendants guilty, holding that public officials failed to conduct mandatory on-site verifications and approved incomplete documentation, granting the builder undue material benefits and severely harming state interests. Builder D.M. was sentenced to imprisonment for illegal construction. The Supreme Court College dismissed the appeal regarding the builder, upholding the appellate court’s conviction since his claims related to the assessment of evidence, which fall outside the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. Regarding the public officials, the College overturned the appellate ruling and reinstated the acquittal rendered by the first instance. The College emphasized that identified shortcomings in issuing the administrative act, although potentially constituting disciplinary violations, do not prove the officials’ direct intent to break the law. Signing technical documents without physical on-site verification is insufficient to elevate such actions to criminal liability. Sentenza n. 00-2026-378 (59), del 26.03.2026 del Collegio Penale La responsabilit\u00e0 derivante dall’esercizio di una funzione direttiva o amministrativa non \u00e8 sufficiente a priori per generare responsabilit\u00e0 penale, fintanto che non venga provato che l’imputato abbia compiuto azioni od omissioni concrete con coscienza e volont\u00e0 (dolo diretto), volte a ledere l’interesse pubblico e\/o a causare conseguenze ai sensi dell’articolo 248 del Codice Penale. Carenze amministrative o violazioni disciplinari non possono trasformarsi automaticamente in responsabilit\u00e0 penale senza la prova dell’elemento soggettivo del reato. Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica In questa causa, il Collegio Penale della Corte Suprema ha esaminato i ricorsi presentati da diversi imputati condannati dalla Corte d’Appello di Giurisdizione Generale di Durazzo rispettivamente per i reati di “abuso d’ufficio” e “costruzione abusiva”. La vicenda trae origine dalle procedure di condono (legalizzazione) di un edificio a pi\u00f9 piani a Durazzo. I funzionari erano accusati di aver rilasciato un permesso di\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-30T09:42:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-30T09:43:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Stafi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Scritto da\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Stafi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Tempo di lettura stimato\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minuti\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Stafi\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90\"},\"headline\":\"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-30T09:42:30+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-30T09:43:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1365,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"articleSection\":[\"Petani Blog\"],\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/\",\"name\":\"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal - Petani Law Firm\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-30T09:42:30+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-30T09:43:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":2560},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/\",\"name\":\"Petani Law Firm\",\"description\":\"Law Firm in Durr\u00ebs\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Petani Law Firm\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/04\\\/logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/04\\\/logo.png\",\"width\":500,\"height\":155,\"caption\":\"Petani Law Firm\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90\",\"name\":\"Stafi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"caption\":\"Stafi\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/it\\\/author\\\/admin\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal - Petani Law Firm","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/","og_locale":"it_IT","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal - Petani Law Firm","og_description":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59) – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 Kolegji Penal Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59) Sq En It Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal P\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsia q\u00eb buron nga ushtrimi i nj\u00eb funksioni drejtues apo administrativ nuk mjafton apriori p\u00ebr t\u00eb gjeneruar p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsi penale, p\u00ebr sa koh\u00eb q\u00eb nuk provohet se i pandehuri ka kryer veprime apo mosveprime konkrete me dijeni dhe vullnet (pra me dashje direkte), t\u00eb drejtuara p\u00ebr cenimin e interesit publik dhe\/ose p\u00ebr shkaktimin e pasoj\u00ebs n\u00eb kuptim t\u00eb nenit 248 t\u00eb Kodit Penal. Mang\u00ebsit\u00eb administrative apo shkeljet disiplinore nuk mund\u00ebsojn\u00eb transformimin automatik n\u00eb faj\u00ebsi penale pa u provuar elementi subjektiv i vepr\u00ebs penale. