Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255) - 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\/5669619\/pexels-photo-5669619.jpeg\" alt=\"Drejt\u00ebsia Penale\" 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. 00-2025-1613 (255)<\/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. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 i Kolegjit Penal<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje parimore t\u00eb s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs procedurale penale, Kolegji Penal i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb (KPGJL) ka interpretuar me r\u00ebnd\u00ebsi t\u00eb ve\u00e7ant\u00eb raportin midis p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsis\u00eb penale t\u00eb personave juridik\u00eb dhe t\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb tyre p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrfituar nga ritet e posa\u00e7me t\u00eb gjykimit, konkretisht gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar, duke garantuar parimet kushtetuese t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rregullt ligjor dhe barazis\u00eb p\u00ebrpara ligjit.<\/p>\r\n\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-6 text-[var(--gold-light)]\">Maksimat e vendimit (Holdings)<\/h3>\r\n <div class=\"space-y-6\">\r\n <div>\r\n <span class=\"inline-block bg-[var(--gold)] text-white text-xs px-2 py-1 rounded font-bold mb-2\">1<\/span>\r\n <p class=\"text-white italic\">\"Personi juridik n\u00eb cil\u00ebsin\u00eb e t\u00eb pandehurit nuk p\u00ebrjashtohet nga e drejta p\u00ebr t\u00eb k\u00ebrkuar gjykimin e shkurtuar. Pamund\u00ebsia e aplikimit \u201cmatematik\u201d t\u00eb zbritjes s\u00eb 1\/3 t\u00eb d\u00ebnimit n\u00eb rastin e sanksionit t\u00eb \u201cmbarimit t\u00eb personit juridik\u201d nuk p\u00ebrb\u00ebn arsye ndalimi p\u00ebr aksesin n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rit gjykimi.\"<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <hr class=\"border-[var(--gold)]\/30\">\r\n <div>\r\n <span class=\"inline-block bg-[var(--gold)] text-white text-xs px-2 py-1 rounded font-bold mb-2\">2<\/span>\r\n <p class=\"text-white italic\">\"Disponimi i gjyqtarit t\u00eb seanc\u00ebs paraprake p\u00ebr pranimin e gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar, kur nuk ankimohet nga pal\u00ebt, merr form\u00eb t\u00eb prer\u00eb dhe nuk mund t\u00eb zhb\u00ebhet kryesisht nga gjykata e apelit n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00eb shkaku ankimi q\u00eb konteston ligjshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e tij.\"<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-4\">P\u00ebrmbledhje e rrethanave t\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjes<\/h3>\r\n <p>N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, u shqyrtuan rekurset e paraqitura nga disa t\u00eb pandehur (persona fizik\u00eb) dhe nga shoq\u00ebri (persona juridik\u00eb), si edhe rekursi i Prokuroris\u00eb s\u00eb Posa\u00e7me, kund\u00ebr vendimit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Posa\u00e7me t\u00eb Apelit p\u00ebr Korrupsionin dhe Krimin e Organizuar. Kjo e fundit kishte prishur vendimin e gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb dhe kishte kthyer \u00e7\u00ebshtjen p\u00ebr rishqyrtim, duke e konsideruar vendimmarrjen e k\u00ebsaj t\u00eb fundit absolutisht t\u00eb pavlefshme p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb aplikimit t\u00eb ritit t\u00eb gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar edhe ndaj personave juridik\u00eb.<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p>KPGJL vler\u00ebsoi se gjykata e apelit kishte zbatuar gabim ligjin procedural penal, pasi kuadri ligjor p\u00ebr p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsin\u00eb penale t\u00eb personave juridik\u00eb nuk ndalon aksesin e tyre n\u00eb gjykimin e shkurtuar. Sipas Kolegjit, fakti q\u00eb ndaj personit juridik mund t\u00eb caktohet si d\u00ebnim \u201cmbarimi i personit juridik\u201d dhe q\u00eb ndaj k\u00ebtij sanksioni nuk mund t\u00eb zbatohet matematikisht zbritja 1\/3 e d\u00ebnimit, nuk p\u00ebrb\u00ebn arsye p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtuar apriori k\u00ebto subjekte nga gjykimi i shkurtuar. Nj\u00eb interpretim i till\u00eb cenon parimet e barazis\u00eb p\u00ebrpara ligjit, t\u00eb siguris\u00eb juridike dhe t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rregullt ligjor.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>Gjithashtu, Kolegji theksoi se vendimi i gjyqtarit t\u00eb seanc\u00ebs paraprake p\u00ebr pranimin e gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar nuk ishte ankimuar nga pal\u00ebt dhe, p\u00ebr pasoj\u00eb, kishte marr\u00eb form\u00eb t\u00eb prer\u00eb, duke penguar nd\u00ebrhyrjen kryesisht t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit, n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00eb shkaku t\u00eb posa\u00e7\u00ebm ankimi q\u00eb t\u00eb kontestonte k\u00ebt\u00eb disponim. N\u00eb k\u00ebto kushte, mekanizmat procedural\u00eb t\u00eb shtrirjes s\u00eb efektit t\u00eb ankimit t\u00eb bashk\u00ebt\u00ebpandehurit nuk mund t\u00eb sh\u00ebrbenin p\u00ebr t\u00eb kap\u00ebrcyer efektin e \u201cgj\u00ebs\u00eb s\u00eb gjykuar\u201d. P\u00ebr k\u00ebto arsye, Kolegji Penal konkludoi se vendimi i gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit ishte rezultat i zbatimit t\u00eb gabuar t\u00eb ligjit procedural dhe vendosi prishjen e tij dhe kthimin e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes p\u00ebr rishqyrtim n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn gjykat\u00eb, me tjet\u00ebr trup gjykues.<\/p>\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. 00-2025-1613 (255), dated 21.10.2025 of the Criminal College<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">In this fundamental criminal procedural law case, the Criminal College of the Supreme Court analyzed the relationship between the criminal liability of legal entities and their right to benefit from special proceedings, specifically summary trial, guaranteeing the constitutional principles of due process and equality before the law.<\/p>\r\n\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-6 text-[var(--gold-light)]\">Key Holdings<\/h3>\r\n <div class=\"space-y-6\">\r\n <div>\r\n <span class=\"inline-block bg-[var(--gold)] text-white text-xs px-2 py-1 rounded font-bold mb-2\">1<\/span>\r\n <p class=\"text-white italic\">\"A legal entity acting as a defendant is not excluded from the right to request a summary trial. The impossibility of a 'mathematical' application of the 1\/3 sentence reduction in the case of the sanction of 'dissolution of the legal entity' does not constitute a ground for prohibiting access to this trial procedure.\"<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <hr class=\"border-[var(--gold)]\/30\">\r\n <div>\r\n <span class=\"inline-block bg-[var(--gold)] text-white text-xs px-2 py-1 rounded font-bold mb-2\">2<\/span>\r\n <p class=\"text-white italic\">\"The ruling of the preliminary hearing judge accepting the request for a summary trial, when not appealed by the parties, becomes final and cannot be overturned sua sponte by the court of appeal in the absence of a specific ground of appeal contesting its legality.\"<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-4\">Case Summary<\/h3>\r\n <p>In this matter, the court examined the appeals filed by several defendants (natural persons) and corporate entities (legal entities), as well as the appeal of the Special Prosecution Office, against the decision of the Special Court of Appeal against Corruption and Organized Crime. The appellate court had overturned the first-instance court's decision and remanded the case for retrial, ruling that the trial court's decision was absolutely invalid due to the application of the summary trial procedure to legal entities.<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p>The Criminal College determined that the court of appeal had misapplied criminal procedural law, as the legal framework governing the criminal liability of legal entities does not bar them from accessing summary trials. According to the College, the fact that a legal entity might be sentenced to \"dissolution of the entity,\" a sanction to which a 1\/3 sentence reduction cannot be mathematically applied, is not a ground to exclude these entities *a priori* from a summary trial. Such an restrictive interpretation violates the principles of equality before the law, legal certainty, and due process of law.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>Furthermore, the College emphasized that the decision of the preliminary hearing judge to grant the summary trial had not been appealed by the parties and, consequently, became final (*res judicata*). This barred the court of appeal from intervening *sua sponte* in the absence of an explicit ground of appeal challenging that ruling. Under these conditions, the procedural mechanisms for extending the scope of a co-defendant's appeal could not be used to bypass the finality of the decision. Therefore, the Criminal College concluded that the appellate court's decision resulted from a misapplication of procedural law, ordered its reversal, and remanded the case for retrial to the same court with a different judicial panel.<\/p>\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. 00-2025-1613 (255), del 21.10.2025 del Collegio Penale<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">In questo caso di fondamentale importanza per il diritto processuale penale, il Collegio Penale della Corte Suprema ha analizzato la relazione tra la responsabilit\u00e0 penale delle persone giuridiche e il loro diritto di accedere a riti speciali, nello specifico il giudizio abbreviato, a salvaguardia dei principi costituzionali del giusto processo e dell'uguaglianza dinanzi alla legge.<\/p>\r\n\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-6 text-[var(--gold-light)]\">Massime della Decisione<\/h3>\r\n <div class=\"space-y-6\">\r\n <div>\r\n <span class=\"inline-block bg-[var(--gold)] text-white text-xs px-2 py-1 rounded font-bold mb-2\">1<\/span>\r\n <p class=\"text-white italic\">\"La persona giuridica in qualit\u00e0 di imputato non \u00e8 esclusa dal diritto di richiedere il giudizio abbreviato. L'impossibilit\u00e0 di applicare 'matematicamente' la riduzione di 1\/3 della pena nel caso della sanzione dello 'scioglimento della persona giuridica' non costituisce un motivo di preclusione all'accesso a tale rito speciale.