The head of the Supreme Court, Sokol Sadushi, stated that the government's blocking of salaries is not only a financial issue, but also affects the normal functioning of the courts, the independence of the judiciary and the constitutional order. At the extraordinary meeting of judges, he emphasized that the reaction should not be seen as a clash between the judiciary and the executive, but as a matter of the obligation to implement the final decisions of the Constitutional Court.
Sadushi argued that what is happening is not simply a financial dispute, but an issue that affects the binding force of the Constitutional Court's decisions and the conditions under which the judiciary exercises its function. Sadushi underlined that the judiciary is not seeking new privileges or benefits, but for the state to implement the obligations stemming from the constitution, the law and the CC.
"This General Meeting has been called 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 a court, a 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 branches of government, the binding force of the Constitutional Court's decisions 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," said Sadushi.
