“They’re mocking us!”: heated debate in the Bar Association as boycott extends to security-measure hearings at the Special Court

Lawyers have decided to escalate the boycott of the Special Court (GJKKO), extending it now to security-measure hearings.

The decision was taken this Wednesday at an extraordinary meeting of the General Council of the Chamber of Advocates, after the clash with the GJKKO over the regulation disputed by lawyers and the fines imposed on lawyers who did not appear at hearings in observance of the boycott.

The Chamber of Advocates also decided to financially cover the fines imposed on lawyers, should they stand. The head of the Chamber, Maks Haxhiaj, announced that the fines would be challenged at all judicial instances.

According to him, the earlier decision on the boycott has been respected by lawyers, while the GJKKO had been notified in advance. Haxhiaj said that, despite this, some judges have imposed fines on lawyers who did not appear at hearings.

Haxhiaj argued that the decisions of the Chamber’s General Council are binding on its members and disputed that the GJKKO regulation should prevail over the law on the legal profession. “Even from the standpoint of hierarchy, it is a regulation that is below the law, and it is not a regulation for us. The only law that we bow to with correctness and implement is the law on the legal profession,” Haxhiaj said.

The head of the Chamber also criticized the lack of a reaction from the GJKKO leadership to the lawyers’ demands. According to him, the Chamber had sent a letter aiming to resolve the situation through dialogue, but received no official response from the court leadership.

Haxhiaj said the response later received was signed by the GJKKO chancellor and, according to him, did not meet the formal conditions of an official communication between heads of institutions. In content, he added, the court defended the regulation disputed by lawyers.

According to Haxhiaj, the legal arguments presented by the Chamber — which he said are based on the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court, the Council of Europe Convention on the protection of the legal profession and the Code of Criminal Procedure — were not taken into consideration either.

Nevertheless, Haxhiaj stressed that the Chamber remains ready for dialogue and that the boycott’s aim is not to collapse the courts.

“We have been, are and will always be a cooperative party,” he said.

The head of the Chamber also referred to the OSCE Presence in Albania, which he said has maintained a supportive stance toward the lawyers’ concerns and a critical one toward the disputed regulation.

There was also criticism of the High Judicial Council. Haxhiaj said the Chamber had requested a meeting with the KLGJ to discuss the lawyers’ problems in judicial proceedings, but had received no serious response. According to him, the matter was discussed at the KLGJ, but the institution took no stance on the regulation.

During the meeting there was debate over the degree of escalation of the boycott. Some lawyers demanded that security measures be included immediately, while others proposed first a general boycott of up to two weeks.

Edlira Kola, a lawyer and member of the Tirana Chamber of Advocates, called for moving to a stronger measure, arguing that the boycott so far had been ignored by the GJKKO.

“I think we too should now take drastic measures, such as boycotting the security-measure hearings. I believe this tool would be effective and we would have an institutional reaction from this court,” Kola said.

Another member of the Vlora Chamber of Advocates, who said she had not agreed with the boycott in its proposed form at the previous meeting, declared she had changed her stance after the latest developments.

“They’re mocking us. They’re not taking us into consideration,” she said, supporting the inclusion of security measures in the boycott.

Another lawyer asked that this step not be taken immediately. He proposed a general boycott of up to two weeks and only if there was no reaction, to move to security measures.

“We should not go to security measures. It is an extreme decision, which may have very big consequences. To get there we should use the general boycott within a set timeframe, no more than two weeks,” he said.

The same lawyer declared he had already received four fines from the First Instance GJKKO and asked that the defense against them be collective rather than individual, since the fines relate to the implementation of a joint decision of the Chamber.

“I today have the fourth fine I am receiving at the First Instance GJKKO. Before a collegial act, which is the decision of the National Council of Advocates for the boycott, the defense must be collective,” he declared.

According to him, “advocacy as an institution is not a spectator of justice, but is a factor and actor of justice.”

Another proposal raised during the discussions was the withdrawal from the GJKKO of the list of lawyers appointed ex officio for the defense of defendants.

The lawyer who presented the proposal said this should not be considered “revenge,” but part of the advocacy’s reaction to the created situation.

Haxhiaj also dwelled on the stance of the two lawyers who are members of the KLGJ. According to him, lawyer Tabaku has supported the Chamber’s stance and opposed the created situation, while for the other lawyer he said he had maintained an indifferent stance.

At the end of the discussions, the Council decided to escalate the boycott, now also including security-measure hearings. /TCH/