\"<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <hr class=\"border-[var(--gold)]\/30\">\r\n <div>\r\n <span class=\"inline-block bg-[var(--gold)] text-white text-xs px-2 py-1 rounded font-bold mb-2\">2<\/span>\r\n <p class=\"text-white italic\">\"Il provvedimento del giudice dell'udienza preliminare di accoglimento del giudizio abbreviato, laddove non impugnato dalle parti, diviene definitivo (passato in giudicato) e non pu\u00f2 essere revocato d'ufficio dalla corte d'appello in assenza di uno specifico motivo d'impugnazione che ne contesti la legittimit\u00e0.\"<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-4\">Sintesi del Caso<\/h3>\r\n <p>Nel caso di specie, sono stati esaminati i ricorsi presentati da diversi imputati (persone fisiche) e societ\u00e0 (persone giuridiche), nonch\u00e9 il ricorso della Procura Speciale, contro la decisione della Corte d'Appello Speciale per la Corruzione e la Criminalit\u00e0 Organizzata. Tale corte aveva annullato la decisione del tribunale di primo grado e rinviato la causa per un nuovo esame, ritenendo la decisione di primo grado assolutamente nulla a causa dell'applicazione del rito del giudizio abbreviato anche alle persone giuridiche.<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p>Il Collegio Penale ha ritenuto che la corte d'appello avesse applicato erroneamente la legge processuale penale, in quanto il quadro normativo sulla responsabilit\u00e0 penale delle persone giuridiche non vieta il loro accesso al giudizio abbreviato. Secondo il Collegio, il fatto che alla persona giuridica possa essere inflitta la sanzione dello \"scioglimento\", a cui non si pu\u00f2 applicare matematicamente la riduzione di un terzo della pena, non costituisce un motivo per escludere a priori tali soggetti dal giudizio abbreviato. Una tale interpretazione restrittiva viola i principi di uguaglianza dinanzi alla legge, di certezza del diritto e del giusto processo.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>Inoltre, il Collegio ha sottolineato che la decisione del giudice dell'udienza preliminare di ammettere il giudizio abbreviato non era stata impugnata dalle parti ed era, di conseguenza, passata in giudicato, impedendo un intervento d'ufficio da parte della corte d'appello in mancanza di uno specifico motivo di gravame. In queste circostanze, i meccanismi processuali di estensione degli effetti dell'impugnazione del coimputato non potevano essere utilizzati per superare l'effetto del giudicato. Di conseguenza, il Collegio Penale ha concluso che la decisione della corte d'appello fosse il risultato di un'errata applicazione della legge processuale, ne ha disposto l'annullamento e ha rinviato il caso per un nuovo esame dinanzi alla medesima corte, in diversa composizione collegiale.<\/p>\r\n <\/article>\r\n <\/main>\r\n\r\n <script>\r\n function switchLang(lang) {\r\n \/\/ Nascondi tutte le sezioni \/ Hide all sections\r\n document.querySelectorAll('.content-section').forEach(s => s.classList.remove('active'));\r\n \/\/ Mostra quella selezionata \/ Show selected\r\n document.getElementById('lang-' + lang).classList.add('active');\r\n \/\/ Aggiorna i pulsanti \/ Update buttons\r\n document.querySelectorAll('.language-btn').forEach(b => b.classList.remove('active'));\r\n document.getElementById('btn-' + lang).classList.add('active');\r\n \/\/ Scroll fluido verso la navigazione \/ Smooth scroll to 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. 00-2025-1613 (255) – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 Kolegji Penal Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255) Sq En It Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 i Kolegjit Penal N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje parimore t\u00eb s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs procedurale penale, Kolegji Penal i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb (KPGJL) ka interpretuar me r\u00ebnd\u00ebsi t\u00eb ve\u00e7ant\u00eb raportin midis p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsis\u00eb penale t\u00eb personave juridik\u00eb dhe t\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb tyre p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrfituar nga ritet e posa\u00e7me t\u00eb gjykimit, konkretisht gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar, duke garantuar parimet kushtetuese t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rregullt ligjor dhe barazis\u00eb p\u00ebrpara ligjit. Maksimat e vendimit (Holdings) 1 “Personi juridik n\u00eb cil\u00ebsin\u00eb e t\u00eb pandehurit nuk p\u00ebrjashtohet nga e drejta p\u00ebr t\u00eb k\u00ebrkuar gjykimin e shkurtuar. Pamund\u00ebsia e aplikimit \u201cmatematik\u201d t\u00eb zbritjes s\u00eb 1\/3 t\u00eb d\u00ebnimit n\u00eb rastin e sanksionit t\u00eb \u201cmbarimit t\u00eb personit juridik\u201d nuk p\u00ebrb\u00ebn arsye ndalimi p\u00ebr aksesin n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rit gjykimi.” 2 “Disponimi i gjyqtarit t\u00eb seanc\u00ebs paraprake p\u00ebr pranimin e gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar, kur nuk ankimohet nga pal\u00ebt, merr form\u00eb t\u00eb prer\u00eb dhe nuk mund t\u00eb zhb\u00ebhet kryesisht nga gjykata e apelit n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00eb shkaku ankimi q\u00eb konteston ligjshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e tij.” P\u00ebrmbledhje e rrethanave t\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjes N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, u shqyrtuan rekurset e paraqitura nga disa t\u00eb pandehur (persona fizik\u00eb) dhe nga shoq\u00ebri (persona juridik\u00eb), si edhe rekursi i Prokuroris\u00eb s\u00eb Posa\u00e7me, kund\u00ebr vendimit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Posa\u00e7me t\u00eb Apelit p\u00ebr Korrupsionin dhe Krimin e Organizuar. Kjo e fundit kishte prishur vendimin e gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb dhe kishte kthyer \u00e7\u00ebshtjen p\u00ebr rishqyrtim, duke e konsideruar vendimmarrjen e k\u00ebsaj t\u00eb fundit absolutisht t\u00eb pavlefshme p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb aplikimit t\u00eb ritit t\u00eb gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar edhe ndaj personave juridik\u00eb. KPGJL vler\u00ebsoi se gjykata e apelit kishte zbatuar gabim ligjin procedural penal, pasi kuadri ligjor p\u00ebr p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsin\u00eb penale t\u00eb personave juridik\u00eb nuk ndalon aksesin e tyre n\u00eb gjykimin e shkurtuar. Sipas Kolegjit, fakti q\u00eb ndaj personit juridik mund t\u00eb caktohet si d\u00ebnim \u201cmbarimi i personit juridik\u201d dhe q\u00eb ndaj k\u00ebtij sanksioni nuk mund t\u00eb zbatohet matematikisht zbritja 1\/3 e d\u00ebnimit, nuk p\u00ebrb\u00ebn arsye p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtuar apriori k\u00ebto subjekte nga gjykimi i shkurtuar. Nj\u00eb interpretim i till\u00eb cenon parimet e barazis\u00eb p\u00ebrpara ligjit, t\u00eb siguris\u00eb juridike dhe t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rregullt ligjor. Gjithashtu, Kolegji theksoi se vendimi i gjyqtarit t\u00eb seanc\u00ebs paraprake p\u00ebr pranimin e gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar nuk ishte ankimuar nga pal\u00ebt dhe, p\u00ebr pasoj\u00eb, kishte marr\u00eb form\u00eb t\u00eb prer\u00eb, duke penguar nd\u00ebrhyrjen kryesisht t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit, n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00eb shkaku t\u00eb posa\u00e7\u00ebm ankimi q\u00eb t\u00eb kontestonte k\u00ebt\u00eb disponim. N\u00eb k\u00ebto kushte, mekanizmat procedural\u00eb t\u00eb shtrirjes s\u00eb efektit t\u00eb ankimit t\u00eb bashk\u00ebt\u00ebpandehurit nuk mund t\u00eb sh\u00ebrbenin p\u00ebr t\u00eb kap\u00ebrcyer efektin e \u201cgj\u00ebs\u00eb s\u00eb gjykuar\u201d. P\u00ebr k\u00ebto arsye, Kolegji Penal konkludoi se vendimi i gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit ishte rezultat i zbatimit t\u00eb gabuar t\u00eb ligjit procedural dhe vendosi prishjen e tij dhe kthimin e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes p\u00ebr rishqyrtim n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn gjykat\u00eb, me tjet\u00ebr trup gjykues. Decision no. 00-2025-1613 (255), dated 21.10.2025 of the Criminal College In this fundamental criminal procedural law case, the Criminal College of the Supreme Court analyzed the relationship between the criminal liability of legal entities and their right to benefit from special proceedings, specifically summary trial, guaranteeing the constitutional principles of due process and equality before the law. Key Holdings 1 “A legal entity acting as a defendant is not excluded from the right to request a summary trial. The impossibility of a ‘mathematical’ application of the 1\/3 sentence reduction in the case of the sanction of ‘dissolution of the legal entity’ does not constitute a ground for prohibiting access to this trial procedure.” 2 “The ruling of the preliminary hearing judge accepting the request for a summary trial, when not appealed by the parties, becomes final and cannot be overturned sua sponte by the court of appeal in the absence of a specific ground of appeal contesting its legality.” Case Summary In this matter, the court examined the appeals filed by several defendants (natural persons) and corporate entities (legal entities), as well as the appeal of the Special Prosecution Office, against the decision of the Special Court of Appeal against Corruption and Organized Crime. The appellate court had overturned the first-instance court’s decision and remanded the case for retrial, ruling that the trial court’s decision was absolutely invalid due to the application of the summary trial procedure to legal entities. The Criminal College determined that the court of appeal had misapplied criminal procedural law, as the legal framework governing the criminal liability of legal entities does not bar them from accessing summary trials. According to the College, the fact that a legal entity might be sentenced to “dissolution of the entity,” a sanction to which a 1\/3 sentence reduction cannot be mathematically applied, is not a ground to exclude these entities *a priori* from a summary trial. Such an restrictive interpretation violates the principles of equality before the law, legal certainty, and due process of law. Furthermore, the College emphasized that the decision of the preliminary hearing judge to grant the summary trial had not been appealed by the parties and, consequently, became final (*res judicata*). This barred the court of appeal from intervening *sua sponte* in the absence of an explicit ground of appeal challenging that ruling. Under these conditions, the procedural mechanisms for extending the scope of a co-defendant’s appeal could not be used to bypass the finality of the decision. Therefore, the Criminal College concluded that the appellate court’s decision resulted from a misapplication of procedural law, ordered its reversal, and remanded