The extraordinary meeting of the High Judicial Council has begun, called to discuss the impasse created regarding the salaries of magistrates.

For three days, some courts in the country have been boycotting work, in protest of the situation created with salaries. The blockade came after the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice and the High Prosecutorial Council to determine the salaries of judges and prosecutors themselves, in the conditions when the Parliament did not provide a solution to the obligation to recalculate them, following a decision of the Constitutional Court.

At the start of the meeting, the head of the Constitutional Court, Sokol Sadushi, described the situation as extraordinary and emphasized that for the first time, following a decision of the Constitutional Court, the salaries of judges and judicial administration have been blocked. According to him, the issue is not only related to a financial dispute, but also affects the constitutional relations between the powers.

"The meeting is extraordinary because such is the situation we are going through. For the first time after a decision of the Court of Justice, the salaries of judges and administration have been blocked, an obstacle to the development of the work of the courts.
"Not just financial disputes, but issues that affect constitutional relations between powers," he said.

Full word:

This General Meeting has been convened in an extraordinary manner, because the situation that the judiciary is experiencing is also extraordinary. For the first time, following a final decision of the Constitutional Court directly related to the salary of magistrates, the salaries of judges and judicial administration have been blocked. This is no longer a problem of financial administration; it is a concrete obstacle to the normal functioning of the courts and an issue that directly affects the constitutional order.
For this reason, the institutional response could not remain the response of one court, one council, or a few leaders. When the consequence affects the entire judicial branch, the responsibility to speak out and take a stand is shared.

What we have before us is not simply a financial dispute. It is an issue that affects the constitutional relations between the powers, the binding force of the decisions of the Constitutional Court, and the conditions under which the judiciary exercises its function.

Our goal today is not to produce an emotional reaction nor to fuel an institutional clash. Our responsibility is greater. To speak clearly, jointly and institutionally about what has happened, about the consequences it has brought and about the constitutional and legal ways by which the functioning of the courts, the independence of the judiciary and the dignity of the people who serve justice every day must be protected. This is because the issue is not limited to the salary measure. It tests whether a final constitutional decision is implemented even when its implementation creates institutional or financial difficulties.

This situation is often presented as a “clash between the judiciary and the executive”. This description diverts attention from the essence. There may be debate about the manner of implementation, but not about the obligation to implement a final decision of the Constitutional Court. What we have before us is not a power struggle between the branches of government, but a test of the strength of the Constitution over each of them.
I want to say it from the beginning. The judiciary is not here to ask for privileges or to ask anyone for an honor. The judges of the Republic have not set either the amount of their salary, nor its increase, nor the formula on which it is calculated.

Our status has been determined by the Constitution. The law has determined the salary and its guarantees. The Constitutional Court has expressed its opinion on the constitutionality of this regulation. When we demand respect for these guarantees, we are not asking for a new privilege or benefit. We are asking that the state fulfill the obligations that stem from the Constitution, the law and the final decision of the Constitutional Court.

Here a simple but inevitable question arises: what norm should the state administration implement today? Can an institution of the Republic be required, after July 31, to continue to implement precisely the formula that the Constitutional Court has repealed as unconstitutional? An repealed norm cannot be restored through inaction nor kept alive through an administrative practice.

And if the old formula can no longer be applied, then the question that arises is equally straightforward: what is the salary that the executive authorities recognize for the judges of the Republic from August 1, 2026 until the entry into force of the new law and that the state administration is obliged to meet?
The failure of the Assembly to act within the deadline cannot result in the judge being left without a fixed salary. Until the entry into force of the legal amendments, the constitutional guarantee of salary remains fully applicable and Article 138 of the Constitution continues to produce all its effects. To accept the opposite would mean to grant the legislator's inaction a power that it cannot have: to suspend a constitutional guarantee and to prevent the implementation of a final decision of the Constitutional Court.

In a state of law, the salary of an official is not an act of generosity on the part of the one who administers public funds. The state budget is the financial instrument of the Republic and must serve the functioning of all its powers. What the law recognizes as an obligation, the budget must make feasible.

The right of a judge to a salary does not arise from the budget. It stems from the Constitution and the law. Lack of planning may require reallocation of funds, additional funding, or budget revision, but it cannot transform a constitutional obligation into an optional obligation. In a state of law, it is not the Constitution that adapts to the budget, but it is the budget that must be adapted to enable the implementation of the Constitution. Budgetary procedures should realize this obligation, not neutralize it.

