{"id":4324,"date":"2026-08-25T08:09:17","date_gmt":"2026-08-25T08:09:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/?p=4324"},"modified":"2026-08-25T08:19:55","modified_gmt":"2026-08-25T08:19:55","slug":"vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\/","title":{"rendered":"Vendimi nr. 14, dat\u00eb 17.02.2026 (V-14\/26)"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n <span class=\"tp-lang-sq\">Vendimi V-14\/26 i Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese: E drejta e pron\u00ebs dhe standardi i arsyetimit n\u00eb gjobat tatimore<\/span><span class=\"tp-lang-en\">Constitutional Court Decision V-14\/26: Property Rights and Reasoned Decisions in Tax Fines<\/span><span class=\"tp-lang-it\">Decisione V-14\/26 della Corte Costituzionale: Diritto di propriet\u00e0 e motivazione nelle sanzioni fiscali<\/span> | Petani Law & Tax\r\n <\/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: 1.7; }\r\n .serif { font-family: 'Playfair Display', serif; }\r\n\r\n .drop-cap::first-letter { float: left; font-family: 'Playfair Display', serif; font-size: 4rem; line-height: 3rem; padding-top: 6px; padding-right: 10px; color: var(--gold); font-weight: 700; }\r\n \r\n article p { margin-bottom: 1.25rem; font-size: 1.05rem; color: #2d2d2d; }\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\r\n \/* TranslatePress Automatic Display Rules *\/\r\n .tp-lang-block { display: none; }\r\n title span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n title span.tp-lang-en,\r\n title span.tp-lang-it,\r\n h1 span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n h1 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n h1 span.tp-lang-it,\r\n h2 span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n h2 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n h2 span.tp-lang-it,\r\n h3 span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n h3 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n h3 span.tp-lang-it,\r\n p span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n p span.tp-lang-en,\r\n p span.tp-lang-it,\r\n li span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n li span.tp-lang-en,\r\n li span.tp-lang-it { display: none; }\r\n\r\n \/* Show Albanian when TranslatePress language is SQ *\/\r\n body.translatepress-sq_AL .tp-lang-sq,\r\n html[lang=\"sq\"] .tp-lang-sq { display: block; }\r\n body.translatepress-sq_AL title span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n html[lang=\"sq\"] title span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n body.translatepress-sq_AL h1 span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n html[lang=\"sq\"] h1 span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n body.translatepress-sq_AL h2 span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n html[lang=\"sq\"] h2 span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n body.translatepress-sq_AL h3 span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n html[lang=\"sq\"] h3 span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n body.translatepress-sq_AL p span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n html[lang=\"sq\"] p span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n body.translatepress-sq_AL li span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n html[lang=\"sq\"] li span.tp-lang-sq { display: inline; }\r\n\r\n \/* Show English when TranslatePress language is EN *\/\r\n body.translatepress-en_US .tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_GB .tp-lang-en,\r\n html[lang=\"en\"] .tp-lang-en { display: block; }\r\n body.translatepress-en_US title span.tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_GB title span.tp-lang-en,\r\n html[lang=\"en\"] title span.tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_US h1 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_GB h1 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n html[lang=\"en\"] h1 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_US h2 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_GB h2 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n html[lang=\"en\"] h2 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_US h3 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_GB h3 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n html[lang=\"en\"] h3 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_US p span.tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_GB p span.tp-lang-en,\r\n html[lang=\"en\"] p span.tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_US li span.tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_GB li span.tp-lang-en,\r\n html[lang=\"en\"] li span.tp-lang-en { display: inline; }\r\n\r\n \/* Show Italian when TranslatePress language is IT *\/\r\n body.translatepress-it_IT .tp-lang-it,\r\n html[lang=\"it\"] .tp-lang-it { display: block; }\r\n body.translatepress-it_IT title span.tp-lang-it,\r\n html[lang=\"it\"] title span.tp-lang-it,\r\n body.translatepress-it_IT h1 span.tp-lang-it,\r\n html[lang=\"it\"] h1 span.tp-lang-it,\r\n body.translatepress-it_IT h2 span.tp-lang-it,\r\n html[lang=\"it\"] h2 span.tp-lang-it,\r\n body.translatepress-it_IT h3 span.tp-lang-it,\r\n html[lang=\"it\"] h3 span.tp-lang-it,\r\n body.translatepress-it_IT p span.tp-lang-it,\r\n html[lang=\"it\"] p span.tp-lang-it,\r\n body.translatepress-it_IT li span.tp-lang-it,\r\n html[lang=\"it\"] li span.tp-lang-it { display: inline; }\r\n <\/style>\r\n<\/head>\r\n<body class=\"antialiased\">\r\n\r\n <main class=\"max-w-3xl mx-auto px-6 py-12\">\r\n \r\n <!-- Header Image Banner -->\r\n <div class=\"relative w-full h-[360px] rounded-2xl overflow-hidden shadow-xl mb-10 border-b-4 border-[var(--gold)]\">\r\n <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/images.pexels.com\/photos\/5668473\/pexels-photo-5668473.jpeg\" alt=\"Gjykata Kushtetuese me e drejten e prones dhe gjobat tatimore\" class=\"w-full h-full object-cover object-center brightness-[0.65]\">\r\n <div class=\"absolute inset-0 bg-gradient-to-t from-black\/90 via-black\/40 to-transparent\"><\/div>\r\n <div class=\"absolute bottom-8 left-8 right-8 text-white\">\r\n <p class=\"text-[var(--gold)] tracking-widest uppercase font-semibold text-xs mb-2\">\r\n <span class=\"tp-lang-sq\">E Drejt\u00eb Kushtetuese & Tatimore \u2022 Jurisprudenc\u00eb<\/span><span class=\"tp-lang-en\">Constitutional & Tax Law \u2022 Jurisprudence<\/span><span class=\"tp-lang-it\">Diritto Costituzionale & Fiscale \u2022 Giurisprudenza<\/span>\r\n <\/p>\r\n <h1 class=\"serif text-3xl md:text-4xl font-bold leading-tight\">\r\n <span class=\"tp-lang-sq\">Vendimi nr. 14\/2026 i Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese: E drejta e pron\u00ebs dhe standardi i arsyetimit<\/span><span class=\"tp-lang-en\">Constitutional Court Decision No. 14\/2026: Property Rights & Reasoned Decisions<\/span><span class=\"tp-lang-it\">Decisione n. 14\/2026 della Corte Costituzionale: Diritto di propriet\u00e0 e motivazione<\/span>\r\n <\/h1>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n <!-- ALBANIAN VERSION -->\r\n <article class=\"tp-lang-block tp-lang-sq\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl md:text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-6 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4 font-semibold\">Gjoba tatimore 30 000 000 lek\u00eb dhe kontrolli kushtetues mbi vendimmarrjen e Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">Vendimi nr. 14, dat\u00eb 17.02.2026 (V-14\/26), i Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese merr nj\u00eb dimension m\u00eb t\u00eb gjer\u00eb, t\u00eb lidhur me t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e pron\u00ebs, standardin e arsyetimit t\u00eb vendimit gjyq\u00ebsor dhe raportin nd\u00ebrmjet interesit publik p\u00ebr mbrojtjen e sistemit tatimor dhe barr\u00ebs financiare q\u00eb i vendoset subjektit.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>\u00c7\u00ebshtja kishte n\u00eb qend\u00ebr nj\u00eb gjob\u00eb tatimore n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 30 000 000 lek\u00eb, t\u00eb vendosur p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb mosl\u00ebshimit t\u00eb kupon\u00ebve tatimor\u00eb. Debati ligjor lidhej me m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn e interpretimit dhe zbatimit t\u00eb nenit 122, shkronja \u201cb\u201d, n\u00ebnparagrafi \u201cii\u201d, t\u00eb ligjit nr. 9920, dat\u00eb 19.05.2008 \u201cP\u00ebr procedurat tatimore n\u00eb Republik\u00ebn e Shqip\u00ebris\u00eb\u201d, t\u00eb ndryshuar.