The political clash over salaries in the justice system has moved to the Conference of Chairpersons, where the opposition and the ruling majority presented two opposing versions of the same issue: the implementation of a Constitutional Court ruling. At the heart of the debate remains the question of whether Parliament is delaying a constitutional obligation, while the consequences are already being felt in the functioning of the courts.
Opposition: Parliament is starting the session with a constitutional violation
The head of the Democratic Party’s parliamentary group, Gazment Bardhi, accused the leadership of Parliament of failing to implement the Constitutional Court’s ruling on judges’ salaries. According to him, Parliament’s inaction is deepening the crisis in the justice system.
In his position, Bardhi directly linked the situation in the courts to what he considers a failure to respect the Constitution and the Constitutional Court’s decision-making. He claimed that there is also a decision by the Council on Legislation on implementing this obligation, but that the issue is not being addressed.
Accusations of collapse in the courts and judges without pay
According to the opposition’s version, the consequences are no longer merely procedural. Bardhi claimed that judges have been left without salaries and that the courts are in crisis, placing responsibility on Parliament.
This is the core of the political accusation raised at the meeting: not simply a delay in handling a judicial ruling, but a clash over the hierarchy of norms, with the opposition accusing the majority of giving priority to government acts over the Constitution.
Majority: The ruling has been respected, salaries are set by Parliament
On the other hand, the head of the Socialist parliamentary group, Taulant Balla, rejected the accusations and said the majority has respected the Constitutional Court ruling. According to him, the majority has exercised its constitutional right to propose the relevant law and has not called court decisions into question.
Balla also defended the political essence of the Socialist Party’s position, stating that in a democratic system the determination of salary levels is a competence of Parliament, not the courts. He also said that the draft law addressing the Constitutional Court ruling was filed within the deadlines and should move as quickly as possible through the committees and then to the plenary session.
The salary crisis is affecting the functioning of the courts
The debate is taking place at a moment when the tension is no longer confined to political chambers. The boycott over August salaries has affected the administration and court secretaries, the Civil Chamber and the Criminal Chamber of the Tirana Court, as well as the administration of the Court of Appeal.
This makes the issue broader than a confrontation between the sides in Parliament. While politics debates competencies and procedures, the concrete effect is appearing in the daily functioning of the justice system, in a sector that has long faced workload, delays and a lack of institutional stability.
For now, the sides remain divided between the accusation of non-implementation of the Constitution and the claim that the legal procedure has been followed. What remains clear is that the salary crisis is not being treated only as a technical issue, but as another test of how institutions implement justice decisions when the clash moves into the political arena.