The clash between the government and the justice system over judges’ salaries has intensified further. Prime Minister Edi Rama again came out against the Administrative Court’s ruling, raising the alarm over a bill that, according to his version, could reach €130.5 million just for back payments.
Rama’s claim about the cost of the ruling
In a reaction on the platform “X,” Rama said the issue is not linked only to the immediate 51% increase in judges’ salaries, but also to the request for that increase to be calculated with retroactive effect from April 2023.
According to the prime minister, if this logic were to be applied, the financial obligations falling on the state budget would amount to around €130.5 million. This figure was made public by Rama himself and, in this reaction, is not accompanied by a detailed methodological explanation of how it was calculated.
The government calls the decision unusual
Rama presented the ruling as an unprecedented intervention, casting doubt on its basis and the way it was made. In essence, the head of government is objecting not only to the financial effect, but also to the fact that such a decision, in his view, is imposing actions with direct consequences for the public purse.
In his reaction, he used strong political language and called it an “extra-parliamentary” decision-making process, suggesting that the executive sees the matter as an overstepping of powers by the court.
The debate over back payments from April 2023
The most disputed point in Rama’s reaction concerns the back payments. According to him, the demand does not stop at the current salary increase, but also seeks the financial differences dating from April 2023, on the argument that salaries should have been raised from then.
This takes the debate beyond an administrative issue and turns it into a direct clash over the use of public money, especially when the amount cited by the government is at a very high level.
Public pressure on the Finance Ministry
Rama said the finance minister cannot act outside the law to implement a decision that he considers problematic. He even published references to the amount that, according to him, each judge would benefit from if the back payments were executed immediately.
Beyond the political language, the reaction shows that the government is preparing the ground to challenge not only the court’s narrative, but also the budgetary burden that this ruling may produce, at a time when every large public bill turns into a sensitive political and institutional issue.
For now, the public debate remains built on the claims made by the prime minister, while the real legal and financial weight of the ruling remains to be clarified in the next institutional steps.
The issue once again opens the old discussion about the limits between branches of power and the way court decisions are translated into concrete obligations for the state budget.