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>Gjykata Kushtetuese nuk e shqyrtoi \u00e7\u00ebshtjen si nj\u00eb gjykat\u00eb q\u00eb duhet t\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktoj\u00eb vet\u00eb mas\u00ebn konkrete t\u00eb gjob\u00ebs. Thelbi i kontrollit kushtetues ishte n\u00ebse, n\u00eb rrethanat konkrete t\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjes, Gjykata e Lart\u00eb kishte p\u00ebrmbushur standardin kushtetues t\u00eb arsyetimit, n\u00eb ve\u00e7anti p\u00ebr pretendimin q\u00eb lidhej me m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn e zbatimit t\u00eb ligjit dhe me pasoj\u00ebn financiare t\u00eb k\u00ebsaj m\u00ebnyre zbatimi.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Rrethanat e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes<\/h3>\r\n\r\n <p>Subjekti k\u00ebrkues ushtronte aktivitetin tregtar \u201cbar-kafe\u201d n\u00eb Tiran\u00eb. N\u00eb dat\u00ebn 31.07.2011, organet tatimore ushtruan kontroll n\u00eb ambientet e tij dhe konstatuan se sh\u00ebrbimi ofrohej p\u00ebr 100 tavolina dhe se p\u00ebr to nuk ishin prer\u00eb kupon\u00ebt tatimor\u00eb. Mbi baz\u00ebn e nenit 122, shkronja \u201cb\u201d, n\u00ebnparagrafi \u201cii\u201d, t\u00eb ligjit p\u00ebr procedurat tatimore, organet tatimore vendos\u00ebn nj\u00eb gjob\u00eb prej 30 000 000 lek\u00ebsh, e llogaritur me mas\u00ebn prej 300 000 lek\u00ebsh p\u00ebr secil\u00ebn tavolin\u00eb.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>Subjekti e kund\u00ebrshtoi mas\u00ebn e gjob\u00ebs fillimisht n\u00eb rrug\u00eb administrative dhe m\u00eb pas n\u00eb rrug\u00eb gjyq\u00ebsore. Gjykata e Rrethit Gjyq\u00ebsor Tiran\u00eb, me vendimin nr. 9195, dat\u00eb 08.10.2012, ndryshoi mas\u00ebn e gjob\u00ebs, duke e ulur at\u00eb n\u00eb 300 000 lek\u00eb. Pas ankimit t\u00eb organit tatimor, Gjykata Administrative e Apelit, me vendimin nr. 2062, dat\u00eb 26.05.2014, prishi k\u00ebt\u00eb vendim dhe e ktheu \u00e7\u00ebshtjen p\u00ebr rigjykim n\u00eb gjykat\u00ebn e shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>N\u00eb rigjykim, Gjykata Administrative e Shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb Par\u00eb Tiran\u00eb, me vendimin nr. 318, dat\u00eb 02.02.2015, e pranoi pjes\u00ebrisht padin\u00eb dhe p\u00ebrs\u00ebri e uli gjob\u00ebn n\u00eb 300 000 lek\u00eb. Sipas k\u00ebsaj gjykate, b\u00ebhej fjal\u00eb p\u00ebr nj\u00eb shkelje t\u00eb konstatuar dhe, p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye, gjoba nuk mund t\u00eb caktohej n\u00eb nj\u00eb shum\u00eb m\u00eb t\u00eb madhe se 300 000 lek\u00eb.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>Gjykata Administrative e Apelit, me vendimin nr. 3014, dat\u00eb 28.06.2017, ndryshoi k\u00ebt\u00eb vendim dhe rr\u00ebzoi padin\u00eb. Sipas saj, organi tatimor kishte vepruar drejt duke vendosur mas\u00ebn prej 300 000 lek\u00ebsh p\u00ebr \u00e7do tavolin\u00eb, duke e \u00e7uar gjob\u00ebn n\u00eb total n\u00eb 30 000 000 lek\u00eb. Subjekti paraqiti rekurs n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn e Lart\u00eb. Kolegji Administrativ i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, me vendimin nr. 00-2025-13, dat\u00eb 14.01.2025, vendosi mospranimin e rekursit, me arsyetimin se nuk p\u00ebrmbushte k\u00ebrkesat e nenit 58 t\u00eb ligjit nr. 49\/2012 \u201cP\u00ebr gjykatat administrative dhe gjykimin e mosmarr\u00ebveshjeve administrative\u201d, t\u00eb ndryshuar.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-6 rounded-xl my-8 shadow-md\">\r\n <p class=\"font-medium mb-0\">Vendimi V-14\/26 \u2022 Gjykata Kushtetuese \u2022 Neni 41 & 42 i Kushtetut\u00ebs \u2022 Neni 1 i Protokollit nr. 1 t\u00eb KEDNJ-s\u00eb \u2022 Parimi i Subsidiaritetit<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Ankimi kushtetues<\/h3>\r\n\r\n <p>Pas vendimit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, subjekti iu drejtua Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese me ankim kushtetues individual. N\u00eb themel, pretendimet lidheshin me t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr nj\u00eb proces t\u00eb rregullt ligjor, parimin e siguris\u00eb juridike, standardin e arsyetimit t\u00eb vendimit gjyq\u00ebsor, parimin e barazis\u00eb p\u00ebrpara ligjit dhe t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e pron\u00ebs.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>Sipas k\u00ebrkuesit, Gjykata e Lart\u00eb nuk kishte dh\u00ebn\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje p\u00ebr pretendimet e ngritura n\u00eb rekurs lidhur me zbatimin e gabuar t\u00eb ligjit material dhe me q\u00ebndrimet e ndryshme t\u00eb gjykatave n\u00eb lidhje me interpretimin e nenit 122 t\u00eb ligjit p\u00ebr procedurat tatimore. Gjithashtu, k\u00ebrkuesi pretendoi se Gjykata e Lart\u00eb kishte mbajtur nj\u00eb q\u00ebndrim t\u00eb ndrysh\u00ebm nga ai i mbajtur n\u00eb raste t\u00eb tjera t\u00eb ngjashme dhe se kjo kishte sjell\u00eb nj\u00eb pozit\u00eb t\u00eb ndryshme n\u00eb raport me subjekte t\u00eb tjera. N\u00eb lidhje me t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e pron\u00ebs, pretendimi ishte se m\u00ebnyra e zbatimit t\u00eb dispozit\u00ebs tatimore kishte sjell\u00eb nj\u00eb gjob\u00eb n\u00eb nj\u00eb vler\u00eb tep\u00ebr t\u00eb lart\u00eb dhe se Gjykata e Lart\u00eb nuk kishte dh\u00ebn\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje p\u00ebrfundimtare mbi k\u00ebt\u00eb problem.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">E drejta e pron\u00ebs dhe gjobat tatimore<\/h3>\r\n\r\n <p>Nj\u00eb nga \u00e7\u00ebshtjet paraprake q\u00eb Gjykata Kushtetuese shqyrtoi ishte n\u00ebse nj\u00eb gjob\u00eb tatimore mund t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshihej n\u00eb konceptin kushtetues t\u00eb pron\u00ebs. Gjykata iu referua jurisprudenc\u00ebs s\u00eb saj t\u00eb m\u00ebparshme dhe theksoi se e drejta kushtetuese e pron\u00ebs private p\u00ebrfshin posedimet dhe t\u00eb drejtat e tjera materiale pasurore.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb kuptim, Gjykata ka pranuar se edhe gjoba e caktuar p\u00ebr shkelje tatimore \u00ebsht\u00eb pjes\u00eb e konceptit kushtetues t\u00eb pron\u00ebs private, pasi pagesa e nj\u00eb shume t\u00eb caktuar parash, q\u00eb p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebson mas\u00ebn e gjob\u00ebs, merret nga pasuria e subjektit. P\u00ebr rrjedhoj\u00eb, shlyerja e nj\u00eb gjobe administrative kufizon t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e garantuar nga neni 41 i Kushtetut\u00ebs.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>Gjykata rr\u00ebzoi k\u00ebshtu edhe prap\u00ebsimin e Avokatur\u00ebs s\u00eb Shtetit se mosmarr\u00ebveshjet tatimore nuk duhej t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshiheshin n\u00eb konceptin e s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb pron\u00ebs. N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb pik\u00eb, Gjykata iu referua edhe jurisprudenc\u00ebs s\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Evropiane p\u00ebr t\u00eb Drejtat e Njeriut dhe vuri n\u00eb dukje se, ndryshe nga sa ishte pretenduar nga Avokatura e Shtetit, GJDBE (GJEDNJ) ka pohuar se detyrimet tatimore mbrohen nga neni 1 i Protokollit nr. 1, edhe pse ato nuk p\u00ebrfshihen n\u00eb fush\u00ebn e t\u00eb drejtave dhe detyrimeve civile t\u00eb nenit 6, paragrafi 1, t\u00eb KEDNJ-s\u00eb. N\u00eb vendim referohet \u00e7\u00ebshtja <em>Polimerkonteyner, Tov kund\u00ebr Ukrain\u00ebs<\/em>, dat\u00eb 24.11.2016, \u00a7\u00a7 22-25. P\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye, Gjykata e analizoi \u00e7\u00ebshtjen n\u00eb k\u00ebndv\u00ebshtrimin e nenit 42 t\u00eb Kushtetut\u00ebs, duke e lidhur t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e pron\u00ebs me t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr nj\u00eb proces t\u00eb rregullt ligjor.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Standardi i arsyetimit t\u00eb vendimit gjyq\u00ebsor<\/h3>\r\n\r\n <p>Gjykata Kushtetuese theksoi se e drejta p\u00ebr t\u00eb pasur nj\u00eb vendim gjyq\u00ebsor t\u00eb arsyetuar garantohet nga nenet 42 dhe 142, pika 1, t\u00eb Kushtetut\u00ebs. Sipas Gjykat\u00ebs, arsyetimi \u00ebsht\u00eb element thelb\u00ebsor i nj\u00eb vendimi t\u00eb drejt\u00eb. Funksioni i tij \u00ebsht\u00eb t'u tregoj\u00eb pal\u00ebve se ato jan\u00eb d\u00ebgjuar dhe t'u jap\u00eb mund\u00ebsin\u00eb p\u00ebr ta kund\u00ebrshtuar vendimin.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>Megjithat\u00eb, detyrimi p\u00ebr arsyetimin e vendimit nuk do t\u00eb thot\u00eb se gjykata duhet t\u00eb jap\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje t\u00eb detajuar p\u00ebr \u00e7do pretendim t\u00eb pal\u00ebve. Shtrirja e k\u00ebtij detyrimi varet nga natyra e vendimit. P\u00ebr vendimet e mospranimit t\u00eb rekursit, Gjykata ritheksoi se arsyetimi i kufizuar, si rregull, nuk cenon standardin kushtetues t\u00eb arsyetimit. Por Gjykata vendosi nj\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsi t\u00eb ve\u00e7ant\u00eb te rasti kur n\u00eb rekurs jan\u00eb ngritur pretendime kushtetuese. N\u00eb k\u00ebto raste, Gjykata e Lart\u00eb, n\u00eb funksion t\u00eb parimit t\u00eb subsidiaritetit q\u00eb karakterizon marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnien nd\u00ebrmjet juridiksionit kushtetues dhe atij t\u00eb gjykatave t\u00eb zakonshme, duhet t'i shqyrtoj\u00eb k\u00ebto pretendime dhe t\u00eb mbaj\u00eb nj\u00eb q\u00ebndrim t\u00eb shprehur lidhur me to.