the case for retrial to the same court with a different judicial panel. Sentenza n. 00-2025-1613 (255), del 21.10.2025 del Collegio Penale In questo caso di fondamentale importanza per il diritto processuale penale, il Collegio Penale della Corte Suprema ha analizzato la relazione tra la responsabilit\u00e0 penale delle persone giuridiche e il loro diritto di accedere a riti speciali, nello specifico il giudizio abbreviato, a salvaguardia dei principi costituzionali del giusto processo e dell’uguaglianza dinanzi alla legge. Massime della Decisione 1 “La persona giuridica<\/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-4054","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-petani-blog"],"yoast_head":"\n<title>Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 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\/sq\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"sq_AL\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 i Kolegjit Penal - Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255) – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 Kolegji Penal Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255) Sq En It Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 i Kolegjit Penal N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje parimore t\u00eb s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs procedurale penale, Kolegji Penal i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb (KPGJL) ka interpretuar me r\u00ebnd\u00ebsi t\u00eb ve\u00e7ant\u00eb raportin midis p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsis\u00eb penale t\u00eb personave juridik\u00eb dhe t\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb tyre p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrfituar nga ritet e posa\u00e7me t\u00eb gjykimit, konkretisht gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar, duke garantuar parimet kushtetuese t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rregullt ligjor dhe barazis\u00eb p\u00ebrpara ligjit. Maksimat e vendimit (Holdings) 1 “Personi juridik n\u00eb cil\u00ebsin\u00eb e t\u00eb pandehurit nuk p\u00ebrjashtohet nga e drejta p\u00ebr t\u00eb k\u00ebrkuar gjykimin e shkurtuar. Pamund\u00ebsia e aplikimit \u201cmatematik\u201d t\u00eb zbritjes s\u00eb 1\/3 t\u00eb d\u00ebnimit n\u00eb rastin e sanksionit t\u00eb \u201cmbarimit t\u00eb personit juridik\u201d nuk p\u00ebrb\u00ebn arsye ndalimi p\u00ebr aksesin n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rit gjykimi.” 2 “Disponimi i gjyqtarit t\u00eb seanc\u00ebs paraprake p\u00ebr pranimin e gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar, kur nuk ankimohet nga pal\u00ebt, merr form\u00eb t\u00eb prer\u00eb dhe nuk mund t\u00eb zhb\u00ebhet kryesisht nga gjykata e apelit n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00eb shkaku ankimi q\u00eb konteston ligjshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e tij.” P\u00ebrmbledhje e rrethanave t\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjes N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, u shqyrtuan rekurset e paraqitura nga disa t\u00eb pandehur (persona fizik\u00eb) dhe nga shoq\u00ebri (persona juridik\u00eb), si edhe rekursi i Prokuroris\u00eb s\u00eb Posa\u00e7me, kund\u00ebr vendimit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Posa\u00e7me t\u00eb Apelit p\u00ebr Korrupsionin dhe Krimin e Organizuar. Kjo e fundit kishte prishur vendimin e gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb dhe kishte kthyer \u00e7\u00ebshtjen p\u00ebr rishqyrtim, duke e konsideruar vendimmarrjen e k\u00ebsaj t\u00eb fundit absolutisht t\u00eb pavlefshme p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb aplikimit t\u00eb ritit t\u00eb gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar edhe ndaj personave juridik\u00eb. KPGJL vler\u00ebsoi se gjykata e apelit kishte zbatuar gabim ligjin procedural penal, pasi kuadri ligjor p\u00ebr p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsin\u00eb penale t\u00eb personave juridik\u00eb nuk ndalon aksesin e tyre n\u00eb gjykimin e shkurtuar. Sipas Kolegjit, fakti q\u00eb ndaj personit juridik mund t\u00eb caktohet si d\u00ebnim \u201cmbarimi i personit juridik\u201d dhe q\u00eb ndaj k\u00ebtij sanksioni nuk mund t\u00eb zbatohet matematikisht zbritja 1\/3 e d\u00ebnimit, nuk p\u00ebrb\u00ebn arsye p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtuar apriori k\u00ebto subjekte nga gjykimi i shkurtuar. Nj\u00eb interpretim i till\u00eb cenon parimet e barazis\u00eb p\u00ebrpara ligjit, t\u00eb siguris\u00eb juridike dhe t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rregullt ligjor. Gjithashtu, Kolegji theksoi se vendimi i gjyqtarit t\u00eb seanc\u00ebs paraprake p\u00ebr pranimin e gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar nuk ishte ankimuar nga pal\u00ebt dhe, p\u00ebr pasoj\u00eb, kishte marr\u00eb form\u00eb t\u00eb prer\u00eb, duke penguar nd\u00ebrhyrjen kryesisht t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit, n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00eb shkaku t\u00eb posa\u00e7\u00ebm ankimi q\u00eb t\u00eb kontestonte k\u00ebt\u00eb disponim. N\u00eb k\u00ebto kushte, mekanizmat procedural\u00eb t\u00eb shtrirjes s\u00eb efektit t\u00eb ankimit t\u00eb bashk\u00ebt\u00ebpandehurit nuk mund t\u00eb sh\u00ebrbenin p\u00ebr t\u00eb kap\u00ebrcyer efektin e \u201cgj\u00ebs\u00eb s\u00eb gjykuar\u201d. P\u00ebr k\u00ebto arsye, Kolegji Penal konkludoi se vendimi i gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit ishte rezultat i zbatimit t\u00eb gabuar t\u00eb ligjit procedural dhe vendosi prishjen e tij dhe kthimin e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes p\u00ebr rishqyrtim n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn gjykat\u00eb, me tjet\u00ebr trup gjykues. Decision no. 00-2025-1613 (255), dated 21.10.2025 of the Criminal College In this fundamental criminal procedural law case, the Criminal College of the Supreme Court analyzed the relationship between the criminal liability of legal entities and their right to benefit from special proceedings, specifically summary trial, guaranteeing the constitutional principles of due process and equality before the law. Key Holdings 1 “A legal entity acting as a defendant is not excluded from the right to request a summary trial. The impossibility of a ‘mathematical’ application of the 1\/3 sentence reduction in the case of the sanction of ‘dissolution of the legal entity’ does not constitute a ground for prohibiting access to this trial procedure.” 2 “The ruling of the preliminary hearing judge accepting the request for a summary trial, when not appealed by the parties, becomes final and cannot be overturned sua sponte by the court of appeal in the absence of a specific ground of appeal contesting its legality.” Case Summary In this matter, the court examined the appeals filed by several defendants (natural persons) and corporate entities (legal entities), as well as the appeal of the Special Prosecution Office, against the decision of the Special Court of Appeal against Corruption and Organized Crime. The appellate court had overturned the first-instance court’s decision and remanded the case for retrial, ruling that the trial court’s decision was absolutely invalid due to the application of the summary trial procedure to legal entities. The Criminal College determined that the court of appeal had misapplied criminal procedural law, as the legal framework governing the criminal liability of legal entities does not bar them from accessing summary trials. According to the College, the fact that a legal entity might be sentenced to “dissolution of the entity,” a sanction to which a 1\/3 sentence reduction cannot be mathematically applied, is not a ground to exclude these entities *a priori* from a summary trial. Such an restrictive interpretation violates the principles of equality before the law, legal certainty, and due process of law. Furthermore, the College emphasized that the decision of the preliminary hearing judge to grant the summary trial had not been appealed by the parties and, consequently, became final (*res judicata*). This barred the court of appeal from intervening *sua sponte* in the absence of an explicit ground of appeal challenging that ruling. Under these conditions, the procedural mechanisms for extending the scope of a co-defendant’s appeal could not be used to bypass the finality of the decision. Therefore, the Criminal College concluded that the appellate court’s decision resulted from a misapplication of procedural law, ordered its reversal, and remanded the case for retrial to the same court with a different judicial panel. Sentenza n. 00-2025-1613 (255), del 21.10.2025 del Collegio Penale In questo caso di fondamentale importanza per il diritto processuale penale, il Collegio Penale della Corte Suprema ha analizzato la relazione tra la responsabilit\u00e0 penale delle persone giuridiche e il loro diritto di accedere a riti speciali, nello specifico il giudizio abbreviato, a salvaguardia dei principi costituzionali del giusto processo e dell’uguaglianza dinanzi alla legge. Massime della Decisione 1 “La persona giuridica\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-14T07:08:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-14T13:01:15+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=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Stafi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minuta\" \/>\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-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Stafi\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90\"},\"headline\":\"Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 i Kolegjit Penal\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-14T07:08:21+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-14T13:01:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1466,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"articleSection\":[\"Petani Blog\"],\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/\",\"name\":\"Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 i Kolegjit Penal - Petani Law Firm\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-14T07:08:21+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-14T13:01:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-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-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 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\":\"sq\"},{\"@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\":\"sq\",\"@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\":\"sq\",\"@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\\\/sq\\\/author\\\/admin\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 