The Administrative Court’s decision to unblock salaries for GJKKO and the Durrës Court has triggered a sharp public clash between the executive and the judiciary. Prime Minister Edi Rama called the move “deeply troubling,” taking aim not only at the substance of the ruling but also at the speed with which it was issued.
The clash began after the Administrative Court ruling
According to the version made public by the prime minister, the Administrative Court intervened to unblock payments for two institutions of the justice system: the Special Court against Corruption and Organized Crime and the Durrës Court.
Rama’s reaction came immediately and in harsh tones, presenting the issue as an intervention affecting the use of public funds and the relationship between court decisions and parliamentary approval.
Rama questions the speed and interest behind the measure
In his reaction, Rama mocked the court’s standard, claiming it acted with a speed that ordinary citizens do not see in their own cases. He compared that pace with the years-long wait of thousands of other cases that, according to him, remain in drawers.
The prime minister went further by suggesting that the measure was taken out of self-interest, since, according to him, it is tied to judges’ pay increases. This remains a political accusation made by the head of government, while his reaction does not present a position from the court on these claims.
The debate shifts to the treasury and the role of Parliament
The strongest point of Rama’s attack concerns public funds. According to him, the Administrative Court is seeking to have funds opened from the state treasury without first passing through Parliament’s filter.
In the same reaction, Rama stressed that the “doors of the state treasury” are opened only by the legislative branch and that Parliament will review this issue on September 17, in compliance with a Constitutional Court decision.
A new conflict between branches of power
Beyond the political language, the clash highlights a familiar tension between the government and justice institutions, especially when salaries, the budget and the limits of authority between the court and Parliament are at stake.
At this stage, the public only has the prime minister’s reaction and the fact of the Administrative Court’s decision to unblock the payments. Without a full public reasoning from the court, the debate is unfolding mainly through the government’s political interpretation.
The issue has thus moved from a procedural decision on payments to a broader debate over control of public money and the standards by which the justice system operates.
At its core, it remains to be seen whether this is a legal clash over competences or another episode in which institutions speak to the public more through accusations than through transparency.