MP Saimir Koreshi: Thank you, dear speaker!
Honourable, even in the Commission of Laws you admitted that there are delays and exceeding of the deadlines in inspection, or in the handling of incoming complaints against prosecutors and judges. How is it possible, because here today, I say this not without purpose, because many institutions say this one has it, that one has it, the Prosecutor General has it, HIJ has it. So, it’s a blur as to what happens. I say this regarding the number of complaints that your inspectors have and how much did they process during 2023, if they had all this work, because from the measures for one year, or for many years with what the public perceives in relation to exceeding of all deadlines and the way the prosecution and judicial system works today. I speak because a precedent has been set here that it seems as if the justice system is only SPAK, while the justice system in 95 percent is not SPAK, but malfunctions?
The second question: Are you aware Honourable that many judges hold cases for several months, up to a year, and finally after a year, without giving any deadline they return the documents, this being incompatible with the code of civil procedure, (returning documents after a year). Where do people expect to get justice? Do you know and are you aware that many prosecutors close criminal cases faster than they return personal belongings? So, if there is someone without a license, their car is seized and even after the case is closed, the vehicle is not returned, and after 25 requests from citizens and different lawyers of the case, it is still not returned. When these acts and other acts, such as the phones they seize when there are no concrete actions against the people whose belongings have been seized, the phones are no longer returned, the judicial police officers no longer return their phones. They are forgotten. How is this possible, when the acts are no longer useful, or at the service of the criminal investigation. Are you aware that after the announcement of the amnesty, those who were under house arrest, didn’t have any effect by the execution order from the prosecutor, but contrary to the law, were kept under house arrest? There are some of them who have been in prison, overstaying their terms. How is it possible that the prosecutor does not issue the execution order after the requests made by the respective lawyers, or by the prisoners?
Fifth question: Have you ever started an investigation mainly about the delays, deadlines of judges and prosecutors regarding the cases they administer, having said that many judges and prosecutors sometimes say that they have ton of workload. If you look at the Tirana Court announcements, the dates are announced only every 6 months. If you want to legally divide a property today, (keeping in mind that most of the crimes crimes were regarding the lands and if you make a dividing of the property among those of the co-ownership, who are owners who benefit by law No. 7501, you have to pass the first stage, the second stage of division. There are three stages of judgement and it takes 25 years to complete them. Each time, when it comes to the end of the process when it is needed to present the document of the proof of inheritance, one of the co-owners has died. Has your institution verified any actions, mainly and how is it possible that marriage settlements take up to 3 years and the measures that have been taken for this and finally, how has the new judicial map turned out for you because not only in perception, but in fact the part of reconciliation (between the spouses), until yesterday it was done within 60 days in the Court of Appeals in Vlora, it was completed within a year, a year and a half or 2 years, and today in the Tirana Court of Appeal, or in the Court of Administrative Appeal, they say that they are still examining the files from 2017. Thank you!
High Inspector of Justice Artur Metani: Thank you for the questions. I would like to answer the first question at the end, and I really thank you for making it, because I wanted to clarify once and for all the issue of complaints, deadlines and so on.
I’m starting with the second question, which was, am I aware that judges keep the files for one year and then return the documents? No, I think, they keep them for more than a year because here are cases like this and for this reason, throughout the years that have passed, we have carried out both thematic inspections and individual inspections for cases where judges who have examined files or cases, have exceeded the deadlines. There have been cases when magistrates have undergone proceedings in the councils and there have also been measures taken by the councils in relation to the requested disciplinary proceedings.
Question three. Do you know that prosecutors end investigations, but do not return personal belongings…?
Of course, there are many problems in the system, we try to follow them all based on complaints and on the basis of the thematic inspections we carry out, or on the basis of the information we receive from the media. This is an issue that we will look at. It has not been part of the complaints to my knowledge so far, or it has not been a substantial part of the inspections, given that the system has many other issues as well.
