Judicial remuneration: independence and implementation of the Constitutional Court’s judgment

The constitutional framework

“Decisions of the Constitutional Court are final and binding for enforcement.” — Article 132(1) of the Constitution

Article 132(1) of the Albanian Constitution provides that Constitutional Court judgments are final and binding. Article 142(3) requires state bodies to enforce judicial decisions.

Judicial independence is guaranteed by Article 145, while Article 138 protects a judge’s tenure, salary and other benefits, permitting interference only in the cases defined by the Constitution itself. These provisions show that financial status is not merely an employment matter; it forms part of the constitutional architecture of judicial power.

What did the Constitutional Court decide?

In judgment no. 15 of 17 February 2026, the Constitutional Court examined the statutory formula governing judicial remuneration, found the challenged provisions constitutionally incompatible and identified the standard to be observed by the responsible authorities. Parliament was required to adopt the necessary amendments by 31 July 2026.

In its official statement of 7 September 2026, the Court stressed that the reasoning and operative part together constitute its official position and must be read and implemented as a whole. It also reiterated that its judgments are final and binding and that their implementation is directly connected to the rule of law and legal certainty.

From the constitutional deadline to the institutional impasse

After the 31 July deadline had passed, the High Judicial Council adopted decision no. 435 of 26 August 2026. Its implementation and the method used to calculate remuneration then became the subject of an open institutional disagreement.

In September 2026, judicial bodies called for full implementation of the constitutional judgment and challenged the process followed to amend Law no. 96/2016. The bill introduced in Parliament proposed a coefficient of 0.38 of the President of the Republic’s salary as the basic reference salary. At the date of this update, the initiative was on the plenary agenda for consideration and voting; it is therefore described here as a bill, not legislation in force.

Does Parliament retain discretion?

Parliament has authority to establish the remuneration scheme by law and to consider the public interest, the wider hierarchy of public-sector pay and genuine budgetary capacity. The constitutional judgment does not transfer that competence to another institution.

Legislative discretion is not unlimited, however. The new formula must give genuine effect to judgment no. 15/2026, comply with Article 138 and rest on verifiable reasoning. Formal enactment of an amendment is insufficient if its substance does not meet the obligations arising from the constitutional judgment.

At the same time, administrative positions adopted by judicial governance bodies cannot permanently replace legislation. A sustainable solution requires clear legislation, implementation of the constitutional judgment and institutional coordination within the competence of each branch of government.

Why does this matter to the public?

Financial protection for judges should be presented neither as immunity from accountability nor as a personal privilege. Its purpose is to reduce the possibility of direct or indirect pressure on the exercise of judicial office.

Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers connects judicial remuneration with the dignity of the profession and calls for safeguards against reduction. It does not prescribe a specific amount for Albania, but explains the institutional function of financial protection.

For the public, the ultimate question is practical: can individuals rely on a court that decides only under the Constitution and the law, and are its judgments implemented even when the obligation rests on the state itself?