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Interpretimi i nenit 122 t\u00eb ligjit p\u00ebr procedurat tatimore<\/h3>\r\n\r\n <p>Gjykata Kushtetuese shqyrtoi p\u00ebrmbajtjen e dispozit\u00ebs mbi t\u00eb cil\u00ebn ishte vendosur gjoba. N\u00eb nenin 122, shkronja \u201cb\u201d, paragrafi i par\u00eb, parashikohej se tatimpaguesi d\u00ebnohej n\u00eb rast se nuk l\u00ebshonte kupon tatimor p\u00ebr qarkullimin e realizuar t\u00eb mallrave ose sh\u00ebrbimeve. P\u00ebr kontrollin e dyt\u00eb, dispozita parashikonte gjob\u00ebn prej 300 000 lek\u00ebsh p\u00ebr tatimpaguesit e regjistruar si subjekte t\u00eb TVSH-s\u00eb dhe tatimit mbi fitimin, nd\u00ebrsa parashikonte nj\u00eb mas\u00eb tjet\u00ebr p\u00ebr tatimpaguesit e tjer\u00eb.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>N\u00eb rastin konkret, debati ishte mbi kuptimin e shprehjes \u201cp\u00ebr \u00e7do rast konstatimi\u201d. Gjykata Administrative e Shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb Par\u00eb kishte arritur n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundimin se kjo shprehje nuk mund t\u00eb interpretohej si nj\u00eb baz\u00eb p\u00ebr shum\u00ebfishimin e gjob\u00ebs p\u00ebr \u00e7do tavolin\u00eb. N\u00eb t\u00eb kund\u00ebrt, Gjykata Administrative e Apelit kishte pranuar interpretimin sipas t\u00eb cilit gjoba prej 300 000 lek\u00ebsh aplikohej p\u00ebr \u00e7do tavolin\u00eb n\u00eb funksion, duke e konsideruar t\u00eb ligjshme gjob\u00ebn prej 30 000 000 lek\u00ebsh.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Pse ishte i r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm q\u00ebndrimi i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb<\/h3>\r\n\r\n <p>N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb pik\u00eb Gjykata Kushtetuese i kushtoi r\u00ebnd\u00ebsi faktit se gjykatat e faktit kishin mbajtur q\u00ebndrime t\u00eb kund\u00ebrta mbi interpretimin e s\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebs dispozit\u00eb. Gjykata vuri n\u00eb dukje se rekursi nuk lidhej me caktimin e gjob\u00ebs n\u00eb vetvete, por me m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn se si Gjykata Administrative e Apelit kishte interpretuar ligjin, interpretim q\u00eb kishte rezultuar n\u00eb nj\u00eb vler\u00eb tep\u00ebr t\u00eb lart\u00eb gjobe.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>Sipas Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese, diferenca financiare ishte e r\u00ebnd\u00ebsishme, pasi b\u00ebhej fjal\u00eb p\u00ebr 300 000 lek\u00eb kundrejt 30 000 000 lek\u00ebve, pra p\u00ebr nj\u00eb diferenc\u00eb 100-fish. Pik\u00ebrisht p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb k\u00ebsaj diference, Gjykata vler\u00ebsoi se pretendimi k\u00ebrkonte v\u00ebmendje t\u00eb shtuar nga Gjykata e Lart\u00eb. Megjithat\u00eb, Gjykata e Lart\u00eb kishte vendosur mospranimin e rekursit dhe nuk kishte dh\u00ebn\u00eb nj\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje t\u00eb shprehur.<\/p>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n <!-- ENGLISH VERSION -->\r\n <article class=\"tp-lang-block tp-lang-en\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl md:text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-6 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4 font-semibold\">A 30,000,000 ALL Tax Fine and Constitutional Scrutiny Over Supreme Court Adjudication<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">Decision No. 14, dated 17.02.2026 (V-14\/26), of the Constitutional Court takes on a broader dimension, touching upon property rights, the standard of reasoned judicial decisions, and the balance between the public interest in protecting the tax system and the financial burden imposed on a business entity.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>The core of the case involved a tax fine amounting to 30,000,000 ALL, issued for failing to issue tax receipts. The legal dispute centered on the interpretation and application of Article 122, letter \"b\", sub-item \"ii\", of Law No. 9920, dated 19.05.2008 \"On Tax Procedures in the Republic of Albania\", as amended.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>The Constitutional Court did not examine the case as a court tasked with setting the specific fine amount itself. The essence of the constitutional review was whether, under the specific circumstances, the Supreme Court had met the constitutional standard for a reasoned decision, particularly regarding claims about how the law was applied and the financial impact resulting from that application.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Factual Background<\/h3>\r\n\r\n <p>The applicant business operated a \"bar-coffee shop\" in Tirana. On 31.07.2011, tax authorities audited the premises and determined that service was being provided across 100 tables without issuing tax receipts. Pursuant to Article 122, letter \"b\", sub-item \"ii\", of the Tax Procedures Law, the tax authorities imposed a fine of 30,000,000 ALL, calculated at 300,000 ALL per table.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>The entity challenged the penalty administratively and then in court. The Tirana Judicial District Court, by Decision No. 9195, dated 08.10.2012, reduced the fine to 300,000 ALL. Following an appeal by the tax authority, the Administrative Court of Appeal, by Decision No. 2062, dated 26.05.2014, quashed the decision and remanded the case for retrial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>Upon retrial, the Administrative Court of First Instance Tirana, by Decision No. 318, dated 02.02.2015, partially sustained the lawsuit and again reduced the fine to 300,000 ALL, holding that since a single inspection established the violation, the fine could not exceed 300,000 ALL in total.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>The Administrative Court of Appeal, by Decision No. 3014, dated 28.06.2017, reversed this ruling and dismissed the claim, ruling that tax authorities acted correctly in applying 300,000 ALL per table, making the total fine 30,000,000 ALL. The applicant filed recourse with the Supreme Court. The Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court, by Decision No. 00-2025-13, dated 14.01.2025, declared the recourse inadmissible for failing to satisfy Article 58 requirements of Law No. 49\/2012 \"On Administrative Courts and Adjudication of Administrative Disputes\", as amended.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-6 rounded-xl my-8 shadow-md\">\r\n <p class=\"font-medium mb-0\">Decision V-14\/26 \u2022 Constitutional Court \u2022 Articles 41 & 42 of the Constitution \u2022 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR \u2022 Principle of Subsidiarity<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Constitutional Complaint<\/h3>\r\n\r\n <p>Following the Supreme Court's ruling, the applicant submitted an individual constitutional complaint. At its core, the claims concerned the right to a fair trial, legal certainty, the standard of reasoned judicial decisions, equality before the law, and property rights.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>According to the applicant, the Supreme Court failed to respond to key claims raised in the recourse concerning the misapplication of substantive law and conflicting judicial interpretations of Article 122 of the Tax Procedures Law. Furthermore, the applicant claimed the Supreme Court departed from precedents in similar cases, creating unequal treatment. Regarding property rights, the applicant asserted that the application of the tax provision created an excessively high fine without receiving a final answer from the Supreme Court.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Property Rights and Tax Fines<\/h3>\r\n\r\n <p>A preliminary issue examined by the Constitutional Court was whether a tax fine falls within the constitutional definition of property. Citing established jurisprudence, the Court reaffirmed that private property rights guaranteed under the Constitution encompass possessions and material assets.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>In this context, the Court acknowledged that administrative tax fines directly impact constitutional property rights because paying the fine reduces the entity's wealth. Consequently, settling an administrative fine restricts rights protected under Article 41 of the Constitution.