Society updated November 5, 2026 at 21:00

Gjykata Federale e Zvicrës: Marrëdhënia mes dy gjyqtarëve ishte e paligjshme, rreth 15 raste mund të rishqyrtohen

By Alb

Reported by albinfo.ch 280 points Why this story ranks here

What happened

Compiled from the sources

In the story's original language

An excerpt from albinfo.ch

Gjykata Supreme Federale e Zvicrës ka vendosur njëzëri se marrëdhënia romantike mes dy gjyqtarëve federalë, Yves Donzallaz dhe Béatrice van de Graaf, përbënte bashkëjetesë afatgjatë dhe ishte në kundërshtim me ligjin zviceran. Sipas nenit 8 të Ligjit për Gjykatën Federale, personat që bashkëjetojnë në mënyrë afatgjatë nuk mund të ushtrojnë njëkohësisht detyrën e gjyqtarit në këtë institucion. Vendimi mund të ketë pasoja në rreth 15 raste gjyqësore, për të cilat janë paraqitur kërkesa për rishqyrtim për shkak të marrëdhënies mes dy magjistratëve. Ndër rastet që mund të preken është edhe ai i Erwin Sperisenit, ish-shefit të policisë së Guatemalës, i dënuar në Gjenevë për bashkëpunim në vrasje. Gjykata Federale tashmë ka pranuar një kërkesë për rishqyrtimin e një vendimi në një rast vrasjeje në kantonin e Lucernës. Gjatë seancës, gjyqtari Yves Donzallaz kritikoi mënyrën se si institucioni e kishte trajtuar këtë çështje, duke pretenduar se ajo ishte shndërruar në një proces…

What is still uncertain

From Mosaic, not from a publisher

So far only albinfo.ch reports this story on Mosaic, so there is no other coverage to compare it with.

How they headlined it

Reported by albinfo.ch. Each headline opens at its publisher, in a new tab.

albinfo.ch Switzerland · November 5, 2026 at 21:00 publisher's date

Gjykata Federale e Zvicrës: Marrëdhënia mes dy gjyqtarëve ishte e paligjshme, rreth 15 raste mund të rishqyrtohen

By Alb

Earliest report found by Mosaic

Gjykata Supreme Federale e Zvicrës ka vendosur njëzëri se marrëdhënia romantike mes dy gjyqtarëve federalë, Yves Donzallaz dhe Béatrice van de Graaf, përbënte bashkëjetesë afatgjatë dhe ishte në kundërshtim me ligjin zviceran.

Compiled from the outlet's own words · In the story's original language

How we decide

From Mosaic, not from a publisher

An article's time is the date its publisher gives, when that is plausible: not in the future, and not more than 180 minutes before Mosaic found the article. Otherwise it is when Mosaic first saw it. "Earliest report found by Mosaic" is the one with the earliest time; it does not prove that its outlet published first.

An article is marked "Repeats another outlet's text" when its cleaned text is word for word the same as another article's in the story, or nearly the same (the two texts' SimHash fingerprints differ in at most 12 of 64 bits). Both texts must have at least 30 words, and the articles must be within 48 hours of each other. That does not say who took it from whom: it can be a news agency's text or a press release that several outlets published.

It is also marked when at least 50 % of the two texts' three-word sequences are shared (estimated with MinHash), as with a copy whose lead, footer or page elements differ.

A story leads with the eligible report with the highest current score, when every eligible report has one. Otherwise it leads with the earliest report found by Mosaic, which says nothing about its quality. Reports repeating another outlet's text and paid or organisation-issued articles are left out of the comparison.

Think one of these labels is wrong? Use "Contest this" beside it: staff look at every one.

Explore coverage Read at albinfo.ch

Reader rating: not enough eligible votes yet.

A vote says whether a story deserves more or less prominence; it does not say whether it is true. If a story is false or misleading, report it instead. For now votes are collected and do not change the order of stories. How votes are used · Report it as false or misleading