The lawyers’ boycott is continuing to produce direct consequences in courtrooms, this time also in the proceedings against Ilir Meta and Monika Kryemadhi. The Special Court decided not to hold the hearing without the presence of defense lawyers, while the deadlock between lawyers and justice institutions remains unresolved.
Court backs away from holding the hearing without lawyers
The Special Court refused to continue the hearing for Ilir Meta and Monika Kryemadhi in the absence of lawyers, who are opposing the new GJKKO regulation.
This decision further delays a process that is being affected not only by the substance of the case, but also by the open crisis between the judicial system and the legal profession.
Lawyers did not appear despite the Appeals ruling
According to reporting by journalist Anila Hoxha, the lawyers refused to take part in the proceedings even after the Administrative Appeals Court ruling.
Their position was that they had not been notified, through legal channels, of the suspension of the boycott by the National Chamber of Advocacy. This means the procedural clash is producing concrete consequences in cases with a high public profile.
Hearing postponed to November 5, court-assigned lawyer also appointed
The court decided to postpone the hearing until November 5.
It also appointed a court-assigned lawyer for the next hearing, a move that shows the court’s effort to avoid further delays, but which does not in itself resolve the conflict between the parties and the debate over the legitimacy of the procedures followed.
Clashes in the courtroom between the defendants and the prosecution
Ilir Meta said that the absence of prosecutor Kllapi “is not a good sign.” He objected to the way the case was being handled, asking to defend himself because of the situation created with the lawyers and their licenses.
Meta said his lawyer could not risk his license and that the deadlock should have been resolved earlier, at a time when, according to him, around 600 court proceedings have been blocked. He also mentioned the practice of the European Court of Human Rights in similar cases.
For her part, Monika Kryemadhi described the boycott as an abuse of the legal profession and called for the hearing to continue. She then clashed with the prosecutor, alleging violations starting from the collection of evidence, entry into the home, and the searches carried out. According to her, the prosecution’s position on the defense was “hypocrisy.”
The next hearing has been set for November 5, while the dispute over the lawyers’ boycott continues to test the normal functioning of proceedings at GJKKO.
Beyond this specific case, it remains clear that the institutional tension is causing real blockages in the justice system, with consequences that go beyond a single case file.