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>The Court rejected the State Advocacy's argument that tax disputes fall outside property rights protection. Citing European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence, the Court emphasized that ECtHR case law recognizes tax obligations as protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, even if excluded from civil rights under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the ECHR (referencing <em>Polimerkonteyner, Tov v. Ukraine<\/em>, 24.11.2016, \u00a7\u00a7 22-25). Therefore, the Court reviewed the matter under Article 42 of the Constitution, linking property rights with the right to due process.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">The Standard of Reasoned Judicial Decisions<\/h3>\r\n\r\n <p>The Constitutional Court highlighted that the right to a reasoned judicial decision is protected under Articles 42 and 142(1) of the Constitution, serving as an essential element of due process by showing parties they have been heard. However, this obligation does not require exhaustive responses to every argument; its scope depends on the nature of the ruling.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>While summary reasoning is generally permissible for inadmissible recourse decisions, the Court emphasized a crucial exception when constitutional claims are raised. In such instances, the principle of subsidiarity obliges the Supreme Court to explicitly address and adjudicate those constitutional arguments before summary dismissal.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Interpretation of Article 122 of the Tax Procedures Law<\/h3>\r\n\r\n <p>The Constitutional Court analyzed the tax provision applied in the case. Article 122(b)(i) penalizes non-issuance of tax receipts for transactions. For a second offense, the law specified a 300,000 ALL fine for VAT and profit tax registered taxpayers.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>The dispute hinged on interpreting \"for each case established\". The Administrative Court of First Instance held this phrase could not justify multiplying the fine by every table, while the Administrative Court of Appeal ruled that 300,000 ALL applied per active table, validating the 30,000,000 ALL fine.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Why the Supreme Court's Position Was Critical<\/h3>\r\n\r\n <p>The Constitutional Court emphasized the significance of lower courts holding directly opposing views on the same statutory provision. The recourse did not challenge fine imposition per se, but rather the Appellate Court's statutory interpretation resulting in an exceptionally large penalty.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>The Court highlighted the 100-fold financial discrepancy between 300,000 ALL and 30,000,000 ALL, concluding that such a vast disparity required explicit analysis from the Supreme Court rather than a summary dismissal.<\/p>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n <!-- ITALIAN VERSION -->\r\n <article class=\"tp-lang-block tp-lang-it\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl md:text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-6 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4 font-semibold\">Sanzione fiscale di 30.000.000 di Lek e controllo costituzionale sulle decisioni della Corte Suprema<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">La decisione n. 14 del 17.02.2026 (V-14\/26) della Corte Costituzionale assume una dimensione pi\u00f9 ampia, legata al diritto di propriet\u00e0, allo standard di motivazione delle decisioni giurisdizionali e al rapporto tra l'interesse pubblico alla tutela del sistema fiscale e l'onere finanziario imposto al contribuente.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>Il caso riguardava una sanzione fiscale di 30.000.000 di ALL, irrogata per la mancata emissione di scontrini fiscali. La controversia giuridica verteva sull'interpretazione e sull'applicazione dell'articolo 122, lettera \"b\", punto \"ii\", della legge n. 9920 del 19.05.2008 \"Sulle procedure fiscali nella Repubblica d'Albania\", e successive modifiche.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>La Corte Costituzionale non ha esaminato il caso come un giudice chiamato a determinare l'importo concreto della sanzione. Il fulcro del controllo costituzionale era verificare se la Corte Suprema avesse rispettato lo standard costituzionale di motivazione, in particolare riguardo all'applicazione della legge e all'impatto finanziario derivante da tale applicazione.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Circostanze del caso<\/h3>\r\n\r\n <p>Il ricorrente esercitava l'attivit\u00e0 di \"bar-caff\u00e8\" a Tirana. Il 31.07.2011, le autorit\u00e0 fiscali hanno effettuato un controllo nei locali constatando che il servizio veniva fornito su 100 tavoli senza l'emissione dei relativi scontrini fiscali. In base all'articolo 122, lettera \"b\", punto \"ii\", della legge sulle procedure fiscali, le autorit\u00e0 hanno irrogato una sanzione di 30.000.000 di ALL, calcolata in 300.000 ALL per ciascun tavolo.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>Il contribuente ha impugnato la sanzione prima in via amministrativa e poi giudiziaria. Il Tribunale del Distretto Giudiziario di Tirana, con decisione n. 9195 del 08.10.2012, ha ridotto la sanzione a 300.000 ALL. A seguito del ricorso dell'amministrazione finanziaria, la Corte d'Appello Amministrativa, con decisione n. 2062 del 26.05.2014, ha annullato la sentenza rinviando la causa al primo grado.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>Nel giudizio di rinvio, il Tribunale Amministrativo di Primo Grado di Tirana, con decisione n. 318 del 02.02.2015, ha accolto parzialmente il ricorso riducendo nuovamente la sanzione a 300.000 ALL, ritenendo che per un'unica violazione accertata la multa non potesse superare complessivamente tale importo.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>La Corte d'Appello Amministrativa, con decisione n. 3014 del 28.06.2017, ha ribaltato la sentenza respingendo la domanda del contribuente. Secondo l'Appello, l'organo fiscale aveva agito correttamente applicando 300.000 ALL per ogni tavolo, per un totale di 30.000.000 di ALL. Il contribuente ha proposto ricorso dinanzi alla Corte Suprema. Il Collegio Amministrativo della Corte Suprema, con decisione n. 00-2025-13 del 14.01.2025, ha dichiarato inammissibile il ricorso per difetto dei requisiti di cui all'articolo 58 della legge n. 49\/2012.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-6 rounded-xl my-8 shadow-md\">\r\n <p class=\"font-medium mb-0\">Decisione V-14\/26 \u2022 Corte Costituzionale \u2022 Artt. 41 & 42 della Costituzione \u2022 Art. 1 del Protocollo n. 1 CEDU \u2022 Principio di Sussidiariet\u00e0<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Ricorso Costituzionale<\/h3>\r\n\r\n <p>A seguito della decisione della Corte Suprema, il contribuente ha presentato ricorso costituzionale individuale, lamentando la violazione del giusto processo, della certezza del diritto, dello standard di motivazione, dell'uguaglianza dinanzi alla legge e del diritto di propriet\u00e0.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>Secondo il ricorrente, la Corte Suprema non aveva risposto alle doglianze relative all'errata applicazione della legge sostanziale e ai contrasti giurisprudenziali sull'interpretazione dell'articolo 122. Inoltre, ha lamentato la difformit\u00e0 rispetto a casi analoghi e la sproporzione della sanzione irrogata rispetto alla tutela del diritto di propriet\u00e0.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Diritto di Propriet\u00e0 e Sanzioni Fiscali<\/h3>\r\n\r\n <p>La Corte Costituzionale ha innanzitutto esaminato se le sanzioni fiscali rientrino nella nozione costituzionale di propriet\u00e0. Richiamando la propria giurisprudenza, la Corte ha ribadito che il diritto costituzionale alla propriet\u00e0 privata include i beni e i diritti patrimoniali.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>Pertanto, il pagamento di una sanzione amministrativa incide sul patrimonio del soggetto e limita il diritto garantito dall'articolo 41 della Costituzione.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>La Corte ha respinto l'eccezione dell'Avvocatura dello Stato secondo cui le controversie fiscali esulano dal diritto di propriet\u00e0. Facendo riferimento alla giurisprudenza della Corte EDU (sentenza <em>Polimerkonteyner, Tov c. Ucraina<\/em>, 24.11.2016, \u00a7\u00a7 22-25), la Corte ha ricordato che gli obblighi fiscali rientrano nella protezione dell'articolo 1 del Protocollo n. 1 della CEDU, analizzando cos\u00ec la questione ai sensi dell'articolo 42 della Costituzione in combinato disposto con il diritto al giusto processo.