Therefore, the judge's salary cannot be treated as ordinary budgetary income. It is part of his constitutional status and constitutes a concrete guarantee of independence in the exercise of his function. The salary is not a reward, given according to the executive's assessment, nor an instrument that can be used to influence the judiciary, or to express an attitude towards its decision-making. This guarantee does not only protect the judge as an individual. It protects, first of all, the citizen, who must have the certainty that his case will be judged by a judge independent of any other power.

This situation also has a direct human dimension. The judicial administration is without salaries. Court secretaries, chancellors, clerks and court employees, the people who open the doors of the courts every morning and make it possible for the system to function, have been left without the income with which they support their families. They have not taken any decision on this matter and are not parties to any inter-institutional dispute. The consequences cannot be blamed on them.
The judicial administration cannot bear the consequences of a dispute it did not create. If the state has a legal dispute, it has institutions and legal remedies to resolve it, but it cannot resolve it over the household finances of the people who keep the courts functioning.

I want to address them in particular today. You are not the forgotten part of the justice system. You are an indispensable part of it. We know what it means for a family to be left without a salary: obligations and loans that do not wait, daily expenses and the needs of children. This is even more sensitive at the beginning of a new school year. For you, a salary is not a legal formula or a budget item. It is the daily security of the family.
You cannot and should not bear the cost of a situation that you did not create on your families. Respect for the independence of the judiciary also begins with respect for the people who make it function. Therefore, the immediate unblocking of the salaries of the judicial administration is not a matter of negotiation, but is a human, institutional and state obligation.

Dear colleagues,

Judges are accustomed to speaking through their decisions. They often remain silent even when attacked, because the nature of their function imposes restraint and prudence on them. This restraint is neither weakness nor surrender. However, there is a limit beyond which silence is no longer prudence, when the guarantees of independence are violated and the normal functioning of the courts is jeopardized. At that moment, protecting independence is not only the right of the judge. It is a constitutional responsibility. Today we are at that very moment.

For years, Albanian justice has been rightly and highly demanded for its integrity, professionalism, speed, and quality. It is required to fight corruption, protect citizens' rights, and be one of the pillars of the European integration process.

Precisely because the demands on justice are so high, the standard with which the state guarantees the conditions for exercising its function must be equally high. You cannot ask justice to be strong and at the same time weaken the institutions that are supposed to provide it; ask the judge for independence and treat his status as negotiable; ask the administration to keep the system afloat and leave him without a salary. You cannot ask the citizen to trust justice, while the state itself sends the message that the judiciary is a burden, a problem or an adversary.
What message do we give to a judge, especially one who has just entered the system, when we ask him to be independent in the face of any pressure, while he sees that a guarantee defined by the Constitution and ultimately interpreted by the Constitutional Court, can remain ineffective due to an administrative decision-making? Independence is not built just by telling the judge "be independent". The state must create the conditions for him to actually be so.

Precisely for this reason, defending the independence of judges should not be seen as a stance against the state. Judges are not opponents of the state. They are part of the state itself, just as much as the Assembly, the Government, and any other constitutional institution.

The separation of powers is not the division of the state into opposing camps, but is the way in which democracy distributes power, so that no one has it all. The relationship between the powers cannot be built on superiority, subordination or distrust, but on mutual respect for constitutional powers. Each must be strong within its own limits: the Assembly in legislation, the executive in governance and the judiciary in administering justice, independent of any interference. None is above the other and none is below the other. All are under the Constitution.
Here lies the difference between political conflict and constitutional control. A judicial decision may be disliked, criticized, or even considered wrong. Meanwhile, when it is final, it is not a proposal that is implemented only if the other power is convinced of its justice. From that moment on, it is no longer a question of whether we agree with it, but only of how it will be implemented.

The inaction of the Assembly cannot give the executive the right to suspend the effects of a decision of the Constitutional Court. Otherwise, the power of the decision would depend on the will of the body that must implement it. In a state of law, the opposite happens. The state body is subject to the decision, not the decision to the will of the state body.
The way institutions behave in the face of such a decision shows the real level of our constitutional and European culture. Albania seeks to become part of the European Union, but integration is not just a legal process or a political destination. First and foremost, it is an institutional culture: respect for the rule of law, court decisions, the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary.

It is not enough to approximate laws, because we must also approximate the way in which institutions understand and respect their boundaries. The European mentality is tested precisely when a decision is implemented even though it is not liked. The rule of law is not measured by the willingness to implement decisions that benefit us, but by obedience to the Constitution, when implementation is difficult. European laws, without a European institutional culture, are not enough.
The same culture should be reflected in the way we talk about justice. Criticism of courts and their decisions is legitimate. No judge and no court is above criticism, but between criticism and denigration there is a line that should not be erased. The rule of law is not built by weakening or anathematizing justice. Anyone who thinks that a weaker judiciary serves the interests of the moment should remember that tomorrow there may be a need for a strong, impartial and independent judge from the government, parliament, media and the pressure of public opinion. It is precisely this judge that we must protect today.

