The clash between the Chamber of Advocates and the Special Court has entered a harsher phase. On Wednesday, the Chamber’s General Council decided to expand the boycott to include hearings on security measures as well, a step that shows the conflict over the disputed regulation and the fines imposed on lawyers is not being resolved, but is deepening.
New decision: boycott extended to security measures as well
The decision was taken at an extraordinary meeting of the General Council of the Chamber of Advocates, following tensions with the Special Court over a regulation that lawyers have been contesting for days.
The point that further inflamed the conflict was the imposition of fines on defense lawyers who did not appear at hearings, in implementation of the previous boycott. The Chamber has also decided to cover these fines financially if they remain in force.
The Chamber against the fines and the court’s regulation
The head of the Chamber of Advocates, Maks Haxhiaj, said the fines would be challenged at all levels of the judiciary. According to him, the previous decision on the boycott had been respected by lawyers and GJKKO had been informed in advance.
Haxhiaj openly opposed the idea that an internal court regulation could prevail over the law governing the legal profession. According to the Chamber’s position, decisions of the General Council are binding on its members and cannot be bypassed through sublegal acts.
Accusations of lack of dialogue from institutions
According to the head of the Chamber, the effort to resolve the situation through institutional communication has produced no result. He said a letter sent to the leadership of GJKKO received no official response from the court’s heads, while the reply that later arrived was, according to him, signed by the chancellor and not at the level required for inter-institutional communication.
There was also criticism of the High Judicial Council. According to Haxhiaj, the Chamber had requested a meeting on the problems encountered by lawyers in court proceedings, but did not receive a serious response. He said the issue had been discussed at the High Judicial Council, but without a clear position on the disputed regulation.
Debate within the legal profession over the level of escalation
The meeting did not pass without debate. Some lawyers called for an immediate move to a boycott of hearings on security measures, arguing that the response so far had been ignored by GJKKO.
Others urged caution, describing this as an extreme step with major consequences, and initially proposed a general boycott for up to two weeks. During the discussion, there was also a call for the response to the fines to be collective, since they are linked to the implementation of a joint decision by the Chamber.
The Council’s final position
At the end of the discussions, the majority sided with escalation. The Council decided that the boycott would now also include hearings on security measures at GJKKO.
The Chamber has indicated that it remains open to dialogue, but the latest decision shows that, so far, relations with the justice institutions are moving more toward confrontation than resolution.
The clash once again highlights a broader problem: when justice institutions and representatives of the legal defense enter into open conflict, the cost does not remain only between them, but directly affects the normal functioning of the judicial process.
In this case, the sides are offering opposing versions regarding the legitimacy of the rules and the way communication was handled, while the decision to include security measures as well takes the crisis to an even more delicate level.