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\/sq\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/","og_locale":"sq_AL","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 i Kolegjit Penal - Petani Law Firm","og_description":"Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255) – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 Kolegji Penal Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255) Sq En It Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 i Kolegjit Penal N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje parimore t\u00eb s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs procedurale penale, Kolegji Penal i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb (KPGJL) ka interpretuar me r\u00ebnd\u00ebsi t\u00eb ve\u00e7ant\u00eb raportin midis p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsis\u00eb penale t\u00eb personave juridik\u00eb dhe t\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb tyre p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrfituar nga ritet e posa\u00e7me t\u00eb gjykimit, konkretisht gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar, duke garantuar parimet kushtetuese t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rregullt ligjor dhe barazis\u00eb p\u00ebrpara ligjit. Maksimat e vendimit (Holdings) 1 “Personi juridik n\u00eb cil\u00ebsin\u00eb e t\u00eb pandehurit nuk p\u00ebrjashtohet nga e drejta p\u00ebr t\u00eb k\u00ebrkuar gjykimin e shkurtuar. Pamund\u00ebsia e aplikimit \u201cmatematik\u201d t\u00eb zbritjes s\u00eb 1\/3 t\u00eb d\u00ebnimit n\u00eb rastin e sanksionit t\u00eb \u201cmbarimit t\u00eb personit juridik\u201d nuk p\u00ebrb\u00ebn arsye ndalimi p\u00ebr aksesin n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rit gjykimi.” 2 “Disponimi i gjyqtarit t\u00eb seanc\u00ebs paraprake p\u00ebr pranimin e gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar, kur nuk ankimohet nga pal\u00ebt, merr form\u00eb t\u00eb prer\u00eb dhe nuk mund t\u00eb zhb\u00ebhet kryesisht nga gjykata e apelit n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00eb shkaku ankimi q\u00eb konteston ligjshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e tij.” P\u00ebrmbledhje e rrethanave t\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjes N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, u shqyrtuan rekurset e paraqitura nga disa t\u00eb pandehur (persona fizik\u00eb) dhe nga shoq\u00ebri (persona juridik\u00eb), si edhe rekursi i Prokuroris\u00eb s\u00eb Posa\u00e7me, kund\u00ebr vendimit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Posa\u00e7me t\u00eb Apelit p\u00ebr Korrupsionin dhe Krimin e Organizuar. Kjo e fundit kishte prishur vendimin e gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb dhe kishte kthyer \u00e7\u00ebshtjen p\u00ebr rishqyrtim, duke e konsideruar vendimmarrjen e k\u00ebsaj t\u00eb fundit absolutisht t\u00eb pavlefshme p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb aplikimit t\u00eb ritit t\u00eb gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar edhe ndaj personave juridik\u00eb. KPGJL vler\u00ebsoi se gjykata e apelit kishte zbatuar gabim ligjin procedural penal, pasi kuadri ligjor p\u00ebr p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsin\u00eb penale t\u00eb personave juridik\u00eb nuk ndalon aksesin e tyre n\u00eb gjykimin e shkurtuar. Sipas Kolegjit, fakti q\u00eb ndaj personit juridik mund t\u00eb caktohet si d\u00ebnim \u201cmbarimi i personit juridik\u201d dhe q\u00eb ndaj k\u00ebtij sanksioni nuk mund t\u00eb zbatohet matematikisht zbritja 1\/3 e d\u00ebnimit, nuk p\u00ebrb\u00ebn arsye p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtuar apriori k\u00ebto subjekte nga gjykimi i shkurtuar. Nj\u00eb interpretim i till\u00eb cenon parimet e barazis\u00eb p\u00ebrpara ligjit, t\u00eb siguris\u00eb juridike dhe t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rregullt ligjor. Gjithashtu, Kolegji theksoi se vendimi i gjyqtarit t\u00eb seanc\u00ebs paraprake p\u00ebr pranimin e gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar nuk ishte ankimuar nga pal\u00ebt dhe, p\u00ebr pasoj\u00eb, kishte marr\u00eb form\u00eb t\u00eb prer\u00eb, duke penguar nd\u00ebrhyrjen kryesisht t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit, n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00eb shkaku t\u00eb posa\u00e7\u00ebm ankimi q\u00eb t\u00eb kontestonte k\u00ebt\u00eb disponim. N\u00eb k\u00ebto kushte, mekanizmat procedural\u00eb t\u00eb shtrirjes s\u00eb efektit t\u00eb ankimit t\u00eb bashk\u00ebt\u00ebpandehurit nuk mund t\u00eb sh\u00ebrbenin p\u00ebr t\u00eb kap\u00ebrcyer efektin e \u201cgj\u00ebs\u00eb s\u00eb gjykuar\u201d. P\u00ebr k\u00ebto arsye, Kolegji Penal konkludoi se vendimi i gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit ishte rezultat i zbatimit t\u00eb gabuar t\u00eb ligjit procedural dhe vendosi prishjen e tij dhe kthimin e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes p\u00ebr rishqyrtim n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn gjykat\u00eb, me tjet\u00ebr trup gjykues. Decision no. 00-2025-1613 (255), dated 21.10.2025 of the Criminal College In this fundamental criminal procedural law case, the Criminal College of the Supreme Court analyzed the relationship between the criminal liability of legal entities and their right to benefit from special proceedings, specifically summary trial, guaranteeing the constitutional principles of due process and equality before the law. Key Holdings 1 “A legal entity acting as a defendant is not excluded from the right to request a summary trial. The impossibility of a ‘mathematical’ application of the 1\/3 sentence reduction in the case of the sanction of ‘dissolution of the legal entity’ does not constitute a ground for prohibiting access to this trial procedure.” 2 “The ruling of the preliminary hearing judge accepting the request for a summary trial, when not appealed by the parties, becomes final and cannot be overturned sua sponte by the court of appeal in the absence of a specific ground of appeal contesting its legality.” Case Summary In this matter, the court examined the appeals filed by several defendants (natural persons) and corporate entities (legal entities), as well as the appeal of the Special Prosecution Office, against the decision of the Special Court of Appeal against Corruption and Organized Crime. The appellate court had overturned the first-instance court’s decision and remanded the case for retrial, ruling that the trial court’s decision was absolutely invalid due to the application of the summary trial procedure to legal entities. The Criminal College determined that the court of appeal had misapplied criminal procedural law, as the legal framework governing the criminal liability of legal entities does not bar them from accessing summary trials. According to the College, the fact that a legal entity might be sentenced to “dissolution of the entity,” a sanction to which a 1\/3 sentence reduction cannot be mathematically applied, is not a ground to exclude these entities *a priori* from a summary trial. Such an restrictive interpretation violates the principles of equality before the law, legal certainty, and due process of law. Furthermore, the College emphasized that the decision of the preliminary hearing judge to grant the summary trial had not been appealed by the parties and, consequently, became final (*res judicata*). This barred the court of appeal from intervening *sua sponte* in the absence of an explicit ground of appeal challenging that ruling. Under these conditions, the procedural mechanisms for extending the scope of a co-defendant’s appeal could not be used to bypass the finality of the decision. Therefore, the Criminal College concluded that the appellate court’s decision resulted from a misapplication of procedural law, ordered its reversal, and remanded the case for retrial to the same court with a different judicial panel. Sentenza n. 00-2025-1613 (255), del 21.10.2025 del Collegio Penale In questo caso di fondamentale importanza per il diritto processuale penale, il Collegio Penale della Corte Suprema ha analizzato la relazione tra la responsabilit\u00e0 penale delle persone giuridiche e il loro diritto di accedere a riti speciali, nello specifico il giudizio abbreviato, a salvaguardia dei principi costituzionali del giusto processo e dell’uguaglianza dinanzi alla legge. Massime della Decisione 1 “La persona giuridica","og_url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/","og_site_name":"Petani Law Firm","article_published_time":"2026-07-14T07:08:21+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-14T13:01:15+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":{"Written by":"Stafi","Est. reading time":"7 minuta"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/"},"author":{"name":"Stafi","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/person\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90"},"headline":"Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 i Kolegjit Penal","datePublished":"2026-07-14T07:08:21+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-14T13:01:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/"},"wordCount":1466,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","articleSection":["Petani Blog"],"inLanguage":"sq","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/","name":"Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 i Kolegjit Penal - Petani Law Firm","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","datePublished":"2026-07-14T07:08:21+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-14T13:01:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"sq","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"sq","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-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-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 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":"sq"},{"@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":"sq","@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":"sq","@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\/sq\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4054","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4054"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4054\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4063,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4054\/revisions\/4063"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3637"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4054"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4054"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4054"}],"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. 