Are you aware that there are many defendants, that after the amnesty….? I am aware also based on the information that was made public by the media and based on a complaint that came from the People’s Advocate. We immediately started the verification. So far, there have been 70 cases that give the High Inspector of Justice the suspicion that there is a need to verify further. There are practices that are under verification and will go further, according to the procedures provided by the law.
Have you launched an investigation in the main…yes this is also related to the second question. We have carried out thematic inspection, but also individual inspections in relation to the complaints that have been submitted against judges who are exceeding the deadlines. Today, has been finished the investigation of the two magistrates, who will be sent within this month for disciplinary proceedings before the councils, precisely for these delays we are talking about.
How does the new judicial map results…? I already said that the new map has definitely created challenges. According to the information we have, it has created challenges in terms of administration, and obviously delays. These are issues that we have tried to address and analyze based on the thematic inspections that we can carry out. But I believe it is too early to judge whether the map is successful or not.
Regarding the first question. I would like you to have some patience, because it has a bit of a long answer. The High Inspector of Justice, at the time of starting his duties on 01.02.2020, has requested from the High Judicial Council, the High Prosecutorial Council, the Prosecutor General Office, and the Ministry of Justice to send to the Office of the High Inspector of Justice:
– Complaints filed by any natural or legal person related to the allegation of violations committed by magistrates;
– Any disciplinary file under investigation;
– Any identified problems related to the fulfillment of the functional tasks of the Office of the High Inspector of Justice;
– as well as any case related to thematic and institutional inspections according to the requirements of article 194, point 4, of law no. 115/2016 “On the governing bodies of the justice system”, amended.
At the beginning of this process, the High Judicial Council forwarded the first fund of practices consisting of a total of 757 complaints, most of which were in the initial review phase. At the same time, on the part of the High Judicial Council (and the former HCJ), only during the period August-September 2020, a total of 1347 other complaints of the former HCJ (High Council of Justice) were deposited at the Office of the High Inspector of Justice. During 2020, within the framework of various awareness-raising activities, 950 new complaints were also filed with HIJ, resulting in the administration of an archival fund consisting of 3054 complaints until 31.12.2020.
This considerable archival fund consisted of complaints which were not processed, partially processed, or which were in the initial stages of their review. Meanwhile, a part of this archival fund also had a significant number of cases or practices for which the administrative investigation process had begun, but it was not completed by previous bodies, such as the Inspectorate of the Supreme Council of Justice, the Ministry of Justice, the High Council of Justice, the Prosecutor General, the High Judicial Council, or the High Prosecutorial Council. The procedures followed by the previous bodies for dealing with these cases, resulted to have been examined in an incomplete and partial way, due to limited or divided competences between different bodies during the transitional period,
In order to deal with these complaints or practices inherited from the previous bodies, 3 (three) general orders have been approved by the High Inspector of Justice for the administration, categorization, and determination of the way of how these complaints are going to be handled. Specifically:
- Order no. 66, dated 28.09.2020 “On the establishment of the working group, for the administration and categorization of complaints submitted to the competent bodies during the transitional period, until the establishment of the institution of the High Inspector of Justice”.
- Order no. 98, dated 12.11.2020 “On the establishment of the working group for the continuation of the processing of complaints or practices forwarded by the High Judicial Council at the Office of the High Inspector of Justice”.
- Order no. 41, dated 19.02.2021 “On the distribution of complaints carried by the High Judicial Council and administered by the Office of the High Inspector of Justice”.
With the approval of the aforementioned acts, the administration and categorization of all complaints submitted to the competent bodies during the transitional period and forwarded for processing to the Office of the High Inspector of Justice, has been done. This categorization is done to group the complaints in order to facilitate the review process. At the end of the categorization process, cases are distributed for review according to a priority order based on criteria such as:
– submission date;
– the stage of review by the previous bodies;
– typology or urgency of processing the complaint;
– respecting the principle of equality and objectivity, as well as the time necessary for the examination and evaluation of each documented case.
