The Alliance for the Protection of the Theater has asked president Ilir Meta not to sign the “amended” National Theater law, and send it back to the parliament instead.
Via a letter, the Alliance declares that the “amended” law passed by the Socialist majority on September 20, contradicts the Albanian Constitution, and the legal and moral foundations on which the democratic state rests.
The Alliance also describes both the Parliament’s procedural violations as it amended and sent the new law to the President, as well as the serious Constitution violations the law would entail:
Approving your decree, the Parliament has dismissed the first law and should have passed a new law by restarting the regular legislative procedures, as the latter ceases to exist, as defined by the Constitution in article 81–85. On the contrary, the Parliament amended some of the existing law’s articles and later presented it to the floor for a vote under the same number, claiming it was the same law, and, thus, cannot be sent back to Parliament by the President for a second time.
Unlike the Parliament, at a time when the law before you today differs from the first version, we believe we are looking at a new law.
Putting the same number on both does not make the new law the same thing as the old one. The discerning element in this case is the law’s contents, which takes priority when compared to such a formality as its number.
Since the laws’ contents are different, they are different. A formality cannot be a decisive factor when compared to a substance. If this practice is accepted as a precedent, then conditions may emerge that would allow for serious future abuses hidden behind formalities.
Regarding the contents of the new law, we assure you that it does not take into consideration any of the violations you clearly delineated in your decree.
If one focuses solely on the formal part, the new law makes an attempt to address only the first point of your decree, that of equality before the law. Whereas the eight consequent issue you raised are not at all addressed in this new law. Beyond the formal aspect, even open competition and guaranteeing equality in the eyes of the law is extremely suspect, even in this new version. As before, the competition is not based on existing legislation like that of public procurement. Instead, a whole new, extra-legal, procedure is drafted.
We believe that we are facing the same unconstitutionality as was the case with the first version: the core of the new law has not changed neither in terms of its purpose, nor the violations it entails.