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, Kolegji Penal i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb mori n\u00eb shqyrtim rekurset e paraqitura nga disa t\u00eb pandehur, t\u00eb cil\u00ebt ishin d\u00ebnuar nga Gjykata e Apelit t\u00eb Juridiksionit t\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm Durr\u00ebs p\u00ebrkat\u00ebsisht p\u00ebr veprat penale \u201cshp\u00ebrdorim i detyr\u00ebs\u201d dhe \u201cnd\u00ebrtim i paligjsh\u00ebm\u201d. \u00c7\u00ebshtja filloi nga procedurat e legalizimit t\u00eb nj\u00eb objekti shum\u00ebkat\u00ebsh n\u00eb Durr\u00ebs. Zyrtar\u00ebt akuzoheshin se kishin l\u00ebshuar nj\u00eb leje legalizimi p\u00ebr nj\u00eb godin\u00eb t\u00eb deklaruar si 10 kate mbi tok\u00eb, nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb q\u00eb objekti n\u00eb fakt rezultonte t\u00eb ishte 9 kate. Gjithashtu, shtetasi D.M. akuzohej se kishte kryer nd\u00ebrhyrje dhe nd\u00ebrtime pa leje shtes\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb objekt. Gjykata e Rrethit Gjyq\u00ebsor Durr\u00ebs vendosi pafaj\u00ebsi p\u00ebr rekursuesit. Ajo arsyetoi se zyrtar\u00ebt kishin vepruar konform kuadrit administrativ e n\u00ebnligjor t\u00eb koh\u00ebs, i cili lejonte procedura alternative t\u00eb verifikimit t\u00eb gjendjes bazuar n\u00eb akt-ekspertiza, duke p\u00ebrjashtuar k\u00ebshtu elementin thelb\u00ebsor t\u00eb dashjes. P\u00ebr shtetasin D.M., gjykata theksoi se kishte dyshime n\u00ebse b\u00ebhej fjal\u00eb p\u00ebr nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb ri apo thjesht punime rikonstruksioni sipas nj\u00eb leje t\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga bashkia. Gjykata e apelit e ndryshoi vendimin, duke i shpallur fajtor\u00eb t\u00eb pandehurit. Gjykata vler\u00ebsoi se zyrtar\u00ebt publik\u00eb nuk kishin kryer verifikimin e detyruesh\u00ebm n\u00eb terren dhe miratuan dokumentacionin e paplot\u00eb, gj\u00eb q\u00eb i solli subjektit nd\u00ebrtues nj\u00eb p\u00ebrfitim t\u00eb padrejt\u00eb material dhe d\u00ebmtoi r\u00ebnd\u00eb interesat shtet\u00ebrore, nd\u00ebrsa nd\u00ebrtuesi D.M. u d\u00ebnua me burgim p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb paligjsh\u00ebm. Kolegji vendosi mospranimin e rekursit p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtuesin, duke l\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb fuqi vendimin e apelit q\u00eb e d\u00ebnonte p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtim t\u00eb paligjsh\u00ebm, pasi pretendimet e tij kishin t\u00eb b\u00ebnin me \u00e7muarjen e provave q\u00eb dalin jasht\u00eb juridiksionit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb. N\u00eb lidhje me zyrtar\u00ebt publik\u00eb, Kolegji prishi vendimin e gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit dhe la n\u00eb fuqi pafaj\u00ebsin\u00eb e dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga shkalla e par\u00eb. Kolegji theksoi se mang\u00ebsit\u00eb e konstatuara n\u00eb procedur\u00ebn e nxjerrjes s\u00eb aktit administrativ, ndon\u00ebse mund t\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebjn\u00eb shkelje disiplinore, nuk provojn\u00eb dashjen direkte t\u00eb zyrtar\u00ebve p\u00ebr t\u00eb shkelur ligjin. N\u00ebnshkrimi i dokumenteve teknike pa kryerjen e nj\u00eb verifikimi fizik n\u00eb terren nuk mjafton p\u00ebr t’i kaluar k\u00ebto veprime n\u00eb sfer\u00ebn e p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsis\u00eb penale. Decision no. 00-2026-378 (59), dated 26.03.2026 of the Criminal College The responsibility arising from the exercise of a managerial or administrative function is not sufficient a priori to generate criminal liability, as long as it is not proven that the defendant committed concrete actions or omissions with knowledge and intent (direct intent), aimed at violating the public interest and\/or causing consequences within the meaning of Article 248 of the Criminal Code. Administrative shortcomings or disciplinary violations cannot automatically be transformed into criminal guilt without proving the subjective element of the criminal offense. Case Summary & Legal Reasoning In this case, the Criminal College of the Supreme Court reviewed the appeals filed by several defendants convicted by the Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction of Durr\u00ebs for the criminal offenses of “abuse of office” and “unlawful construction”. The case originated from the legalization procedures of a multi-story building in Durr\u00ebs. Officials were accused of issuing a legalization permit for a building declared as 10 stories above ground, while it actually consisted of 9 stories. Additionally, citizen D.M. was accused of carrying out unauthorized additional interventions and constructions on the building. The Durr\u00ebs Judicial District Court acquitted the appellants. It reasoned that the officials acted in accordance with the administrative and sub-legal framework of the time, which allowed alternative verification procedures based on expert reports, thus excluding the essential element of intent. For citizen D.M., the court noted doubts regarding whether it was a new construction or merely reconstruction work under a municipal permit. