The clash between the executive branch and the justice system flared up again after the Administrative Court unblocked pay for GJKKO and the Durrës Court. Prime Minister Edi Rama reacted in harsh tones, suggesting that the decision favors the interests of judges and raises questions about the standard institutions apply to ordinary citizens.
Strong reaction from the prime minister
In his public reaction, Rama criticized the speed with which the measure was taken by the Administrative Court, comparing it with the delays that, according to his version, citizens and institutions usually face in other proceedings.
He used strong political language, saying that if the same standard existed for people’s everyday problems, “every employed Albanian would be ready to donate half a salary to the judges.”
What Rama opposes in the ruling
According to the prime minister, the ruling is problematic not only for its content, but also for the nature of the measure taken. He claims it is not a measure that suspends the execution of an act, but an intervention that, according to him, pushes it forward in favor of a personal interest.
Rama described this as a “deeply troubling” development, while also drawing attention to the fact that, according to him, thousands of other case files have been waiting for years in the drawers of the same court.
Debate over the funds and the role of Parliament
Another point of Rama’s attack concerns public funds. He claims that through this ruling, an attempt is being made to open funds from the state treasury without first passing through the filter of Parliament.
In his version, the “doors of the treasury” can be opened only by the legislative branch. For this reason, he said Parliament will address the issue on September 17, referring to compliance with a decision of the Constitutional Court.
A clash that goes beyond salaries
Although Rama’s reaction focuses on salary increases and the procedure for unblocking them, the clash touches a deeper institutional nerve: the relationship between the courts, the government, and control over public money.
This is precisely where the real debate begins: whether this is the enforcement of a ruling in favor of the judicial body, or a new conflict of powers in which each side is defending its own interest and interpretation.
So far, the public reaction has come from the prime minister, while the core of the debate remains focused on the legitimacy of the ruling, the procedure for the funds, and the standard institutions apply when their own interests are at stake.
The issue once again opens the old discussion about a justice system that leaves citizens’ case files waiting, but quickly finds a way forward when the clash reaches the top of the system.