Prime Minister Edi Rama has continued his accusations against judge Hazbi Balliu, after the latter decided to block the confiscation of an illegally built apartment building in Tirana. According to Rama, the judge “went against the state” and ruled in favor of a developer who had constructed an entire building without a permit. The Prime Minister published documents calling the ruling “scandalous” and claimed it was taken “in less than 10 minutes.”
But beyond the political rhetoric, this stance raises serious questions about the functioning of administrative courts, the separation of powers, and respect for the rule of law in Albania.
What are administrative courts?
Administrative courts were created to ensure that citizens, businesses, or any party affected by a state institution’s decision, have the legal means to challenge that decision. These courts primarily handle administrative disputes — cases where private individuals or entities contest acts, actions, or inactions of state authorities.
This is a cornerstone of the rule of law: no government decision is untouchable, and courts have the duty to review the legality of administrative acts. In this case, judge Balliu suspended an administrative act by the State Cadastre Agency, pending a full trial. This suspension is a standard legal mechanism, known as interim injunction, which prevents irreversible harm in case the administrative decision is later found unlawful.
The danger of the logic “judges must not go against the state”
Rama’s statement that a judge “must not go against the state” represents a dangerous logic for a democratic system. In reality, if administrative courts were not allowed to rule against state institutions, they would serve no purpose.
In essence, such a stance implies that the government is always right and its decisions cannot be contested — a direct violation of the separation of powers and of citizens’ right to legal protection from government abuse.
Following this logic, any judge who rules in favor of a citizen or business against a state authority would be branded an “enemy of the state.” This sets a dangerous precedent, threatening to paralyze the judiciary and place even greater power in the hands of the executive branch.
Consequences for the rule of law
The rule of law is built on the balance between powers: the executive enforces, the legislature makes laws, and the judiciary reviews the legality of state actions. When one branch — in this case the executive — seeks to impose its will over the judiciary, the entire constitutional order is undermined.
In practice, Rama’s message to judges is clear: those who obstruct government decisions will be publicly exposed and stigmatized as opponents of the state. This open political pressure risks intimidating judges and eroding public trust that rulings are based on law rather than government dictates.
The case of judge Balliu is more than a dispute over one illegal building. It is a crucial test of whether the Albanian judiciary can preserve its independence in the face of political pressure, or whether it will become an instrument of government power.
If the Prime Minister’s logic prevails, administrative courts lose their core function, citizens are left defenseless against the state, and Albania drifts further away from the standards of a functioning democracy.