The institutional clash over salaries in the justice system has intensified after the High Judicial Council (KLGJ) openly challenged the version presented by the Ministry of Finance. While the ministry claims salaries have not been blocked, but that payrolls were submitted using a methodology different from the one currently in force, KLGJ insists the documentation was prepared in accordance with the law and in line with Constitutional Court decisions.
KLGJ responds to the Finance Ministry with an official letter
In its response, KLGJ rejects the Finance Ministry’s reading of the situation regarding the execution of budget expenditures and argues that the payrolls for August 2026 were drafted and submitted to Treasury branches in accordance with the legislation in force.
According to the Council, the claim that the problem lies in a different methodology does not stand, since the payments were processed in implementation of Constitutional Court decisions as well. This takes the debate beyond a technical issue and once again places responsibility for the delays at the center of tensions between the institutions.
What KLGJ says about the administration and support staff
KLGJ underlines that the salaries of judicial administration and support staff are not affected by Constitutional Court Decision No. 15/2026, nor by Decision No. 435, dated 26.08.2026, on the approval of the basic reference salary for magistrates.
With this argument, the Council seeks to clearly separate the salaries of administrative staff from the debate over the financial treatment of magistrates, implying that any obstacle to execution cannot be attributed to other employees of the system.
Call for immediate payment
In its official letter, KLGJ asks the Ministry of Finance for the immediate execution of August 2026 salaries for the Council’s administration, the judicial administration, and the support staff of courts at all three levels.
This wording shows that, despite public statements that salaries have not been blocked, in practice there is a deadlock that requires an immediate solution. This is precisely where the most disputed point remains: who bears responsibility for the failure of payments to go through normally.
The debate over payrolls and competencies
According to KLGJ, monthly payrolls and expenditure orders are prepared on the basis of approved organizational structures and monthly attendance lists by the responsible human resources units. The Council also clarifies that these documents are divided only according to the banks where employees hold their accounts, and do not constitute an obstacle to the payment of administrative staff because of verifications related to magistrates.
KLGJ also rejects the argument that including the salaries of magistrates and administrative staff in the same document caused delays in processing. Along the same lines, the Council also dismisses the claim that it has created a new salary policy or replaced Parliament in exercising legislative competence.
The clash between the two institutions leaves open an essential issue for the normal functioning of the system: if procedures were followed in accordance with the law, then the practical blockage of payments requires a fuller explanation than the one given so far in the official version.
At its core, the debate is not only about payroll technique, but about how institutions pass responsibility to one another, while in the end the impact falls on employees of the justice system.