00-2025-1613 (255) - 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\/5669619\/pexels-photo-5669619.jpeg\" alt=\"Drejt\u00ebsia Penale\" 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. 00-2025-1613 (255)<\/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. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 i Kolegjit Penal<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje parimore t\u00eb s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs procedurale penale, Kolegji Penal i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb (KPGJL) ka interpretuar me r\u00ebnd\u00ebsi t\u00eb ve\u00e7ant\u00eb raportin midis p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsis\u00eb penale t\u00eb personave juridik\u00eb dhe t\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb tyre p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrfituar nga ritet e posa\u00e7me t\u00eb gjykimit, konkretisht gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar, duke garantuar parimet kushtetuese t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rregullt ligjor dhe barazis\u00eb p\u00ebrpara ligjit.<\/p>\r\n\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-6 text-[var(--gold-light)]\">Maksimat e vendimit (Holdings)<\/h3>\r\n <div class=\"space-y-6\">\r\n <div>\r\n <span class=\"inline-block bg-[var(--gold)] text-white text-xs px-2 py-1 rounded font-bold mb-2\">1<\/span>\r\n <p class=\"text-white italic\">\"Personi juridik n\u00eb cil\u00ebsin\u00eb e t\u00eb pandehurit nuk p\u00ebrjashtohet nga e drejta p\u00ebr t\u00eb k\u00ebrkuar gjykimin e shkurtuar. Pamund\u00ebsia e aplikimit \u201cmatematik\u201d t\u00eb zbritjes s\u00eb 1\/3 t\u00eb d\u00ebnimit n\u00eb rastin e sanksionit t\u00eb \u201cmbarimit t\u00eb personit juridik\u201d nuk p\u00ebrb\u00ebn arsye ndalimi p\u00ebr aksesin n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rit gjykimi.\"<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <hr class=\"border-[var(--gold)]\/30\">\r\n <div>\r\n <span class=\"inline-block bg-[var(--gold)] text-white text-xs px-2 py-1 rounded font-bold mb-2\">2<\/span>\r\n <p class=\"text-white italic\">\"Disponimi i gjyqtarit t\u00eb seanc\u00ebs paraprake p\u00ebr pranimin e gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar, kur nuk ankimohet nga pal\u00ebt, merr form\u00eb t\u00eb prer\u00eb dhe nuk mund t\u00eb zhb\u00ebhet kryesisht nga gjykata e apelit n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00eb shkaku ankimi q\u00eb konteston ligjshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e tij.\"<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-4\">P\u00ebrmbledhje e rrethanave t\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjes<\/h3>\r\n <p>N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, u shqyrtuan rekurset e paraqitura nga disa t\u00eb pandehur (persona fizik\u00eb) dhe nga shoq\u00ebri (persona juridik\u00eb), si edhe rekursi i Prokuroris\u00eb s\u00eb Posa\u00e7me, kund\u00ebr vendimit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Posa\u00e7me t\u00eb Apelit p\u00ebr Korrupsionin dhe Krimin e Organizuar. Kjo e fundit kishte prishur vendimin e gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb dhe kishte kthyer \u00e7\u00ebshtjen p\u00ebr rishqyrtim, duke e konsideruar vendimmarrjen e k\u00ebsaj t\u00eb fundit absolutisht t\u00eb pavlefshme p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb aplikimit t\u00eb ritit t\u00eb gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar edhe ndaj personave juridik\u00eb.<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p>KPGJL vler\u00ebsoi se gjykata e apelit kishte zbatuar gabim ligjin procedural penal, pasi kuadri ligjor p\u00ebr p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsin\u00eb penale t\u00eb personave juridik\u00eb nuk ndalon aksesin e tyre n\u00eb gjykimin e shkurtuar. Sipas Kolegjit, fakti q\u00eb ndaj personit juridik mund t\u00eb caktohet si d\u00ebnim \u201cmbarimi i personit juridik\u201d dhe q\u00eb ndaj k\u00ebtij sanksioni nuk mund t\u00eb zbatohet matematikisht zbritja 1\/3 e d\u00ebnimit, nuk p\u00ebrb\u00ebn arsye p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtuar apriori k\u00ebto subjekte nga gjykimi i shkurtuar. Nj\u00eb interpretim i till\u00eb cenon parimet e barazis\u00eb p\u00ebrpara ligjit, t\u00eb siguris\u00eb juridike dhe t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rregullt ligjor.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>Gjithashtu, Kolegji theksoi se vendimi i gjyqtarit t\u00eb seanc\u00ebs paraprake p\u00ebr pranimin e gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar nuk ishte ankimuar nga pal\u00ebt dhe, p\u00ebr pasoj\u00eb, kishte marr\u00eb form\u00eb t\u00eb prer\u00eb, duke penguar nd\u00ebrhyrjen kryesisht t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit, n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00eb shkaku t\u00eb posa\u00e7\u00ebm ankimi q\u00eb t\u00eb kontestonte k\u00ebt\u00eb disponim. N\u00eb k\u00ebto kushte, mekanizmat procedural\u00eb t\u00eb shtrirjes s\u00eb efektit t\u00eb ankimit t\u00eb bashk\u00ebt\u00ebpandehurit nuk mund t\u00eb sh\u00ebrbenin p\u00ebr t\u00eb kap\u00ebrcyer efektin e \u201cgj\u00ebs\u00eb s\u00eb gjykuar\u201d. P\u00ebr k\u00ebto arsye, Kolegji Penal konkludoi se vendimi i gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit ishte rezultat i zbatimit t\u00eb gabuar t\u00eb ligjit procedural dhe vendosi prishjen e tij dhe kthimin e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes p\u00ebr rishqyrtim n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn gjykat\u00eb, me tjet\u00ebr trup gjykues.<\/p>\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. 00-2025-1613 (255), dated 21.10.2025 of the Criminal College<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">In this fundamental criminal procedural law case, the Criminal College of the Supreme Court analyzed the relationship between the criminal liability of legal entities and their right to benefit from special proceedings, specifically summary trial, guaranteeing the constitutional principles of due process and equality before the law.<\/p>\r\n\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-6 text-[var(--gold-light)]\">Key Holdings<\/h3>\r\n <div class=\"space-y-6\">\r\n <div>\r\n <span class=\"inline-block bg-[var(--gold)] text-white text-xs px-2 py-1 rounded font-bold mb-2\">1<\/span>\r\n <p class=\"text-white italic\">\"A legal entity acting as a defendant is not excluded from the right to request a summary trial. The impossibility of a 'mathematical' application of the 1\/3 sentence reduction in the case of the sanction of 'dissolution of the legal entity' does not constitute a ground for prohibiting access to this trial procedure.\"<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <hr class=\"border-[var(--gold)]\/30\">\r\n <div>\r\n <span class=\"inline-block bg-[var(--gold)] text-white text-xs px-2 py-1 rounded font-bold mb-2\">2<\/span>\r\n <p class=\"text-white italic\">\"The ruling of the preliminary hearing judge accepting the request for a summary trial, when not appealed by the parties, becomes final and cannot be overturned sua sponte by the court of appeal in the absence of a specific ground of appeal contesting its legality.\"<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-4\">Case Summary<\/h3>\r\n <p>In this matter, the court examined the appeals filed by several defendants (natural persons) and corporate entities (legal entities), as well as the appeal of the Special Prosecution Office, against the decision of the Special Court of Appeal against Corruption and Organized Crime. The appellate court had overturned the first-instance court's decision and remanded the case for retrial, ruling that the trial court's decision was absolutely invalid due to the application of the summary trial procedure to legal entities.<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p>The Criminal College determined that the court of appeal had misapplied criminal procedural law, as the legal framework governing the criminal liability of legal entities does not bar them from accessing summary trials. According to the College, the fact that a legal entity might be sentenced to \"dissolution of the entity,\" a sanction to which a 1\/3 sentence reduction cannot be mathematically applied, is not a ground to exclude these entities *a priori* from a summary trial. Such an restrictive interpretation violates the principles of equality before the law, legal certainty, and due process of law.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>Furthermore, the College emphasized that the decision of the preliminary hearing judge to grant the summary trial had not been appealed by the parties and, consequently, became final (*res judicata*). This barred the court of appeal from intervening *sua sponte* in the absence of an explicit ground of appeal challenging that ruling. Under these conditions, the procedural mechanisms for extending the scope of a co-defendant's appeal could not be used to bypass the finality of the decision. Therefore, the Criminal College concluded that the appellate court's decision resulted from a misapplication of procedural law, ordered its reversal, and remanded the case for retrial to the same court with a different judicial panel.<\/p>\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. 00-2025-1613 (255), del 21.10.2025 del Collegio Penale<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">In questo caso di fondamentale importanza per il diritto processuale penale, il Collegio Penale della Corte Suprema ha analizzato la relazione tra la responsabilit\u00e0 penale delle persone giuridiche e il loro diritto di accedere a riti speciali, nello specifico il giudizio abbreviato, a salvaguardia dei principi costituzionali del giusto processo e dell'uguaglianza dinanzi alla legge.<\/p>\r\n\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-6 text-[var(--gold-light)]\">Massime della Decisione<\/h3>\r\n <div class=\"space-y-6\">\r\n <div>\r\n <span class=\"inline-block bg-[var(--gold)] text-white text-xs px-2 py-1 rounded font-bold mb-2\">1<\/span>\r\n <p class=\"text-white italic\">\"La persona giuridica in qualit\u00e0 di imputato non \u00e8 esclusa dal diritto di richiedere il giudizio abbreviato. L'impossibilit\u00e0 di applicare 'matematicamente' la riduzione di 1\/3 della pena nel caso della sanzione dello 'scioglimento della persona giuridica' non costituisce un motivo di preclusione all'accesso a tale rito speciale.\"<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <hr class=\"border-[var(--gold)]\/30\">\r\n <div>\r\n <span class=\"inline-block bg-[var(--gold)] text-white text-xs px-2 py-1 rounded font-bold mb-2\">2<\/span>\r\n <p class=\"text-white italic\">\"Il provvedimento del giudice dell'udienza preliminare di accoglimento del giudizio abbreviato, laddove non impugnato dalle parti, diviene definitivo (passato in giudicato) e non pu\u00f2 essere revocato d'ufficio dalla corte d'appello in assenza di uno specifico motivo d'impugnazione che ne contesti la legittimit\u00e0.