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding the defendants guilty, holding that public officials failed to conduct mandatory on-site verifications and approved incomplete documentation, granting the builder undue material benefits and severely harming state interests. Builder D.M. was sentenced to imprisonment for illegal construction. The Supreme Court College dismissed the appeal regarding the builder, upholding the appellate court’s conviction since his claims related to the assessment of evidence, which fall outside the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. Regarding the public officials, the College overturned the appellate ruling and reinstated the acquittal rendered by the first instance. The College emphasized that identified shortcomings in issuing the administrative act, although potentially constituting disciplinary violations, do not prove the officials’ direct intent to break the law. Signing technical documents without physical on-site verification is insufficient to elevate such actions to criminal liability. Sentenza n. 00-2026-378 (59), del 26.03.2026 del Collegio Penale La responsabilit\u00e0 derivante dall’esercizio di una funzione direttiva o amministrativa non \u00e8 sufficiente a priori per generare responsabilit\u00e0 penale, fintanto che non venga provato che l’imputato abbia compiuto azioni od omissioni concrete con coscienza e volont\u00e0 (dolo diretto), volte a ledere l’interesse pubblico e\/o a causare conseguenze ai sensi dell’articolo 248 del Codice Penale. Carenze amministrative o violazioni disciplinari non possono trasformarsi automaticamente in responsabilit\u00e0 penale senza la prova dell’elemento soggettivo del reato. Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica In questa causa, il Collegio Penale della Corte Suprema ha esaminato i ricorsi presentati da diversi imputati condannati dalla Corte d’Appello di Giurisdizione Generale di Durazzo rispettivamente per i reati di “abuso d’ufficio” e “costruzione abusiva”. La vicenda trae origine dalle procedure di condono (legalizzazione) di un edificio a pi\u00f9 piani a Durazzo. I funzionari erano accusati di aver rilasciato un permesso di","og_url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/","og_site_name":"Petani Law Firm","article_published_time":"2026-07-30T09:42:30+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-30T09:43:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":2560,"url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"Stafi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Scritto da":"Stafi","Tempo di lettura stimato":"6 minuti"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/"},"author":{"name":"Stafi","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/person\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90"},"headline":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal","datePublished":"2026-07-30T09:42:30+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-30T09:43:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/"},"wordCount":1365,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","articleSection":["Petani Blog"],"inLanguage":"it-IT","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/","name":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal - Petani Law Firm","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","datePublished":"2026-07-30T09:42:30+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-30T09:43:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"it-IT","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"it-IT","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","width":2560,"height":2560},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-378-59-date-26-03-2026-i-kolegjit-penal\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-378 (59), dat\u00eb 26.03.2026 i Kolegjit Penal"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/","name":"Petani Law Firm","description":"Law Firm in Durr\u00ebs","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"it-IT"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization","name":"Petani Law Firm","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"it-IT","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/logo.png","width":500,"height":155,"caption":"Petani Law Firm"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/person\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90","name":"Stafi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"it-IT","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","caption":"Stafi"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com"],"url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4217","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4217"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4217\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4224,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4217\/revisions\/4224"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3637"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4217"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4217"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4217"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}