In the meantime, a special attention has been paid to complaints and practices where a disciplinary investigation has been proposed or has started; complaints in which claims are raised for activities carried out outside the statute of limitation period; as well as appeals in the verification phase and suspended pending the completion of the judgement by the higher courts.
From 01.02.2020 to 31.05.2024, the complaint review process has been a process that has exceeded our expectations regarding the normal workload, as well as the capacity of available human resources. HIJ has reviewed 6499 complaints (85 %) out of 7600 complaints which is the total number of complaints filed with the HIJ. During the year 2023, the reviewing and processing of 2104 inherited complaints was completed, enabling HIJ to no longer carry inherited complaints from the institutions during the transitional period (backlog), but to effectively continue the activity, as well as the reviewing of incoming complaints directly at the Office of the High Inspector of Justice.
From the review of the complaints of the inherited fund, it has been noticed that the complaints present claims for actions or inactions which are related to issues related to court decisions or early investigative actions (2012-2017), which at the time of review by the HIJ, have passed the legal deadlines (statute of limitations) since the time when the alleged violation occurred was more than five years ago. The number of complaints which had passed the statute of limitations at the time they were submitted to the HIJ is 625, of which 99 passed the statute of limitation in the HIJ, or 1.3% of the total complaints inherited from the previous bodies. Today at the HIJ, from the complaints filed directly with our institution, doesn’t result any case to have passed the limitations, this is because special care has been taken to respect the legal term of five years from the moment when the alleged violation is alleged to have occurred.
The review of each complaint is carried out in an impartial, independent way and in accordance with the principle of proportionality, to ensure on the one hand the magistrates for the implementation of a correct process, and on the other hand to provide the assurance that all examinations of the complaints will avoid impunity. In this regard, 111 magistrates have been investigated, for 40 of whom the initiation of disciplinary proceedings at the Councils has been requested. For any investigated magistrate, there was no violation of investigation deadlines, nor was there a complaint made by the magistrate for violation of the procedure, evidentiary documentation and procedural deadlines of the investigation.
The prioritization of the work to review the earliest claims in time, the importance and the consequence of the violation, have certainly influenced the observance of the established deadlines, but in no case have they influenced the fair and impartial evaluation in the examination of the admissibility criteria of the complaint, or the carrying out of the verification process or full disciplinary investigation. This is not only a one-sided institutional assessment by the HIJ institution, but a clear indication through the decision-making of the Temporary Committee for the Review of Complaints in the Councils for reviewing complaints against the decision-making of the HIJ, where for 4 consecutive years, there isn’t any accepted appeal related the 10 appealed decisions for closing the disciplinary investigation.
During the time period 01.02.2020 to 31.05.2024, the capacity of human resources in HIJ, which has as its object the reviewing of complaints, as well as disciplinary investigation cases, or the development of thematic/institutional inspections, has been dynamic and with changes. The lack of interest on the part of the magistrate judges to be commanded in the position of inspectors at the HIJ, has in itself constituted an obstacle in the smooth running of the activity. For this reason, the High Inspector of Justice has assessed proposing legal changes to the criteria that magistrates must meet to be commanded at the Office of the High Inspector of Justice.
Specifically for 2020, the actual number of employees in the inspectors’ unit was 4% reviewing 173 complaints out of 3054 complaints presented at the HIJ office. During this year, a thematic inspection was also conducted. For the year 2021, the capacity of human resources has reached 31%, reviewing 1719 complaints out of 4127 complaints submitted at the HIJ office. For 2022, the number was 38% of capacity, reviewing 1715 complaints out of 3467 presented at the HIJ office. During this year, two thematic inspections were conducted. While for the year 2023, the unit of inspectors had the capacity of 55%, reviewing 2340 complaints out of 3703 presented at the HIJ office. While for 2024, the unit is in 45% of its capacity, reviewing 552 complaints out of 1600 complaints submitted at the HIJ office. Throughout this year, 6 thematic inspections are planned.
