Before we get angry about judges’ salaries

By Thoma Gëllçi

The debate that has erupted in Albania over the salaries of judges and prosecutors is presented mainly as a conflict between the public interest and the financial demands of a category that is already paid far 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 remains the object of serious criticism. Yet this debate cannot be understood merely by comparing a judge’s salary with that of a teacher, nurse or pensioner.

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

The purpose of this guarantee is not to secure untouchable salaries for judges as a personal privilege, but to protect the independence of the judiciary from financial interference by other powers. It was precisely on this basis that the Constitutional Court assessed that even a reduction that does not appear directly in the nominal salary amount, but freezes it while reference salaries and the cost of living rise, may constitute a violation of the protection guaranteed by Article 138.

The Constitutional Court did not set a new salary, nor did it decide that judges must receive whatever amount they claim. It asked Parliament to approve a new formula by 31 July 2026 and left the legislature several alternatives for doing so. The formula could be tied to changes in the salary of the highest public administration official, could follow changes in the salary of the President of the Republic, or Parliament could choose another comparable mechanism. The condition was that the new formula respect the constitutional guarantee of magistrates’ pay and not reproduce what the Court had considered a “hidden reduction” of it. In other words, the Court did not impose a figure on Parliament; it asked it to choose a new mechanism by law and gave it a clear deadline to do so.

Parliament did not fulfill this obligation within the deadline. That is the key fact from which the discussion of today’s situation must begin.

The High Judicial Council (KLGJ) argues that the previous formula, having been deemed unconstitutional, cannot continue to be applied after the deadline expired. The government counters by saying the KLGJ cannot set salaries itself, because such a decision requires a legal basis and Parliament’s approval.

The government’s argument has a legal basis. But it does not remove the responsibility of the institutions that had the duty to approve the new formula by 31 July. It was precisely their inaction that created the legal situation that has now produced the clash between the judiciary and the executive.

The back payments are not a claim that suddenly appeared in August either. In paragraph 110 of its decision, the Constitutional Court determines that the financial effects must be calculated from 1 April 2023 and also provides the method of calculation in case Parliament did not approve the changes within the deadline.

For this reason, the debate over salary levels must be separated from the obligation to implement the Constitutional Court’s decision. 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 far higher than the vast majority of the administration and society, creating the perception of a privileged stratum that has not delivered in return the faster, higher-quality and more trustworthy justice promised to the public. The reform simply built a punishment mechanism, but failed to build a functional justice system. The vetting, mass departures, vacancies and the weakening of many links in the system brought consequences that continue to this day.

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

Citizens’ dissatisfaction with magistrates’ privileges is understandable, and the debate over their salaries is fully legitimate, but this assessment of the reform and of the quality of justice does not change the obligation of state institutions to respect and implement a Constitutional Court decision.

Nothing changes the state’s obligation to implement constitutional decisions. Even if the KLGJ has exceeded its competences, that must be determined through legal procedures, not through a public campaign focused on judges’ individual salaries.

The constitutional protection of magistrates’ pay is not intended to secure them unlimited privileges. It is tied to the independence of the judiciary and to the need for political power to have no means of exerting financial pressure on a power that must control the legality of its actions.

The government has the right to oppose any interpretation it considers unlawful, and Parliament has the right to set the salary formula by law. But before the debate is reduced to salary figures and the 130-million-euro cost, one fundamental fact must be acknowledged: the Constitutional Court required the matter to be resolved by 31 July 2026, and that did not happen.

Responsibility for today’s deadlock begins precisely there.