Dear colleagues,
Allow me a personal reflection, not for myself, but for what each of us should represent in the function we exercise. After many years of service in the judiciary, I have one unshakable conviction: the duty of a judge is not a favor that is done to us and the salary, which is given to us according to the law, does not create a debt to anyone. No judge of the Republic should feel indebted to an institution or a power because he receives what the Constitution and the law recognize. Our obligation is only to the Constitution, the law, professional conscience and the citizens of this country: to provide independent and impartial justice.

This relationship of responsibility is mutual. The judge has obligations to the state and the citizens, but the state also has obligations to the people who serve him. The state owes respect to judges who work under extraordinary pressure and employees who have been carrying a system with great difficulties for years. Not privilege, respect and fulfillment of legal obligations.
At this point, we judges must stand together. Let us maintain the trust, calm and dignity of the office. Our independence is not measured only when we make difficult decisions, but it is also measured in the way we react when the institution itself is put in difficulty. Our response must be joint, determined and constitutional.

This means staying within our role and using the force that the law gives us. The judiciary does not respond to political positions with political means, nor does it go beyond its function to protect them. It acts with the authority of the Constitution and the force of the law. Legal remedies exist and must be used calmly, responsibly and decisively. Any administrative action may be subject to judicial review and, where the facts and documentation raise other issues of legal responsibility, the assessment belongs to the competent bodies, according to the law. This is not an escalation of the conflict, but a return of the issue to the only territory where the judiciary should operate, the territory of the law.

The Treasury, in fulfilling its legal function and on the basis of regular acts of the responsible institutions, must enable the execution of financial obligations. Budget execution procedures cannot be used as a mechanism for suspending or neutralizing the effects of a final decision of the Constitutional Court.
Even if there is a debate about the legal technique of salary execution after July 31, 2026, one thing cannot be disputed. This date is not the final limit of the financial effects of the Constitutional Court's decision. Paragraph 110, read together with the operative part of the decision, determines the financial obligations in arrears from April 1, 2023 until the entry into force of the new law. Since the legal amendments were not adopted until July 31, 2026, the Court itself has determined the formula according to which these obligations are calculated.

Consequently, the period from 1 August 2026 until the entry into force of the new law is not a “different period” separated from the effects of the constitutional decision. Any difference arising during this period is added to the financial obligation of the state. The new legal regulation cannot be used to reduce or neutralize the financial rights that have arisen up to that moment from the final decision of the Constitutional Court. These obligations require execution.

Therefore, our position does not aim at confrontation, but at a solution: the immediate unblocking of judicial administration salaries, the execution of overdue financial obligations, including differences that arise until the entry into force of the new law, and the resolution of any other issue only through the means provided for by the Constitution and the law.
We demand, above all, respect for the decisions of constitutional institutions and the restoration of dialogue between powers where the constitutional order requires it: mutual respect for competences, institutions and their decisions. No one wins from a conflict between state institutions, neither the judiciary, nor the executive, nor politics. The citizenry loses, justice loses and, in the end, the state itself loses.

Let us not, therefore, reduce this issue to a “clash over salaries”. The judiciary is not negotiating with the Government the price of its independence, nor is it seeking recognition of an unconfirmed right. It is seeking the implementation of the existing legal order. When a power demands respect for the Constitution and a final decision of the Constitutional Court, it does not create a conflict, but fulfills its constitutional responsibility. The Constitution is not negotiated. The final decision is not negotiated. It is implemented.
This General Assembly must give a clear message today: not anger, not privilege, not conflict, but constitutional dignity, unity and institutional responsibility. We will continue to do our duty, to judge, to serve the citizens and to protect the Constitution and the law. Citizens must have a certainty: despite this situation, the courts will continue to do their duty and no institutional disagreement should weigh on the citizen who expects justice. Precisely because we will do our duty, we demand that each power do its own. No more, no less.

The Republic does not function when one power demands the submission of another. It functions when each exercises its own powers, respects the powers of the other, and all are subject to the Constitution. This is the rule of law and the European standard that we must prove. Today, we are not defending the amount written on a judge's payroll. We are defending a limit that no power should cross: the independence of the judiciary and the binding authority of the Constitution. We will defend it resolutely, without unnecessary noise, without evading responsibility, and without departing from our constitutional role for a moment, with the calm that belongs to a judge and with the strength that the law gives him. By defending the independence of justice, we defend the right of every citizen to live in a state where every power is subject to the Constitution and no one stands above it.