\"<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-2xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-4\">Sintesi del Caso<\/h3>\r\n <p>Nel caso di specie, sono stati esaminati i ricorsi presentati da diversi imputati (persone fisiche) e societ\u00e0 (persone giuridiche), nonch\u00e9 il ricorso della Procura Speciale, contro la decisione della Corte d'Appello Speciale per la Corruzione e la Criminalit\u00e0 Organizzata. Tale corte aveva annullato la decisione del tribunale di primo grado e rinviato la causa per un nuovo esame, ritenendo la decisione di primo grado assolutamente nulla a causa dell'applicazione del rito del giudizio abbreviato anche alle persone giuridiche.<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p>Il Collegio Penale ha ritenuto che la corte d'appello avesse applicato erroneamente la legge processuale penale, in quanto il quadro normativo sulla responsabilit\u00e0 penale delle persone giuridiche non vieta il loro accesso al giudizio abbreviato. Secondo il Collegio, il fatto che alla persona giuridica possa essere inflitta la sanzione dello \"scioglimento\", a cui non si pu\u00f2 applicare matematicamente la riduzione di un terzo della pena, non costituisce un motivo per escludere a priori tali soggetti dal giudizio abbreviato. Una tale interpretazione restrittiva viola i principi di uguaglianza dinanzi alla legge, di certezza del diritto e del giusto processo.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p>Inoltre, il Collegio ha sottolineato che la decisione del giudice dell'udienza preliminare di ammettere il giudizio abbreviato non era stata impugnata dalle parti ed era, di conseguenza, passata in giudicato, impedendo un intervento d'ufficio da parte della corte d'appello in mancanza di uno specifico motivo di gravame. In queste circostanze, i meccanismi processuali di estensione degli effetti dell'impugnazione del coimputato non potevano essere utilizzati per superare l'effetto del giudicato. Di conseguenza, il Collegio Penale ha concluso che la decisione della corte d'appello fosse il risultato di un'errata applicazione della legge processuale, ne ha disposto l'annullamento e ha rinviato il caso per un nuovo esame dinanzi alla medesima corte, in diversa composizione collegiale.<\/p>\r\n <\/article>\r\n <\/main>\r\n\r\n <script>\r\n function switchLang(lang) {\r\n \/\/ Nascondi tutte le sezioni \/ Hide all sections\r\n document.querySelectorAll('.content-section').forEach(s => s.classList.remove('active'));\r\n \/\/ Mostra quella selezionata \/ Show selected\r\n document.getElementById('lang-' + lang).classList.add('active');\r\n \/\/ Aggiorna i pulsanti \/ Update buttons\r\n document.querySelectorAll('.language-btn').forEach(b => b.classList.remove('active'));\r\n document.getElementById('btn-' + lang).classList.add('active');\r\n \/\/ Scroll fluido verso la navigazione \/ Smooth scroll to 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. 00-2025-1613 (255) – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 Kolegji Penal Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255) Sq En It Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 i Kolegjit Penal N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje parimore t\u00eb s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs procedurale penale, Kolegji Penal i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb (KPGJL) ka interpretuar me r\u00ebnd\u00ebsi t\u00eb ve\u00e7ant\u00eb raportin midis p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsis\u00eb penale t\u00eb personave juridik\u00eb dhe t\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb tyre p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrfituar nga ritet e posa\u00e7me t\u00eb gjykimit, konkretisht gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar, duke garantuar parimet kushtetuese t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rregullt ligjor dhe barazis\u00eb p\u00ebrpara ligjit. Maksimat e vendimit (Holdings) 1 “Personi juridik n\u00eb cil\u00ebsin\u00eb e t\u00eb pandehurit nuk p\u00ebrjashtohet nga e drejta p\u00ebr t\u00eb k\u00ebrkuar gjykimin e shkurtuar. Pamund\u00ebsia e aplikimit \u201cmatematik\u201d t\u00eb zbritjes s\u00eb 1\/3 t\u00eb d\u00ebnimit n\u00eb rastin e sanksionit t\u00eb \u201cmbarimit t\u00eb personit juridik\u201d nuk p\u00ebrb\u00ebn arsye ndalimi p\u00ebr aksesin n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rit gjykimi.” 2 “Disponimi i gjyqtarit t\u00eb seanc\u00ebs paraprake p\u00ebr pranimin e gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar, kur nuk ankimohet nga pal\u00ebt, merr form\u00eb t\u00eb prer\u00eb dhe nuk mund t\u00eb zhb\u00ebhet kryesisht nga gjykata e apelit n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00eb shkaku ankimi q\u00eb konteston ligjshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e tij.” P\u00ebrmbledhje e rrethanave t\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjes N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, u shqyrtuan rekurset e paraqitura nga disa t\u00eb pandehur (persona fizik\u00eb) dhe nga shoq\u00ebri (persona juridik\u00eb), si edhe rekursi i Prokuroris\u00eb s\u00eb Posa\u00e7me, kund\u00ebr vendimit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Posa\u00e7me t\u00eb Apelit p\u00ebr Korrupsionin dhe Krimin e Organizuar. Kjo e fundit kishte prishur vendimin e gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb dhe kishte kthyer \u00e7\u00ebshtjen p\u00ebr rishqyrtim, duke e konsideruar vendimmarrjen e k\u00ebsaj t\u00eb fundit absolutisht t\u00eb pavlefshme p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb aplikimit t\u00eb ritit t\u00eb gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar edhe ndaj personave juridik\u00eb. KPGJL vler\u00ebsoi se gjykata e apelit kishte zbatuar gabim ligjin procedural penal, pasi kuadri ligjor p\u00ebr p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsin\u00eb penale t\u00eb personave juridik\u00eb nuk ndalon aksesin e tyre n\u00eb gjykimin e shkurtuar. Sipas Kolegjit, fakti q\u00eb ndaj personit juridik mund t\u00eb caktohet si d\u00ebnim \u201cmbarimi i personit juridik\u201d dhe q\u00eb ndaj k\u00ebtij sanksioni nuk mund t\u00eb zbatohet matematikisht zbritja 1\/3 e d\u00ebnimit, nuk p\u00ebrb\u00ebn arsye p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtuar apriori k\u00ebto subjekte nga gjykimi i shkurtuar. Nj\u00eb interpretim i till\u00eb cenon parimet e barazis\u00eb p\u00ebrpara ligjit, t\u00eb siguris\u00eb juridike dhe t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rregullt ligjor. Gjithashtu, Kolegji theksoi se vendimi i gjyqtarit t\u00eb seanc\u00ebs paraprake p\u00ebr pranimin e gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar nuk ishte ankimuar nga pal\u00ebt dhe, p\u00ebr pasoj\u00eb, kishte marr\u00eb form\u00eb t\u00eb prer\u00eb, duke penguar nd\u00ebrhyrjen kryesisht t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit, n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00eb shkaku t\u00eb posa\u00e7\u00ebm ankimi q\u00eb t\u00eb kontestonte k\u00ebt\u00eb disponim. N\u00eb k\u00ebto kushte, mekanizmat procedural\u00eb t\u00eb shtrirjes s\u00eb efektit t\u00eb ankimit t\u00eb bashk\u00ebt\u00ebpandehurit nuk mund t\u00eb sh\u00ebrbenin p\u00ebr t\u00eb kap\u00ebrcyer efektin e \u201cgj\u00ebs\u00eb s\u00eb gjykuar\u201d. P\u00ebr k\u00ebto arsye, Kolegji Penal konkludoi se vendimi i gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit ishte rezultat i zbatimit t\u00eb gabuar t\u00eb ligjit procedural dhe vendosi prishjen e tij dhe kthimin e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes p\u00ebr rishqyrtim n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn gjykat\u00eb, me tjet\u00ebr trup gjykues. Decision no. 00-2025-1613 (255), dated 21.10.2025 of the Criminal College In this fundamental criminal procedural law case, the Criminal College of the Supreme Court analyzed the relationship between the criminal liability of legal entities and their right to benefit from special proceedings, specifically summary trial, guaranteeing the constitutional principles of due process and equality before the law. Key Holdings 1 “A legal entity acting as a defendant is not excluded from the right to request a summary trial. The impossibility of a ‘mathematical’ application of the 1\/3 sentence reduction in the case of the sanction of ‘dissolution of the legal entity’ does not constitute a ground for prohibiting access to this trial procedure.” 2 “The ruling of the preliminary hearing judge accepting the request for a summary trial, when not appealed by the parties, becomes final and cannot be overturned sua sponte by the court of appeal in the absence of a specific ground of appeal contesting its legality.” Case Summary In this matter, the court examined the appeals filed by several defendants (natural persons) and corporate entities (legal entities), as well as the appeal of the Special Prosecution Office, against the decision of the Special Court of Appeal against Corruption and Organized Crime. The appellate court had overturned the first-instance court’s decision and remanded the case for retrial, ruling that the trial court’s decision was absolutely invalid due to the application of the summary trial procedure to legal entities. The Criminal College determined that the court of appeal had misapplied criminal procedural law, as the legal framework governing the criminal liability of legal entities does not bar them from accessing summary trials. According to the College, the fact that a legal entity might be sentenced to “dissolution of the entity,” a sanction to which a 1\/3 sentence reduction cannot be mathematically applied, is not a ground to exclude these entities *a priori* from a summary trial. Such an restrictive interpretation violates the principles of equality before the law, legal certainty, and due process of law. Furthermore, the College emphasized that the decision of the preliminary hearing judge to grant the summary trial had not been appealed by the parties and, consequently, became final (*res judicata*). This barred the court of appeal from intervening *sua sponte* in the absence of an explicit ground of appeal challenging that ruling. Under these conditions, the procedural mechanisms for extending the scope of a co-defendant’s appeal could not be used to bypass the finality of the decision. Therefore, the Criminal College concluded that the appellate court’s decision resulted from a misapplication of procedural law, ordered its reversal, and remanded the case for retrial