The judicial system has long been operating under the pressure of vacancies and backlogged cases, while the High Judicial Council is seeking a significant expansion of staffing levels. Under the proposed plan, the number of judges would increase by 84 permanent posts, while the scheme would also add reserve and temporary positions to cover gaps that the system itself has not been able to absorb.
Of 417 positions in the staffing structure, only 309 judges are actually in office
According to the KLGJ document, the system currently provides for 417 judges in its staffing structure, but only 309 are in office. The gap is linked to vacancies, an indicator that highlights not only the lack of human resources, but also the difficulty institutions face in keeping the chain of justice functional.
In this situation, KLGJ proposes that the total number of judges rise to 528, including permanent, reserve and temporary judges. The official argument is to cope with the workload and reduce the stock of cases that continues to weigh on the courts.
Most of the increase goes to first-instance courts
The submitted plan provides for the addition of 84 permanent judges, 64 of whom would go to first-instance courts. The strongest focus is placed on the general jurisdiction and administrative courts, especially in Tirana, where the workload appears to be most concentrated.
According to the proposed distribution, 44 judges would be assigned to the general jurisdiction: 18 in Tirana, 6 in Durres, 5 in Elbasan, 6 in Fier, 3 in Korce, 3 in Shkoder and 3 in Vlore.
For the administrative jurisdiction, 18 new posts are envisaged, of which 16 for the Tirana Administrative Court of First Instance and 2 for the Lushnje Administrative Court of First Instance. Likewise, the Special Court of First Instance for Corruption and Organized Crime is proposed to be increased by 2 judges.
The Court of Appeal and SPAK court also included in the expansion scheme
The increase in staffing does not stop at the first instance. According to the plan, 20 new positions would be added to the courts of appeal.
Of these, 6 judges would be added to the Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction, 12 to the Administrative Court of Appeal and 2 to the second instance of the Special Court Against Corruption and Organized Crime. The figures show that most of the increase is being directed to the levels where the accumulation of cases appears most problematic.
KLGJ also seeks reserve staffing and 9 additional judges for the Supreme Court
In addition to the 84 new permanent operational posts, the document also provides for the creation of 18 permanent functional reserve posts. According to the official version, these judges would serve to replace vacancies created when members of the system are engaged for long periods in other institutions, such as KLGJ itself or the Constitutional Court.
If this scheme is approved, the number of permanent judge positions is expected to rise from 417 to 519. In parallel, for a 9-year period, the addition of 9 judges to the Supreme Court is also proposed, as a measure linked to dealing with carried-over cases.
The document argues that these 9 posts would be single-term and non-renewable, linked to the handling of a certain category of cases, with the aim of reducing the accumulated backlog in the Supreme Court.
Without staff and investment, an increase on paper is not enough
KLGJ essentially acknowledges that increasing the number of judges does not in itself solve the problem if it is not supported by administration and infrastructure. For the 102 permanent posts, a minimum of 336 non-judicial employees is proposed, while the temporary package of 9 judges at the Supreme Court would also require another 56 employees.
The document also underlines the need for premises, building capacity and technological support, recommending a special investment plan. This means that expanding the system is not simply a matter of names in the staffing structure, but also a budgetary and administrative bill that requires decision-making beyond merely stating the need.
KLGJ’s proposal comes in response to a system that for years has been struggling with structural shortages and a stock of cases that drags from one level to another.
It remains to be seen whether the increase in the number of judges will in fact be accompanied by the support capacities required for the normal functioning of the courts, or whether the problem will once again shift from a lack of personnel to a lack of conditions.