Magistrates’ Salaries: High Court and HPC Oppose Majority’s Draft Law — ‘It Fails the Constitutional Standard’

The High Court and the High Prosecutorial Council have opposed the formula proposed by the majority for changing magistrates’ salaries, arguing that the foreseen increase does not meet the standard set by the Constitutional Court. According to the draft proposed by Socialist MPs Aulona Bylykbashi and Admir Kadeli, the base reference salary coefficient for magistrates would be raised from 0.36 to 0.38 of the salary of the President of the Republic.

In their positions presented to the Law Commission on the draft law, both institutions call for the new formula to be revised, questioning the way the reference salary is determined and the real effect the proposed change will have on the salary levels of judges and prosecutors.

The chairwoman of the High Prosecutorial Council, Mirela Bogdani, declared that the foreseen increase, according to the information received by the Council, is minimal and does not reflect the standard set by the Constitutional Court.

According to her, the intervention in the salary system should be used to create a sustainable and predictable mechanism, and not simply to formally fulfill an obligation imposed by the Constitutional Court.

“The Council has assessed that an intervention in the magistrates’ salary system should be seen as an opportunity to build a sustainable and predictable system, not simply an intervention to merely formally fulfill the obligation set by the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court’s decision requires that the legal solution avoid not only a nominal reduction of the salary, but also any form of hidden reduction or inflation of it, preserving the adequacy of financial treatment with the importance of the function.

The Council deems that the draft law should be revised in its entirety so as to ensure not only the correction of the base reference salary, but also a mechanism that must be clear, objective, predictable for its adjustment to the development of salaries in the country as well as transparent criteria. A requirement stemming from the obligation for effective implementation of the Constitutional Court’s decision. In reference to the information we received about a 0.02% increase, that is, an increase that is minimal compared to what the Council itself has calculated, I would say there is a very large difference. It does not reflect the standard set by the Constitutional Court and the standard that the salary reference itself made for the state administration system,” said Bogdani.

The High Court also expressed reservations about the proposed formula, emphasizing that Parliament has the obligation to implement the Constitutional Court’s decision and that the choice of the new mechanism cannot lead to a result that contradicts the constitutional standard.

The Deputy Chairman of the High Court, Ilir Panda, said the legal intervention is necessary, but emphasized that the main question is whether the proposed formula guarantees implementation of the Constitutional Court’s decision.

“The High Court considers the legal intervention necessary after the Constitutional Court’s decision. The issue is not whether Parliament should intervene, but whether the proposed solution realizes the binding standards arising from the Constitutional Court’s decision, which is not guidance but an obligation for the legislator. The Constitutional Court has found the existing scheme incompatible and has also set a deadline for Parliament’s intervention. The draft law must be assessed as an implementation of a final and binding decision of the Constitutional Court. The main problem is the reference salary of 0.38% of the President’s salary.

The High Court does not oppose in principle the possibility that the legislator chooses a new reference, but the problem lies in the concrete result of the proposed formula. The High Court proposes that the law not fix a priori the 0.38% coefficient but define a mechanism that guarantees implementation of the standard of the Constitutional Court’s decision and the real preservation of the salary level. Parliament has room to choose the formula, but not to fail to implement the constitutional standard. The new law must resolve the issue for the future, but without erasing the effect of the Constitutional Court’s decision. The goal is not to pass a law, but to pass a law that implements the Constitutional Court’s decision,” said Panda.