The debate that has erupted in Albania over the salaries of judges and prosecutors is presented primarily as a conflict between the public interest and the financial demands of a category that is already paid much better than most citizens.

Prime Minister Edi Rama has spoken of a 51 percent increase and a bill that, according to him, could reach around 130 million euros. For a citizen living on a modest salary or a small pension, the reaction to these figures is understandable. Judges' salaries are high, while the quality of justice continues to be the subject of serious criticism. However, this debate cannot be understood only by comparing the salary of a judge with that of a teacher, nurse or pensioner.

Today's conflict begins with the decision of the Constitutional Court of February 17, 2026. The Court found that the formula adopted in 2023 for calculating the salaries of magistrates had brought about a "hidden reduction" in their salaries and violated the guarantees of Article 138 of the Constitution. This article provides that the salary and other benefits of a judge cannot be reduced, except in certain expressly defined cases, such as general economic-financial measures necessary to cope with a difficult financial situation or a national emergency, the return of the judge to a previous position or the implementation of a disciplinary measure.

The purpose of this guarantee is not to provide judges with untouchable salaries as a personal privilege, but to protect the independence of the judiciary from financial interference by other powers. It is on this basis that the Constitutional Court considered that even a reduction that is not directly reflected in the nominal amount of the salary, but which freezes it while reference salaries and the cost of living increase, may constitute a violation of the protection guaranteed by Article 138.

The Constitutional Court did not set a new salary nor did it rule that judges should receive any amount they claim. It asked the Assembly to adopt a new formula by 31 July 2026 and left the legislator several options for doing so. The formula could be linked to the change in the salary of the highest civil servant, it could follow the change in the salary of the President of the Republic, or the Assembly could choose another comparable mechanism. The condition was that the new formula respected the constitutional guarantee of the salary of magistrates and did not bring back what the Court had considered a “hidden reduction” of it. So, the Court did not impose a figure on the Assembly; it asked it to choose a new mechanism by law and gave it a clear deadline to do so.

The Assembly did not fulfill this obligation within the deadline. This is the main fact from which the discussion about today's situation should begin.

The Supreme Court argues that the previous formula, since it was considered contrary to the Constitution, cannot continue to be applied after the deadline. The government objects, saying that the Supreme Court cannot determine salaries itself, because such a decision requires a legal basis and approval by the Assembly.

This argument of the government has a legal basis. But it does not remove the responsibility of the institutions that were obliged to approve the new formula by July 31. It was precisely their inaction that created the legal situation that has today brought about the clash between the judiciary and the executive.

Even the arrears are not a claim that suddenly appeared in August. In paragraph 110 of the decision, the Constitutional Court determines that the financial effects should be calculated from April 1, 2023 and also provides for the method of calculation in case the Assembly does not approve the amendments within the deadline.

For this reason, the debate on the level of salaries should be separated from the obligation to implement the decision of the Constitutional Court. Citizens' dissatisfaction with the judiciary is real and has strong reasons behind it. The justice reform created a category of judges and prosecutors with salaries and guarantees much higher than the vast majority of the administration and society, creating the perception of a privileged class that has not provided in return the faster, more qualitative and more reliable justice that was promised to the public. The reform simply built a punishment mechanism, but failed to build a functional justice system. Vetting, mass dismissals, vacancies and the weakening of many links in the system brought consequences that continue to this day.

The responsibility for this situation cannot be left to judges and prosecutors. The political creators of the reform are precisely those who for years have been boasting in meetings and on screens about the system they built, with the salaries, guarantees and powers they themselves gave to the new institutions. Now, when some of the consequences of that system fall on the government and the budget itself, the same people are starting to attack the institutions that their reform created.

Citizens' dissatisfaction with the privileges of magistrates is understandable and the debate over their salaries is completely legitimate, but this assessment of the reform and the quality of justice does not change the obligation of state institutions to respect and implement a decision of the Constitutional Court.
Nothing changes the state's obligation to implement constitutional decisions. Even if the Supreme Court of Justice has exceeded its powers, this should be determined through legal proceedings and not through a public campaign focused on individual judges' salaries.
The constitutional protection of magistrates' salaries is not intended to provide them with unlimited privileges. It is related to the independence of the judiciary and the need for political power to be unable to exert financial pressure on a power that should control the legality of its actions.

The government has the right to object to any interpretation it considers illegal, and the Assembly has the right to determine the salary formula by law. But before the debate is reduced to salary figures and the cost of 130 million euros, a fundamental fact must be acknowledged: the Constitutional Court requested that the issue be resolved by July 31, 2026, and this did not happen.

The responsibility for today's impasse begins right there.