Venice Commission opinion sparks renewed political debate over Socialist MP’s mandate

The Venice Commission on Tuesday released its opinion regarding questions posed by the Albanian Speaker of Parliament about the constitutional principles in contention over MP Olta Xhaçka’s mandate. The query sought clarity on whether the constitutional right of MPs to vote freely outweighs their obligation to enforce Constitutional Court decisions. Instead of resolving the issue conclusively, the opinion has fueled intense political debate, with both the Socialist majority and opposition declaring it a victory for their respective positions.

What the Venice Commission opinion states: The opinion addresses five key questions raised by Parliament, offering nuanced perspectives without providing definitive rulings:

·       Can MPs be obliged to vote in a specific manner: The Commission clarified that while MPs are free to vote as they choose, parliamentary decisions must align with Constitutional Court rulings: “Compliance with Constitutional Court rulings is an essential element of the rule of law. Parliament must approve decisions as limited by the Constitutional Court’s interpretation, but individual MPs are not obligated to vote in a particular way.”

·       Standards for mandate incompatibility: The Venice Commission found no universal standard for determining mandate incompatibility across countries. Practices vary significantly depending on constitutional frameworks.

·       Role of legislatures in reviewing mandates: The Commission noted that while some countries task legislatures with reviewing mandate incompatibilities, others leave such matters solely to judicial institutions like Constitutional Courts.

·       Judicial oversight on parliamentary decisions: The Commission highlighted that in most jurisdictions, mandate-related issues are resolved by courts rather than parliaments, though practices differ widely.

·       Can constitutional courts create new norms: The opinion acknowledged that while legislatures are responsible for creating new constitutional norms, the boundary between interpretation and norm creation by courts is often unclear: “The Constitutional Court interprets existing norms, but the line between interpretation and the creation of new norms is not always clearly defined.”

Broader implications: In a press release accompanying the opinion, the Venice Commission underscored the need for state institutions, including Parliament, to respect Constitutional Court rulings as a cornerstone of the rule of law. The Commission emphasized that parliamentary compliance with such rulings should not hinge on majority votes.

It also stressed that while constitutions may exclude some matters from parliamentary decision-making, MPs retain the freedom to vote as they see fit on issues falling within their jurisdiction.

Political reactions: The Venice Commission’s opinion has been interpreted differently by Albania’s two main political camps, each claiming it supports their stance.

·       Socialist Party response: Klotilda Bushka, Chair of the Legal Affairs Committee, said the opinion vindicates the Socialist majority’s decision to abstain from forwarding Xhaçka’s mandate to the Constitutional Court. “The Venice Commission confirms that MPs are free to vote according to their convictions. Constitutional Court rulings must be enforceable but cannot dictate how MPs vote,” she stated. 

Bushka argued that, under Article 70 of the Albanian Constitution, the Parliament only forwards cases involving the misuse of state resources by MPs to the Constitutional Court. Other cases fall under parliamentary jurisdiction.

·       Opposition’s perspective: Opposition leader Gazment Bardhi described the opinion as a “slap” to the Socialist majority, asserting that it validates the opposition’s claims. “The Venice Commission reaffirms that political discretion cannot override Constitutional Court rulings. The Court’s decisions must be implemented without delay or political interference, ” Bardhi said.

Context: The Speaker of Parliament, Elisa Spiropali, sought the opinion of the Venice Commission after the Constitutional Court twice requested Parliament to forward the case concerning the compatibility of a Socialist MPs mandate for review. This request stemmed from allegations by the opposition, which claimed that Xhaçka violated the Constitution because, during her tenure as a minister, the government designated her husband as a strategic investor, allegedly enabling him to benefit from state assets. Xhaçka has categorically denied these allegations.

Next steps: Although the Venice Commission’s opinions are non-binding, they provide guidance for resolving institutional disputes. In this case, the opinion offers a framework for reconciling differences between Parliament and the Constitutional Court, though political tensions are unlikely to subside soon.