to the same court with a different judicial panel. Sentenza n. 00-2025-1613 (255), del 21.10.2025 del Collegio Penale In questo caso di fondamentale importanza per il diritto processuale penale, il Collegio Penale della Corte Suprema ha analizzato la relazione tra la responsabilit\u00e0 penale delle persone giuridiche e il loro diritto di accedere a riti speciali, nello specifico il giudizio abbreviato, a salvaguardia dei principi costituzionali del giusto processo e dell’uguaglianza dinanzi alla legge. Massime della Decisione 1 “La persona giuridica<\/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-4054","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-petani-blog"],"yoast_head":"\n<title>Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 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\/sq\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"sq_AL\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 i Kolegjit Penal - Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255) – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 Kolegji Penal Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255) Sq En It Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 i Kolegjit Penal N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje parimore t\u00eb s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs procedurale penale, Kolegji Penal i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb (KPGJL) ka interpretuar me r\u00ebnd\u00ebsi t\u00eb ve\u00e7ant\u00eb raportin midis p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsis\u00eb penale t\u00eb personave juridik\u00eb dhe t\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb tyre p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrfituar nga ritet e posa\u00e7me t\u00eb gjykimit, konkretisht gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar, duke garantuar parimet kushtetuese t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rregullt ligjor dhe barazis\u00eb p\u00ebrpara ligjit. Maksimat e vendimit (Holdings) 1 “Personi juridik n\u00eb cil\u00ebsin\u00eb e t\u00eb pandehurit nuk p\u00ebrjashtohet nga e drejta p\u00ebr t\u00eb k\u00ebrkuar gjykimin e shkurtuar. Pamund\u00ebsia e aplikimit \u201cmatematik\u201d t\u00eb zbritjes s\u00eb 1\/3 t\u00eb d\u00ebnimit n\u00eb rastin e sanksionit t\u00eb \u201cmbarimit t\u00eb personit juridik\u201d nuk p\u00ebrb\u00ebn arsye ndalimi p\u00ebr aksesin n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rit gjykimi.” 2 “Disponimi i gjyqtarit t\u00eb seanc\u00ebs paraprake p\u00ebr pranimin e gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar, kur nuk ankimohet nga pal\u00ebt, merr form\u00eb t\u00eb prer\u00eb dhe nuk mund t\u00eb zhb\u00ebhet kryesisht nga gjykata e apelit n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00eb shkaku ankimi q\u00eb konteston ligjshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e tij.” P\u00ebrmbledhje e rrethanave t\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjes N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, u shqyrtuan rekurset e paraqitura nga disa t\u00eb pandehur (persona fizik\u00eb) dhe nga shoq\u00ebri (persona juridik\u00eb), si edhe rekursi i Prokuroris\u00eb s\u00eb Posa\u00e7me, kund\u00ebr vendimit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Posa\u00e7me t\u00eb Apelit p\u00ebr Korrupsionin dhe Krimin e Organizuar. Kjo e fundit kishte prishur vendimin e gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb dhe kishte kthyer \u00e7\u00ebshtjen p\u00ebr rishqyrtim, duke e konsideruar vendimmarrjen e k\u00ebsaj t\u00eb fundit absolutisht t\u00eb pavlefshme p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb aplikimit t\u00eb ritit t\u00eb gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar edhe ndaj personave juridik\u00eb. KPGJL vler\u00ebsoi se gjykata e apelit kishte zbatuar gabim ligjin procedural penal, pasi kuadri ligjor p\u00ebr p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsin\u00eb penale t\u00eb personave juridik\u00eb nuk ndalon aksesin e tyre n\u00eb gjykimin e shkurtuar. Sipas Kolegjit, fakti q\u00eb ndaj personit juridik mund t\u00eb caktohet si d\u00ebnim \u201cmbarimi i personit juridik\u201d dhe q\u00eb ndaj k\u00ebtij sanksioni nuk mund t\u00eb zbatohet matematikisht zbritja 1\/3 e d\u00ebnimit, nuk p\u00ebrb\u00ebn arsye p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtuar apriori k\u00ebto subjekte nga gjykimi i shkurtuar. Nj\u00eb interpretim i till\u00eb cenon parimet e barazis\u00eb p\u00ebrpara ligjit, t\u00eb siguris\u00eb juridike dhe t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rregullt ligjor. Gjithashtu, Kolegji theksoi se vendimi i gjyqtarit t\u00eb seanc\u00ebs paraprake p\u00ebr pranimin e gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar nuk ishte ankimuar nga pal\u00ebt dhe, p\u00ebr pasoj\u00eb, kishte marr\u00eb form\u00eb t\u00eb prer\u00eb, duke penguar nd\u00ebrhyrjen kryesisht t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit, n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00eb shkaku t\u00eb posa\u00e7\u00ebm ankimi q\u00eb t\u00eb kontestonte k\u00ebt\u00eb disponim. N\u00eb k\u00ebto kushte, mekanizmat procedural\u00eb t\u00eb shtrirjes s\u00eb efektit t\u00eb ankimit t\u00eb bashk\u00ebt\u00ebpandehurit nuk mund t\u00eb sh\u00ebrbenin p\u00ebr t\u00eb kap\u00ebrcyer efektin e \u201cgj\u00ebs\u00eb s\u00eb gjykuar\u201d. P\u00ebr k\u00ebto arsye, Kolegji Penal konkludoi se vendimi i gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit ishte rezultat i zbatimit t\u00eb gabuar t\u00eb ligjit procedural dhe vendosi prishjen e tij dhe kthimin e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes p\u00ebr rishqyrtim n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn gjykat\u00eb, me tjet\u00ebr trup gjykues. Decision no. 00-2025-1613 (255), dated 21.10.2025 of the Criminal College In this fundamental criminal procedural law case, the Criminal College of the Supreme Court analyzed the relationship between the criminal liability of legal entities and their right to benefit from special proceedings, specifically summary trial, guaranteeing the constitutional principles of due process and equality before the law. Key Holdings 1 “A legal entity acting as a defendant is not excluded from the right to request a summary trial. The impossibility of a ‘mathematical’ application of the 1\/3 sentence reduction in the case of the sanction of ‘dissolution of the legal entity’ does not constitute a ground for prohibiting access to this trial procedure.” 2 “The ruling of the preliminary hearing judge accepting the request for a summary trial, when not appealed by the parties, becomes final and cannot be overturned sua sponte by the court of appeal in the absence of a specific ground of appeal contesting its legality.” Case Summary In this matter, the court examined the appeals filed by several defendants (natural persons) and corporate entities (legal entities), as well as the appeal of the Special Prosecution Office, against the decision of the Special Court of Appeal against Corruption and Organized Crime. The appellate court had overturned the first-instance court’s decision and remanded the case for retrial, ruling that the trial court’s decision was absolutely invalid due to the application of the summary trial procedure to legal entities. The Criminal College determined that the court of appeal had misapplied criminal procedural law, as the legal framework governing the criminal liability of legal entities does not bar them from accessing summary trials. According to the College, the fact that a legal entity might be sentenced to “dissolution of the entity,” a sanction to which a 1\/3 sentence reduction cannot be mathematically applied, is not a ground to exclude these entities *a priori* from a summary trial. Such an restrictive interpretation violates the principles of equality before the law, legal certainty, and due process of law. Furthermore, the College emphasized that the decision of the preliminary hearing judge to grant the summary trial had not been appealed by the parties and, consequently, became final (*res judicata*). This barred the court of appeal from intervening *sua sponte* in the absence of an explicit ground of appeal challenging that ruling. Under these conditions, the procedural mechanisms for extending the scope of a co-defendant’s appeal could not be used to bypass the finality of the decision. Therefore, the Criminal College concluded that the appellate court’s decision resulted from a misapplication of procedural law, ordered its reversal, and remanded the case for retrial to the same court with a different judicial panel. Sentenza n. 00-2025-1613 (255), del 21.10.2025 del Collegio Penale In questo caso di fondamentale importanza per il diritto processuale penale, il Collegio Penale della Corte Suprema ha analizzato la relazione tra la responsabilit\u00e0 penale delle persone giuridiche e il loro diritto di accedere a riti speciali, nello specifico il giudizio abbreviato, a salvaguardia dei principi costituzionali del giusto processo e dell’uguaglianza dinanzi alla legge. Massime della Decisione 1 “La persona giuridica\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-14T07:08:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-14T13:01:15+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=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Stafi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minuta\" \/>\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-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Stafi\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90\"},\"headline\":\"Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 i Kolegjit Penal\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-14T07:08:21+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-14T13:01:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1466,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"articleSection\":[\"Petani Blog\"],\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/\",\"name\":\"Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 i Kolegjit Penal - Petani Law Firm\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-14T07:08:21+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-14T13:01:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-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-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 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\":\"sq\"},{\"@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\":\"sq\",\"@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\":\"sq\",\"@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\\\/sq\\\/author\\\/admin\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 