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Lo Standard di Motivazione della Sentenza<\/h3>\r\n\r\n <p>La Corte Costituzionale ha evidenziato che il diritto a una decisione motivata \u00e8 garantito dagli articoli 42 e 142, comma 1, della Costituzione. La motivazione \u00e8 un elemento essenziale del giusto processo, necessario a dimostrare che le parti sono state ascoltate.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>Sebbene per le decisioni di inammissibilit\u00e0 del ricorso in Cassazione sia di norma ammissibile una motivazione sintetica, la Corte ha sottolineato che, in presenza di questioni costituzionali, la Corte Suprema deve fornire una risposta esplicita in virt\u00f9 del principio di sussidiariet\u00e0.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Interpretazione dell'Articolo 122 della Legge sulle Procedure Fiscali<\/h3>\r\n\r\n <p>La Corte Costituzionale ha analizzato la norma sanzionatoria. L'articolo 122(b)(i) punisce la mancata emissione dello scontrino fiscale, prevedendo per la seconda violazione una sanzione di 300.000 ALL per i soggetti IVA.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>Il punto controverso riguardava l'espressione \"per ogni caso accertato\". Mentre il Tribunale Amministrativo di Primo Grado riteneva che tale dicitura non giustificasse la moltiplicazione della multa per il numero dei tavoli, la Corte d'Appello ha ritenuto legittima la moltiplicazione dell'importo per 100 tavoli, confermando la sanzione di 30.000.000 di ALL.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">L'Importanza della Pronuncia della Corte Suprema<\/h3>\r\n\r\n <p>La Corte Costituzionale ha attribuito particolare rilevanza alla presenza di interpretazioni giudiziarie radicalmente opposte sulla medesima norma. Il ricorso mirava a chiarire l'esatta applicazione della legge di fronte a una differenza economica di ben 100 volte (300.000 ALL contro 30.000.000 di ALL).<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>In virt\u00f9 di tale enorme sproporzione, la Corte Costituzionale ha concluso che la questione richiedeva una valutazione approfondita ed esplicita da parte della Corte Suprema, anzich\u00e9 un semplice rigetto con ordinanza d'inammissibilit\u00e0.<\/p>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n <\/main>\r\n\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 V-14\/26 i Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese: E drejta e pron\u00ebs dhe standardi i arsyetimit n\u00eb gjobat tatimoreConstitutional Court Decision V-14\/26: Property Rights and Reasoned Decisions in Tax FinesDecisione V-14\/26 della Corte Costituzionale: Diritto di propriet\u00e0 e motivazione nelle sanzioni fiscali | Petani Law & Tax E Drejt\u00eb Kushtetuese & Tatimore \u2022 Jurisprudenc\u00ebConstitutional & Tax Law \u2022 JurisprudenceDiritto Costituzionale & Fiscale \u2022 Giurisprudenza Vendimi nr. 14\/2026 i Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese: E drejta e pron\u00ebs dhe standardi i arsyetimitConstitutional Court Decision No. 14\/2026: Property Rights & Reasoned DecisionsDecisione n. 14\/2026 della Corte Costituzionale: Diritto di propriet\u00e0 e motivazione Gjoba tatimore 30 000 000 lek\u00eb dhe kontrolli kushtetues mbi vendimmarrjen e Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb Vendimi nr. 14, dat\u00eb 17.02.2026 (V-14\/26), i Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese merr nj\u00eb dimension m\u00eb t\u00eb gjer\u00eb, t\u00eb lidhur me t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e pron\u00ebs, standardin e arsyetimit t\u00eb vendimit gjyq\u00ebsor dhe raportin nd\u00ebrmjet interesit publik p\u00ebr mbrojtjen e sistemit tatimor dhe barr\u00ebs financiare q\u00eb i vendoset subjektit. \u00c7\u00ebshtja kishte n\u00eb qend\u00ebr nj\u00eb gjob\u00eb tatimore n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 30 000 000 lek\u00eb, t\u00eb vendosur p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb mosl\u00ebshimit t\u00eb kupon\u00ebve tatimor\u00eb. Debati ligjor lidhej me m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn e interpretimit dhe zbatimit t\u00eb nenit 122, shkronja \u201cb\u201d, n\u00ebnparagrafi \u201cii\u201d, t\u00eb ligjit nr. 9920, dat\u00eb 19.05.2008 \u201cP\u00ebr procedurat tatimore n\u00eb Republik\u00ebn e Shqip\u00ebris\u00eb\u201d, t\u00eb ndryshuar. Gjykata Kushtetuese nuk e shqyrtoi \u00e7\u00ebshtjen si nj\u00eb gjykat\u00eb q\u00eb duhet t\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktoj\u00eb vet\u00eb mas\u00ebn konkrete t\u00eb gjob\u00ebs. Thelbi i kontrollit kushtetues ishte n\u00ebse, n\u00eb rrethanat konkrete t\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjes, Gjykata e Lart\u00eb kishte p\u00ebrmbushur standardin kushtetues t\u00eb arsyetimit, n\u00eb ve\u00e7anti p\u00ebr pretendimin q\u00eb lidhej me m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn e zbatimit t\u00eb ligjit dhe me pasoj\u00ebn financiare t\u00eb k\u00ebsaj m\u00ebnyre zbatimi. Rrethanat e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes Subjekti k\u00ebrkues ushtronte aktivitetin tregtar \u201cbar-kafe\u201d n\u00eb Tiran\u00eb. N\u00eb dat\u00ebn 31.07.2011, organet tatimore ushtruan kontroll n\u00eb ambientet e tij dhe konstatuan se sh\u00ebrbimi ofrohej p\u00ebr 100 tavolina dhe se p\u00ebr to nuk ishin prer\u00eb kupon\u00ebt tatimor\u00eb. Mbi baz\u00ebn e nenit 122, shkronja \u201cb\u201d, n\u00ebnparagrafi \u201cii\u201d, t\u00eb ligjit p\u00ebr procedurat tatimore, organet tatimore vendos\u00ebn nj\u00eb gjob\u00eb prej 30 000 000 lek\u00ebsh, e llogaritur me mas\u00ebn prej 300 000 lek\u00ebsh p\u00ebr secil\u00ebn tavolin\u00eb. Subjekti e kund\u00ebrshtoi mas\u00ebn e gjob\u00ebs fillimisht n\u00eb rrug\u00eb administrative dhe m\u00eb pas n\u00eb rrug\u00eb gjyq\u00ebsore. Gjykata e Rrethit Gjyq\u00ebsor Tiran\u00eb, me vendimin nr. 9195, dat\u00eb 08.10.2012, ndryshoi mas\u00ebn e gjob\u00ebs, duke e ulur at\u00eb n\u00eb 300 000 lek\u00eb. Pas ankimit t\u00eb organit tatimor, Gjykata Administrative e Apelit, me vendimin nr. 2062, dat\u00eb 26.05.2014, prishi k\u00ebt\u00eb vendim dhe e ktheu \u00e7\u00ebshtjen p\u00ebr rigjykim n\u00eb gjykat\u00ebn e shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb. N\u00eb rigjykim, Gjykata Administrative e Shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb Par\u00eb Tiran\u00eb, me vendimin nr. 318, dat\u00eb 02.02.2015, e pranoi pjes\u00ebrisht padin\u00eb dhe p\u00ebrs\u00ebri e uli gjob\u00ebn n\u00eb 300 000 lek\u00eb. Sipas k\u00ebsaj gjykate, b\u00ebhej fjal\u00eb p\u00ebr nj\u00eb shkelje t\u00eb konstatuar dhe, p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye, gjoba nuk mund t\u00eb caktohej n\u00eb nj\u00eb shum\u00eb m\u00eb t\u00eb madhe se 300 000 lek\u00eb. Gjykata Administrative e Apelit, me vendimin nr. 3014, dat\u00eb 28.06.2017, ndryshoi k\u00ebt\u00eb vendim dhe rr\u00ebzoi padin\u00eb. Sipas saj, organi tatimor kishte vepruar drejt duke vendosur mas\u00ebn prej 300 000 lek\u00ebsh p\u00ebr \u00e7do tavolin\u00eb, duke e \u00e7uar gjob\u00ebn n\u00eb total n\u00eb 30 000 000 lek\u00eb. Subjekti paraqiti rekurs n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn e Lart\u00eb. Kolegji Administrativ i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, me vendimin nr. 00-2025-13, dat\u00eb 14.01.2025, vendosi mospranimin e rekursit, me arsyetimin se nuk p\u00ebrmbushte k\u00ebrkesat e nenit 58 t\u00eb ligjit nr. 49\/2012 \u201cP\u00ebr gjykatat administrative dhe gjykimin e mosmarr\u00ebveshjeve administrative\u201d, t\u00eb ndryshuar. Vendimi V-14\/26 \u2022 Gjykata Kushtetuese \u2022 Neni 41 & 42 i Kushtetut\u00ebs \u2022 Neni 1 i Protokollit nr. 1 t\u00eb KEDNJ-s\u00eb \u2022 Parimi i Subsidiaritetit Ankimi kushtetues Pas vendimit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, subjekti iu drejtua Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese me ankim kushtetues individual. N\u00eb themel, pretendimet lidheshin me t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr nj\u00eb proces t\u00eb rregullt ligjor, parimin e siguris\u00eb juridike, standardin e arsyetimit t\u00eb vendimit gjyq\u00ebsor, parimin e barazis\u00eb p\u00ebrpara ligjit dhe t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e pron\u00ebs. Sipas k\u00ebrkuesit, Gjykata e Lart\u00eb nuk kishte dh\u00ebn\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje p\u00ebr pretendimet e ngritura n\u00eb rekurs lidhur me zbatimin e gabuar t\u00eb ligjit material dhe me q\u00ebndrimet e ndryshme t\u00eb gjykatave n\u00eb lidhje me interpretimin e nenit 122 t\u00eb ligjit p\u00ebr procedurat tatimore. Gjithashtu, k\u00ebrkuesi pretendoi se Gjykata e Lart\u00eb kishte mbajtur nj\u00eb q\u00ebndrim t\u00eb ndrysh\u00ebm nga ai i mbajtur n\u00eb raste t\u00eb tjera t\u00eb ngjashme dhe se kjo kishte sjell\u00eb nj\u00eb pozit\u00eb t\u00eb ndryshme n\u00eb raport me