The clash between judges and the government over salaries has taken on another political dimension after Edi Rama publicly came to the defense of Finance Minister Petrit Malaj. The prime minister not only backed the refusal to immediately implement the Constitutional Court’s decision, but also said that the criminal complaint against the minister leaves out both his own name and that of the justice minister.
Rama ties the decision to Parliament
According to the prime minister’s statement, the finance minister acted correctly by not allowing, in the government’s view, the judicial branch to affect budget funds without a decision by the Parliament of Albania.
Rama argues that only Parliament has the authority to decide on state funds and that the salary increase will be carried out by a parliamentary decision, in compliance with the Constitutional Court’s ruling.
He acknowledges the position was coordinated
In his reaction, Rama acknowledged that Petrit Malaj had consulted beforehand with him and with the justice minister on the position taken on this issue.
This shifts the debate from a purely administrative responsibility of the finance minister to a political decision taken at the center of government, while the criminal complaint so far has been filed only against the minister.
Accusations against judges and tension over salaries
The prime minister described the judges’ demand for higher salaries as unjustified, using harsh political language against what he called a story of self-increasing wages by a category that, according to him, is among the best paid in the country.
However, the core of the conflict remains the non-implementation of a Constitutional Court decision, placing the government before the question of whether it is delaying implementation on the grounds of budget procedure or in practice challenging a final ruling.
What is known about the criminal complaint
The criminal complaint was filed by judges against the finance minister over the non-implementation of the Constitutional Court’s decision on raising their salaries.
After Rama’s reaction, it becomes clear that the minister’s position is no longer presented as an isolated institutional act, but as a joint line of the executive on how the financial effect of the ruling should be handled.
Rama’s statement makes the clash between branches of power more explicit, as the government is presenting the issue as a matter of authority over the state treasury, while at its core remains the obligation to implement a Constitutional Court decision.
This is precisely the crux of the debate: not whether salaries will be increased, but who bears responsibility for the delay and on what reasoning the implementation of the decision is being postponed.