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\/sq\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/","og_locale":"sq_AL","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 i Kolegjit Penal - Petani Law Firm","og_description":"Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255) – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 Kolegji Penal Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255) Sq En It Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 i Kolegjit Penal N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje parimore t\u00eb s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs procedurale penale, Kolegji Penal i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb (KPGJL) ka interpretuar me r\u00ebnd\u00ebsi t\u00eb ve\u00e7ant\u00eb raportin midis p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsis\u00eb penale t\u00eb personave juridik\u00eb dhe t\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb tyre p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrfituar nga ritet e posa\u00e7me t\u00eb gjykimit, konkretisht gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar, duke garantuar parimet kushtetuese t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rregullt ligjor dhe barazis\u00eb p\u00ebrpara ligjit. Maksimat e vendimit (Holdings) 1 “Personi juridik n\u00eb cil\u00ebsin\u00eb e t\u00eb pandehurit nuk p\u00ebrjashtohet nga e drejta p\u00ebr t\u00eb k\u00ebrkuar gjykimin e shkurtuar. Pamund\u00ebsia e aplikimit \u201cmatematik\u201d t\u00eb zbritjes s\u00eb 1\/3 t\u00eb d\u00ebnimit n\u00eb rastin e sanksionit t\u00eb \u201cmbarimit t\u00eb personit juridik\u201d nuk p\u00ebrb\u00ebn arsye ndalimi p\u00ebr aksesin n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rit gjykimi.” 2 “Disponimi i gjyqtarit t\u00eb seanc\u00ebs paraprake p\u00ebr pranimin e gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar, kur nuk ankimohet nga pal\u00ebt, merr form\u00eb t\u00eb prer\u00eb dhe nuk mund t\u00eb zhb\u00ebhet kryesisht nga gjykata e apelit n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00eb shkaku ankimi q\u00eb konteston ligjshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e tij.” P\u00ebrmbledhje e rrethanave t\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjes N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, u shqyrtuan rekurset e paraqitura nga disa t\u00eb pandehur (persona fizik\u00eb) dhe nga shoq\u00ebri (persona juridik\u00eb), si edhe rekursi i Prokuroris\u00eb s\u00eb Posa\u00e7me, kund\u00ebr vendimit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Posa\u00e7me t\u00eb Apelit p\u00ebr Korrupsionin dhe Krimin e Organizuar. Kjo e fundit kishte prishur vendimin e gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb dhe kishte kthyer \u00e7\u00ebshtjen p\u00ebr rishqyrtim, duke e konsideruar vendimmarrjen e k\u00ebsaj t\u00eb fundit absolutisht t\u00eb pavlefshme p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb aplikimit t\u00eb ritit t\u00eb gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar edhe ndaj personave juridik\u00eb. KPGJL vler\u00ebsoi se gjykata e apelit kishte zbatuar gabim ligjin procedural penal, pasi kuadri ligjor p\u00ebr p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsin\u00eb penale t\u00eb personave juridik\u00eb nuk ndalon aksesin e tyre n\u00eb gjykimin e shkurtuar. Sipas Kolegjit, fakti q\u00eb ndaj personit juridik mund t\u00eb caktohet si d\u00ebnim \u201cmbarimi i personit juridik\u201d dhe q\u00eb ndaj k\u00ebtij sanksioni nuk mund t\u00eb zbatohet matematikisht zbritja 1\/3 e d\u00ebnimit, nuk p\u00ebrb\u00ebn arsye p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtuar apriori k\u00ebto subjekte nga gjykimi i shkurtuar. Nj\u00eb interpretim i till\u00eb cenon parimet e barazis\u00eb p\u00ebrpara ligjit, t\u00eb siguris\u00eb juridike dhe t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rregullt ligjor. Gjithashtu, Kolegji theksoi se vendimi i gjyqtarit t\u00eb seanc\u00ebs paraprake p\u00ebr pranimin e gjykimit t\u00eb shkurtuar nuk ishte ankimuar nga pal\u00ebt dhe, p\u00ebr pasoj\u00eb, kishte marr\u00eb form\u00eb t\u00eb prer\u00eb, duke penguar nd\u00ebrhyrjen kryesisht t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit, n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00eb shkaku t\u00eb posa\u00e7\u00ebm ankimi q\u00eb t\u00eb kontestonte k\u00ebt\u00eb disponim. N\u00eb k\u00ebto kushte, mekanizmat procedural\u00eb t\u00eb shtrirjes s\u00eb efektit t\u00eb ankimit t\u00eb bashk\u00ebt\u00ebpandehurit nuk mund t\u00eb sh\u00ebrbenin p\u00ebr t\u00eb kap\u00ebrcyer efektin e \u201cgj\u00ebs\u00eb s\u00eb gjykuar\u201d. P\u00ebr k\u00ebto arsye, Kolegji Penal konkludoi se vendimi i gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit ishte rezultat i zbatimit t\u00eb gabuar t\u00eb ligjit procedural dhe vendosi prishjen e tij dhe kthimin e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes p\u00ebr rishqyrtim n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn gjykat\u00eb, me tjet\u00ebr trup gjykues. Decision no. 00-2025-1613 (255), dated 21.10.2025 of the Criminal College In this fundamental criminal procedural law case, the Criminal College of the Supreme Court analyzed the relationship between the criminal liability of legal entities and their right to benefit from special proceedings, specifically summary trial, guaranteeing the constitutional principles of due process and equality before the law. Key Holdings 1 “A legal entity acting as a defendant is not excluded from the right to request a summary trial. The impossibility of a ‘mathematical’ application of the 1\/3 sentence reduction in the case of the sanction of ‘dissolution of the legal entity’ does not constitute a ground for prohibiting access to this trial procedure.” 2 “The ruling of the preliminary hearing judge accepting the request for a summary trial, when not appealed by the parties, becomes final and cannot be overturned sua sponte by the court of appeal in the absence of a specific ground of appeal contesting its legality.” Case Summary In this matter, the court examined the appeals filed by several defendants (natural persons) and corporate entities (legal entities), as well as the appeal of the Special Prosecution Office, against the decision of the Special Court of Appeal against Corruption and Organized Crime. The appellate court had overturned the first-instance court’s decision and remanded the case for retrial, ruling that the trial court’s decision was absolutely invalid due to the application of the summary trial procedure to legal entities. The Criminal College determined that the court of appeal had misapplied criminal procedural law, as the legal framework governing the criminal liability of legal entities does not bar them from accessing summary trials. According to the College, the fact that a legal entity might be sentenced to “dissolution of the entity,” a sanction to which a 1\/3 sentence reduction cannot be mathematically applied, is not a ground to exclude these entities *a priori* from a summary trial. Such an restrictive interpretation violates the principles of equality before the law, legal certainty, and due process of law. Furthermore, the College emphasized that the decision of the preliminary hearing judge to grant the summary trial had not been appealed by the parties and, consequently, became final (*res judicata*). This barred the court of appeal from intervening *sua sponte* in the absence of an explicit ground of appeal challenging that ruling. Under these conditions, the procedural mechanisms for extending the scope of a co-defendant’s appeal could not be used to bypass the finality of the decision. Therefore, the Criminal College concluded that the appellate court’s decision resulted from a misapplication of procedural law, ordered its reversal, and remanded the case for retrial to the same court with a different judicial panel. Sentenza n. 00-2025-1613 (255), del 21.10.2025 del Collegio Penale In questo caso di fondamentale importanza per il diritto processuale penale, il Collegio Penale della Corte Suprema ha analizzato la relazione tra la responsabilit\u00e0 penale delle persone giuridiche e il loro diritto di accedere a riti speciali, nello specifico il giudizio abbreviato, a salvaguardia dei principi costituzionali del giusto processo e dell’uguaglianza dinanzi alla legge. Massime della Decisione 1 “La persona giuridica","og_url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/","og_site_name":"Petani Law Firm","article_published_time":"2026-07-14T07:08:21+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-14T13:01:15+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":{"Written by":"Stafi","Est. reading time":"7 minuta"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/"},"author":{"name":"Stafi","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/person\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90"},"headline":"Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 i Kolegjit Penal","datePublished":"2026-07-14T07:08:21+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-14T13:01:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/"},"wordCount":1466,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","articleSection":["Petani Blog"],"inLanguage":"sq","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/","name":"Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 i Kolegjit Penal - Petani Law Firm","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","datePublished":"2026-07-14T07:08:21+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-14T13:01:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"sq","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"sq","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-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-00-2025-1613-255-date-21-10-2025-i-kolegjit-penal\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vendimi nr. 00-2025-1613 (255), dat\u00eb 21.10.2025 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":"sq"},{"@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":"sq","@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":"sq","@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\/sq\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4054","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4054"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4054\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4063,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4054\/revisions\/4063"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3637"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4054"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4054"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4054"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}