subjekte t\u00eb tjera. N\u00eb lidhje me t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e pron\u00ebs, pretendimi ishte se m\u00ebnyra e zbatimit t\u00eb dispozit\u00ebs tatimore kishte sjell\u00eb nj\u00eb gjob\u00eb n\u00eb nj\u00eb vler\u00eb tep\u00ebr t\u00eb lart\u00eb dhe se Gjykata e Lart\u00eb nuk kishte dh\u00ebn\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje p\u00ebrfundimtare mbi k\u00ebt\u00eb problem. E drejta e pron\u00ebs dhe gjobat tatimore Nj\u00eb nga \u00e7\u00ebshtjet paraprake q\u00eb Gjykata Kushtetuese shqyrtoi ishte n\u00ebse nj\u00eb gjob\u00eb tatimore mund t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshihej n\u00eb konceptin kushtetues t\u00eb pron\u00ebs. Gjykata iu referua jurisprudenc\u00ebs s\u00eb saj t\u00eb m\u00ebparshme dhe theksoi se e drejta kushtetuese e pron\u00ebs private p\u00ebrfshin posedimet dhe t\u00eb drejtat e tjera materiale pasurore. N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb kuptim, Gjykata ka pranuar se edhe gjoba e caktuar p\u00ebr shkelje tatimore \u00ebsht\u00eb pjes\u00eb e konceptit kushtetues t\u00eb pron\u00ebs private, pasi pagesa e nj\u00eb shume t\u00eb caktuar parash, q\u00eb p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebson mas\u00ebn e gjob\u00ebs, merret nga pasuria e subjektit. P\u00ebr rrjedhoj\u00eb, shlyerja e nj\u00eb gjobe administrative kufizon t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e garantuar nga neni 41 i Kushtetut\u00ebs. Gjykata rr\u00ebzoi k\u00ebshtu edhe prap\u00ebsimin e Avokatur\u00ebs s\u00eb Shtetit se mosmarr\u00ebveshjet tatimore nuk duhej t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshiheshin n\u00eb konceptin e s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb pron\u00ebs. N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb pik\u00eb, Gjykata iu referua edhe jurisprudenc\u00ebs s\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Evropiane p\u00ebr t\u00eb Drejtat e Njeriut dhe vuri n\u00eb dukje se, ndryshe nga sa ishte pretenduar nga Avokatura e Shtetit, GJDBE (GJEDNJ) ka pohuar se detyrimet tatimore mbrohen nga neni 1 i Protokollit nr. 1, edhe pse ato nuk p\u00ebrfshihen n\u00eb fush\u00ebn e t\u00eb drejtave dhe detyrimeve civile t\u00eb nenit 6, paragrafi 1, t\u00eb KEDNJ-s\u00eb. N\u00eb vendim referohet \u00e7\u00ebshtja Polimerkonteyner, Tov kund\u00ebr Ukrain\u00ebs, dat\u00eb 24.11.2016, \u00a7\u00a7 22-25. P\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye, Gjykata e analizoi \u00e7\u00ebshtjen n\u00eb k\u00ebndv\u00ebshtrimin e nenit 42 t\u00eb Kushtetut\u00ebs, duke e lidhur t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e pron\u00ebs me t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr nj\u00eb proces t\u00eb rregullt ligjor. Standardi i arsyetimit t\u00eb vendimit gjyq\u00ebsor Gjykata Kushtetuese theksoi<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3637,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"elementor_header_footer","format":"standard","meta":{"_thinkrank_schema_form_data":"","_thinkrank_selected_schema_type":"","_thinkrank_additional_schemas":"","_thinkrank_canonical_url":"","_thinkrank_og_title":"","_thinkrank_og_description":"","_thinkrank_og_image":"","_thinkrank_twitter_title":"","_thinkrank_twitter_description":"","_thinkrank_twitter_image":"","_thinkrank_imported_from":"","_thinkrank_focus_keywords":[],"_thinkrank_focus_keyword":"","_thinkrank_robots_meta_enabled":0,"_thinkrank_robots_meta":"[]","_thinkrank_advanced_robots_meta":"[]","_thinkrank_primary_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4324","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v28.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vendimi nr. 14, dat\u00eb 17.02.2026 (V-14\/26) - 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-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"it_IT\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vendimi nr. 14, dat\u00eb 17.02.2026 (V-14\/26) - Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Vendimi V-14\/26 i Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese: E drejta e pron\u00ebs dhe standardi i arsyetimit n\u00eb gjobat tatimoreConstitutional Court Decision V-14\/26: Property Rights and Reasoned Decisions in Tax FinesDecisione V-14\/26 della Corte Costituzionale: Diritto di propriet\u00e0 e motivazione nelle sanzioni fiscali | Petani Law & Tax E Drejt\u00eb Kushtetuese & Tatimore \u2022 Jurisprudenc\u00ebConstitutional & Tax Law \u2022 JurisprudenceDiritto Costituzionale & Fiscale \u2022 Giurisprudenza Vendimi nr. 14\/2026 i Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese: E drejta e pron\u00ebs dhe standardi i arsyetimitConstitutional Court Decision No. 14\/2026: Property Rights & Reasoned DecisionsDecisione n. 14\/2026 della Corte Costituzionale: Diritto di propriet\u00e0 e motivazione Gjoba tatimore 30 000 000 lek\u00eb dhe kontrolli kushtetues mbi vendimmarrjen e Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb Vendimi nr. 14, dat\u00eb 17.02.2026 (V-14\/26), i Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese merr nj\u00eb dimension m\u00eb t\u00eb gjer\u00eb, t\u00eb lidhur me t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e pron\u00ebs, standardin e arsyetimit t\u00eb vendimit gjyq\u00ebsor dhe raportin nd\u00ebrmjet interesit publik p\u00ebr mbrojtjen e sistemit tatimor dhe barr\u00ebs financiare q\u00eb i vendoset subjektit. \u00c7\u00ebshtja kishte n\u00eb qend\u00ebr nj\u00eb gjob\u00eb tatimore n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 30 000 000 lek\u00eb, t\u00eb vendosur p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb mosl\u00ebshimit t\u00eb kupon\u00ebve tatimor\u00eb. Debati ligjor lidhej me m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn e interpretimit dhe zbatimit t\u00eb nenit 122, shkronja \u201cb\u201d, n\u00ebnparagrafi \u201cii\u201d, t\u00eb ligjit nr. 9920, dat\u00eb 19.05.2008 \u201cP\u00ebr procedurat tatimore n\u00eb Republik\u00ebn e Shqip\u00ebris\u00eb\u201d, t\u00eb ndryshuar. Gjykata Kushtetuese nuk e shqyrtoi \u00e7\u00ebshtjen si nj\u00eb gjykat\u00eb q\u00eb duhet t\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktoj\u00eb vet\u00eb mas\u00ebn konkrete t\u00eb gjob\u00ebs. Thelbi i kontrollit kushtetues ishte n\u00ebse, n\u00eb rrethanat konkrete t\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjes, Gjykata e Lart\u00eb kishte p\u00ebrmbushur standardin kushtetues t\u00eb arsyetimit, n\u00eb ve\u00e7anti p\u00ebr pretendimin q\u00eb lidhej me m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn e zbatimit t\u00eb ligjit dhe me pasoj\u00ebn financiare t\u00eb k\u00ebsaj m\u00ebnyre zbatimi. Rrethanat e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes Subjekti k\u00ebrkues ushtronte aktivitetin tregtar \u201cbar-kafe\u201d n\u00eb Tiran\u00eb. N\u00eb dat\u00ebn 31.07.2011, organet tatimore ushtruan kontroll n\u00eb ambientet e tij dhe konstatuan se sh\u00ebrbimi ofrohej p\u00ebr 100 tavolina dhe se p\u00ebr to nuk ishin prer\u00eb kupon\u00ebt tatimor\u00eb. Mbi baz\u00ebn e nenit 122, shkronja \u201cb\u201d, n\u00ebnparagrafi \u201cii\u201d, t\u00eb ligjit p\u00ebr procedurat tatimore, organet tatimore vendos\u00ebn nj\u00eb gjob\u00eb prej 30 000 000 lek\u00ebsh, e llogaritur me mas\u00ebn prej 300 000 lek\u00ebsh p\u00ebr secil\u00ebn tavolin\u00eb. Subjekti e kund\u00ebrshtoi mas\u00ebn e gjob\u00ebs fillimisht n\u00eb rrug\u00eb administrative dhe m\u00eb pas n\u00eb rrug\u00eb gjyq\u00ebsore. Gjykata e Rrethit Gjyq\u00ebsor Tiran\u00eb, me vendimin nr. 9195, dat\u00eb 08.10.2012, ndryshoi mas\u00ebn e gjob\u00ebs, duke e ulur at\u00eb n\u00eb 300 000 lek\u00eb. Pas ankimit t\u00eb organit tatimor, Gjykata Administrative e Apelit, me vendimin nr. 2062, dat\u00eb 26.05.2014, prishi k\u00ebt\u00eb vendim dhe e ktheu \u00e7\u00ebshtjen p\u00ebr rigjykim n\u00eb gjykat\u00ebn e shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb. N\u00eb rigjykim, Gjykata Administrative e Shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb Par\u00eb Tiran\u00eb, me vendimin nr. 318, dat\u00eb 02.02.2015, e pranoi pjes\u00ebrisht padin\u00eb dhe p\u00ebrs\u00ebri e uli gjob\u00ebn n\u00eb 300 000 lek\u00eb. Sipas k\u00ebsaj gjykate, b\u00ebhej fjal\u00eb p\u00ebr nj\u00eb shkelje t\u00eb konstatuar dhe, p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye, gjoba nuk mund t\u00eb caktohej n\u00eb nj\u00eb shum\u00eb m\u00eb t\u00eb madhe se 300 000 lek\u00eb. Gjykata Administrative e Apelit, me vendimin nr. 3014, dat\u00eb 28.06.2017, ndryshoi k\u00ebt\u00eb vendim dhe rr\u00ebzoi padin\u00eb. Sipas saj, organi tatimor kishte vepruar drejt duke vendosur mas\u00ebn prej 300 000 lek\u00ebsh p\u00ebr \u00e7do tavolin\u00eb, duke e \u00e7uar gjob\u00ebn n\u00eb total n\u00eb 30 000 000 lek\u00eb. Subjekti paraqiti rekurs n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn e Lart\u00eb. Kolegji Administrativ i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, me vendimin nr. 00-2025-13, dat\u00eb 14.01.2025, vendosi mospranimin e rekursit, me arsyetimin se nuk p\u00ebrmbushte k\u00ebrkesat e nenit 58 t\u00eb ligjit nr. 49\/2012 \u201cP\u00ebr gjykatat administrative dhe gjykimin e mosmarr\u00ebveshjeve administrative\u201d, t\u00eb ndryshuar. Vendimi V-14\/26 \u2022 Gjykata Kushtetuese \u2022 Neni 41 & 42 i Kushtetut\u00ebs \u2022 Neni 1 i Protokollit nr. 1 t\u00eb KEDNJ-s\u00eb \u2022 Parimi i Subsidiaritetit Ankimi kushtetues Pas vendimit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, subjekti iu drejtua Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese me ankim kushtetues individual. N\u00eb themel, pretendimet lidheshin me t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr nj\u00eb proces t\u00eb rregullt ligjor, parimin e siguris\u00eb juridike, standardin e arsyetimit t\u00eb vendimit gjyq\u00ebsor, parimin e barazis\u00eb p\u00ebrpara ligjit dhe t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e pron\u00ebs. Sipas k\u00ebrkuesit, Gjykata e Lart\u00eb nuk kishte dh\u00ebn\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje p\u00ebr pretendimet e ngritura n\u00eb rekurs lidhur me zbatimin e gabuar t\u00eb ligjit material dhe me q\u00ebndrimet e ndryshme t\u00eb gjykatave n\u00eb lidhje me interpretimin e nenit 122 t\u00eb ligjit p\u00ebr procedurat tatimore. Gjithashtu, k\u00ebrkuesi pretendoi se Gjykata e Lart\u00eb kishte mbajtur nj\u00eb q\u00ebndrim t\u00eb ndrysh\u00ebm nga ai i mbajtur n\u00eb raste t\u00eb tjera t\u00eb ngjashme dhe se kjo kishte sjell\u00eb nj\u00eb pozit\u00eb t\u00eb ndryshme n\u00eb raport me subjekte t\u00eb tjera. N\u00eb lidhje me t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e pron\u00ebs, pretendimi ishte se m\u00ebnyra e zbatimit t\u00eb dispozit\u00ebs tatimore kishte sjell\u00eb nj\u00eb gjob\u00eb n\u00eb nj\u00eb vler\u00eb tep\u00ebr t\u00eb lart\u00eb dhe se Gjykata e Lart\u00eb nuk kishte dh\u00ebn\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje p\u00ebrfundimtare mbi k\u00ebt\u00eb problem. E drejta e pron\u00ebs dhe gjobat tatimore Nj\u00eb nga \u00e7\u00ebshtjet paraprake q\u00eb Gjykata Kushtetuese shqyrtoi ishte n\u00ebse nj\u00eb gjob\u00eb tatimore mund t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshihej n\u00eb konceptin kushtetues t\u00eb pron\u00ebs. Gjykata iu referua jurisprudenc\u00ebs s\u00eb saj t\u00eb m\u00ebparshme dhe theksoi se e drejta kushtetuese e pron\u00ebs private p\u00ebrfshin posedimet dhe t\u00eb drejtat e tjera materiale pasurore. N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb kuptim, Gjykata ka pranuar se edhe gjoba e caktuar p\u00ebr shkelje tatimore \u00ebsht\u00eb pjes\u00eb e konceptit kushtetues t\u00eb pron\u00ebs private, pasi pagesa e nj\u00eb shume t\u00eb caktuar parash, q\u00eb p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebson mas\u00ebn e gjob\u00ebs, merret nga pasuria e subjektit. P\u00ebr rrjedhoj\u00eb, shlyerja e nj\u00eb gjobe administrative kufizon t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e garantuar nga neni 41 i Kushtetut\u00ebs. Gjykata rr\u00ebzoi k\u00ebshtu edhe prap\u00ebsimin e Avokatur\u00ebs s\u00eb Shtetit se mosmarr\u00ebveshjet tatimore nuk duhej t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshiheshin n\u00eb konceptin e s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb pron\u00ebs. N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb pik\u00eb, Gjykata iu referua edhe jurisprudenc\u00ebs s\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Evropiane p\u00ebr t\u00eb Drejtat e Njeriut dhe vuri n\u00eb dukje se, ndryshe nga sa ishte pretenduar nga Avokatura e Shtetit, GJDBE (GJEDNJ) ka pohuar se detyrimet tatimore mbrohen nga neni 1 i Protokollit nr. 1, edhe pse ato nuk p\u00ebrfshihen n\u00eb fush\u00ebn e t\u00eb drejtave dhe detyrimeve civile t\u00eb nenit 6, paragrafi 1, t\u00eb KEDNJ-s\u00eb. N\u00eb vendim referohet \u00e7\u00ebshtja Polimerkonteyner, Tov kund\u00ebr Ukrain\u00ebs, dat\u00eb 24.11.2016, \u00a7\u00a7 22-25. P\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye, Gjykata e analizoi \u00e7\u00ebshtjen n\u00eb k\u00ebndv\u00ebshtrimin e nenit 42 t\u00eb Kushtetut\u00ebs, duke e lidhur t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e pron\u00ebs me t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr nj\u00eb proces t\u00eb rregullt ligjor. Standardi i arsyetimit t\u00eb vendimit gjyq\u00ebsor Gjykata Kushtetuese theksoi\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-25T08:09:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-08-25T08:19:55+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=\"15 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-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Stafi\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90\"},\"headline\":\"Vendimi nr. 14, dat\u00eb 17.02.2026 (V-14\\\/26)\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-25T08:09:17+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-25T08:19:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3442,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"articleSection\":[\"News\"],\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\\\/\",\"name\":\"Vendimi nr. 14, dat\u00eb 17.02.2026 (V-14\\\/26) - Petani Law Firm\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-25T08:09:17+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-25T08:19:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\\\/#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-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vendimi nr. 14, dat\u00eb 17.02.2026 (V-14\\\/26)\"}]},{\"@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 SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vendimi nr. 14, dat\u00eb 17.02.2026 (V-14\/26) - 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-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\/","og_locale":"it_IT","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vendimi nr. 14, dat\u00eb 17.02.2026 (V-14\/26) - Petani Law Firm","og_description":"Vendimi V-14\/26 i Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese: E drejta e pron\u00ebs dhe standardi i arsyetimit n\u00eb gjobat tatimoreConstitutional Court Decision V-14\/26: Property Rights and Reasoned Decisions in Tax FinesDecisione V-14\/26 della Corte Costituzionale: Diritto di propriet\u00e0 e motivazione nelle sanzioni fiscali | Petani Law & Tax E Drejt\u00eb Kushtetuese & Tatimore \u2022 Jurisprudenc\u00ebConstitutional & Tax Law \u2022 JurisprudenceDiritto Costituzionale & Fiscale \u2022 Giurisprudenza Vendimi nr. 14\/2026 i Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese: E drejta e pron\u00ebs dhe standardi i arsyetimitConstitutional Court Decision No. 14\/2026: Property Rights & Reasoned DecisionsDecisione n. 14\/2026 della Corte Costituzionale: Diritto di propriet\u00e0 e motivazione Gjoba tatimore 30 000 000 lek\u00eb dhe kontrolli kushtetues mbi vendimmarrjen e Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb Vendimi nr. 14, dat\u00eb 17.02.2026 (V-14\/26), i Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese merr nj\u00eb dimension m\u00eb t\u00eb gjer\u00eb, t\u00eb lidhur me t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e pron\u00ebs, standardin e arsyetimit t\u00eb vendimit gjyq\u00ebsor dhe raportin nd\u00ebrmjet interesit publik p\u00ebr mbrojtjen e sistemit tatimor dhe barr\u00ebs financiare q\u00eb i vendoset subjektit. \u00c7\u00ebshtja kishte n\u00eb qend\u00ebr nj\u00eb gjob\u00eb tatimore n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 30 000 000 lek\u00eb, t\u00eb vendosur p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb mosl\u00ebshimit t\u00eb kupon\u00ebve tatimor\u00eb. Debati ligjor lidhej me m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn e interpretimit dhe zbatimit t\u00eb nenit 122, shkronja \u201cb\u201d, n\u00ebnparagrafi \u201cii\u201d, t\u00eb ligjit nr. 9920, dat\u00eb 19.05.2008 \u201cP\u00ebr procedurat tatimore n\u00eb Republik\u00ebn e Shqip\u00ebris\u00eb\u201d, t\u00eb ndryshuar. Gjykata Kushtetuese nuk e shqyrtoi \u00e7\u00ebshtjen si nj\u00eb gjykat\u00eb q\u00eb duhet t\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktoj\u00eb vet\u00eb mas\u00ebn konkrete t\u00eb gjob\u00ebs. Thelbi i kontrollit kushtetues ishte n\u00ebse, n\u00eb rrethanat konkrete t\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjes, Gjykata e Lart\u00eb kishte p\u00ebrmbushur standardin kushtetues t\u00eb arsyetimit, n\u00eb ve\u00e7anti p\u00ebr pretendimin q\u00eb lidhej me m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn e zbatimit t\u00eb ligjit dhe me pasoj\u00ebn financiare t\u00eb k\u00ebsaj m\u00ebnyre zbatimi. Rrethanat e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes Subjekti k\u00ebrkues ushtronte aktivitetin tregtar \u201cbar-kafe\u201d n\u00eb Tiran\u00eb. N\u00eb dat\u00ebn 31.07.2011, organet tatimore ushtruan kontroll n\u00eb ambientet e tij dhe konstatuan se sh\u00ebrbimi ofrohej p\u00ebr 100 tavolina dhe se p\u00ebr to nuk ishin prer\u00eb kupon\u00ebt tatimor\u00eb. Mbi baz\u00ebn e nenit 122, shkronja \u201cb\u201d, n\u00ebnparagrafi \u201cii\u201d, t\u00eb ligjit p\u00ebr procedurat tatimore, organet tatimore vendos\u00ebn nj\u00eb gjob\u00eb prej 30 000 000 lek\u00ebsh, e llogaritur me mas\u00ebn prej 300 000 lek\u00ebsh p\u00ebr secil\u00ebn tavolin\u00eb. Subjekti e kund\u00ebrshtoi mas\u00ebn e gjob\u00ebs fillimisht n\u00eb rrug\u00eb administrative dhe m\u00eb pas n\u00eb rrug\u00eb gjyq\u00ebsore. Gjykata e Rrethit Gjyq\u00ebsor Tiran\u00eb, me vendimin nr. 9195, dat\u00eb 08.10.2012, ndryshoi mas\u00ebn e gjob\u00ebs, duke e ulur at\u00eb n\u00eb 300 000 lek\u00eb. Pas ankimit t\u00eb organit tatimor, Gjykata Administrative e Apelit, me vendimin nr. 2062, dat\u00eb 26.05.2014, prishi k\u00ebt\u00eb vendim dhe e ktheu \u00e7\u00ebshtjen p\u00ebr rigjykim n\u00eb gjykat\u00ebn e shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb. N\u00eb rigjykim, Gjykata Administrative e Shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb Par\u00eb Tiran\u00eb, me vendimin nr. 318, dat\u00eb 02.02.2015, e pranoi pjes\u00ebrisht padin\u00eb dhe p\u00ebrs\u00ebri e uli gjob\u00ebn n\u00eb 300 000 lek\u00eb. Sipas k\u00ebsaj gjykate, b\u00ebhej fjal\u00eb p\u00ebr nj\u00eb shkelje t\u00eb konstatuar dhe, p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye, gjoba nuk mund t\u00eb caktohej n\u00eb nj\u00eb shum\u00eb m\u00eb t\u00eb madhe se 300 000 lek\u00eb. Gjykata Administrative e Apelit, me vendimin nr. 3014, dat\u00eb 28.06.2017, ndryshoi k\u00ebt\u00eb vendim dhe rr\u00ebzoi padin\u00eb. Sipas saj, organi tatimor kishte vepruar drejt duke vendosur mas\u00ebn prej 300 000 lek\u00ebsh p\u00ebr \u00e7do tavolin\u00eb, duke e \u00e7uar gjob\u00ebn n\u00eb total n\u00eb 30 000 000 lek\u00eb. Subjekti paraqiti rekurs n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn e Lart\u00eb. Kolegji Administrativ i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, me vendimin nr. 00-2025-13, dat\u00eb 14.01.2025, vendosi mospranimin e rekursit, me arsyetimin se nuk p\u00ebrmbushte k\u00ebrkesat e nenit 58 t\u00eb ligjit nr. 49\/2012 \u201cP\u00ebr gjykatat administrative dhe gjykimin e mosmarr\u00ebveshjeve administrative\u201d, t\u00eb ndryshuar. Vendimi V-14\/26 \u2022 Gjykata Kushtetuese \u2022 Neni 41 & 42 i Kushtetut\u00ebs \u2022 Neni 1 i Protokollit nr. 1 t\u00eb KEDNJ-s\u00eb \u2022 Parimi i Subsidiaritetit Ankimi kushtetues Pas vendimit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, subjekti iu drejtua Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese me ankim kushtetues individual. N\u00eb themel, pretendimet lidheshin me t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr nj\u00eb proces t\u00eb rregullt ligjor, parimin e siguris\u00eb juridike, standardin e arsyetimit t\u00eb vendimit gjyq\u00ebsor, parimin e barazis\u00eb p\u00ebrpara ligjit dhe t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e pron\u00ebs. Sipas k\u00ebrkuesit, Gjykata e Lart\u00eb nuk kishte dh\u00ebn\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje p\u00ebr pretendimet e ngritura n\u00eb rekurs lidhur me zbatimin e gabuar t\u00eb ligjit material dhe me q\u00ebndrimet e ndryshme t\u00eb gjykatave n\u00eb lidhje me interpretimin e nenit 122 t\u00eb ligjit p\u00ebr procedurat tatimore. Gjithashtu, k\u00ebrkuesi pretendoi se Gjykata e Lart\u00eb kishte mbajtur nj\u00eb q\u00ebndrim t\u00eb ndrysh\u00ebm nga ai i mbajtur n\u00eb raste t\u00eb tjera t\u00eb ngjashme dhe se kjo kishte sjell\u00eb nj\u00eb pozit\u00eb t\u00eb ndryshme n\u00eb raport me subjekte t\u00eb tjera. N\u00eb lidhje me t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e pron\u00ebs, pretendimi ishte se m\u00ebnyra e zbatimit t\u00eb dispozit\u00ebs tatimore kishte sjell\u00eb nj\u00eb gjob\u00eb n\u00eb nj\u00eb vler\u00eb tep\u00ebr t\u00eb lart\u00eb dhe se Gjykata e Lart\u00eb nuk kishte dh\u00ebn\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje p\u00ebrfundimtare mbi k\u00ebt\u00eb problem. E drejta e pron\u00ebs dhe gjobat tatimore Nj\u00eb nga \u00e7\u00ebshtjet paraprake q\u00eb Gjykata Kushtetuese shqyrtoi ishte n\u00ebse nj\u00eb gjob\u00eb tatimore mund t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshihej n\u00eb konceptin kushtetues t\u00eb pron\u00ebs. Gjykata iu referua jurisprudenc\u00ebs s\u00eb saj t\u00eb m\u00ebparshme dhe theksoi se e drejta kushtetuese e pron\u00ebs private p\u00ebrfshin posedimet dhe t\u00eb drejtat e tjera materiale pasurore. N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb kuptim, Gjykata ka pranuar se edhe gjoba e caktuar p\u00ebr shkelje tatimore \u00ebsht\u00eb pjes\u00eb e konceptit kushtetues t\u00eb pron\u00ebs private, pasi pagesa e nj\u00eb shume t\u00eb caktuar parash, q\u00eb p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebson mas\u00ebn e gjob\u00ebs, merret nga pasuria e subjektit. P\u00ebr rrjedhoj\u00eb, shlyerja e nj\u00eb gjobe administrative kufizon t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e garantuar nga neni 41 i Kushtetut\u00ebs. Gjykata rr\u00ebzoi k\u00ebshtu edhe prap\u00ebsimin e Avokatur\u00ebs s\u00eb Shtetit se mosmarr\u00ebveshjet tatimore nuk duhej t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshiheshin n\u00eb konceptin e s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb pron\u00ebs. N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb pik\u00eb, Gjykata iu referua edhe jurisprudenc\u00ebs s\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Evropiane p\u00ebr t\u00eb Drejtat e Njeriut dhe vuri n\u00eb dukje se, ndryshe nga sa ishte pretenduar nga Avokatura e Shtetit, GJDBE (GJEDNJ) ka pohuar se detyrimet tatimore mbrohen nga neni 1 i Protokollit nr. 1, edhe pse ato nuk p\u00ebrfshihen n\u00eb fush\u00ebn e t\u00eb drejtave dhe detyrimeve civile t\u00eb nenit 6, paragrafi 1, t\u00eb KEDNJ-s\u00eb. N\u00eb vendim referohet \u00e7\u00ebshtja Polimerkonteyner, Tov kund\u00ebr Ukrain\u00ebs, dat\u00eb 24.11.2016, \u00a7\u00a7 22-25. P\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye, Gjykata e analizoi \u00e7\u00ebshtjen n\u00eb k\u00ebndv\u00ebshtrimin e nenit 42 t\u00eb Kushtetut\u00ebs, duke e lidhur t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e pron\u00ebs me t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr nj\u00eb proces t\u00eb rregullt ligjor. Standardi i arsyetimit t\u00eb vendimit gjyq\u00ebsor Gjykata Kushtetuese theksoi","og_url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\/","og_site_name":"Petani Law Firm","article_published_time":"2026-08-25T08:09:17+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-08-25T08:19:55+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":"15 minuti"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\/"},"author":{"name":"Stafi","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/person\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90"},"headline":"Vendimi nr. 14, dat\u00eb 17.02.2026 (V-14\/26)","datePublished":"2026-08-25T08:09:17+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-25T08:19:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\/"},"wordCount":3442,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","articleSection":["News"],"inLanguage":"it-IT","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\/","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\/","name":"Vendimi nr. 14, dat\u00eb 17.02.2026 (V-14\/26) - Petani Law Firm","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","datePublished":"2026-08-25T08:09:17+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-25T08:19:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"it-IT","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"it-IT","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\/#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-14-date-17-02-2026-v-14-26\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vendimi nr. 14, dat\u00eb 17.02.2026 (V-14\/26)"}]},{"@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\/4324","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=4324"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4324\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4331,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4324\/revisions\/4331"}],"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=4324"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4324"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4324"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}