At the same time, in addition to the reviewing of complaints, as well as the development of thematic or institutional inspections, the goal of the HIJ Office, while exercising its constitutional and legal functions during the time period 01.02.2020- 31.05.2024, is also focused on establishing and strengthening of its activity, through defining the vision for the direction of the work, setting the work standards, defining the sub-legal framework for the exercise of the activity, filling vacancies, establishing contacts with other institutions of justice, starting cooperation with international actors , as well as public awareness on the role of HIJ and the activity of the institution.
However, the main problem that the Office of the High Inspector of Justice has encountered during this time period is the lack of human resources. The actual number of inspectors in 4 years has changed for the year 2024, being reduced by 1 inspector and the actual number is 9 inspectors out of 20 predicted in the institution’s body. The need to fill the unit with magistrate inspectors, has been continuously presented to the councils through requests for the command of magistrates, the announcement of procedures for the recruitment of non-magistrate inspectors.
Periodically, the High Inspector of Justice has addressed the HJC and the HPC with requests for the command of magistrates. Although the procedures were announced by the HJC, there was no interest from the magistrates, and as a result there is no judge commanded in the HIJ. While 4 prosecutors have been commanded by the HPC, one of whom has been suspended due to reassessment procedures from July 2021 to February 2024. The last request addressed to the HPC has not been announced by this Council after it was decided not to accept the request on the grounds of the lack of experienced prosecutors in the system and that some prosecutors have already been commanded to the HIJ.
The lack of inspectors has been noticed since the beginning of the activity with the first announcement made by the HJC. For this reason, the institution of the High Inspector of Justice has taken the necessary measures to propose legal changes aimed at expanding the circle of subjects that meet the criteria to be an inspector. The legal changes were presented to the Ministry of Justice in December 2020 and during 2021 they were deposited in the Assembly. The need for their approval was also emphasized during the hearings of the presentation of the activity report during the years 2021, 2022 and 2023 at the Commission for Legal Affairs, Public Administration and Human Rights. Even today, the initiatives proposed by the institution of the High Inspector of Justice have not been included in the work calendar of the Assembly.
Speaker of the Assembly Lindita Nikolla: Question Klotilda Bushka
MP Klotilda Bushka: Thank you, chairwoman! Thank you, Mr. Metani, for your reporting and for… actually, for the summarizing answer regarding the evidencing of complaints and the high number of those inherited, this was also one of my questions. In fact, I would divide my questions into two groups, they are the complaints presented to the institutions before the judicial reform for inspections, for which it turns out that you have done a total completion of their review. We no longer have complaints that are pending to be dealt with. Then there are new complaints, some of which are already in the disciplinary investigation process. I’m talking about the reporting year and also important for us are the thematic inspections. Now I will focus on the complaints of the subjects and the initiations that have started on the initiative of the High Inspector of Justice. As far regarding disciplinary investigations, disciplinary investigations for 23 subjects were initiated by complaint, that is, on the basis of a complaint, while for two subjects, investigations were initiated by the High Inspector of Justice. The question I have is this. Do you think you need to add to your work procedures so that this number increases, that is, of those you initiate as an institution itself and this way to review even more other complaints? Because, we as the commission have discussed it often, that you have the right, in fact, to make continuous efforts to complete your structure with inspectors from the ranks of the magistrates, which has made it impossible due to the lack of interest on the part of the magistrates and from the vacancies that have been created in the system and by the criteria, which are such that when seen in fact in accordance with the actual circumstances that the system has today, it makes it difficult to fill them with inspectors from the ranks of magistrates. For example, for the reporting period there are 10 vacancies and 6 come for inspectors from the ranks of magistrates, but in the system there are also 4 vacant positions for inspectors, coming from the ranks of jurists. Regarding the recruitment of inspectors from the ranks of jurists, until the last report we still had no progress. From the moment of reporting to the commission until today, have you filled these vacancies from the ranks of non-magistrates? And should they perhaps be seen, perhaps agreed upon, because the change in the criteria in the law for magistrate inspectors are with the applicable standards in the EU countries, as well as all the members of the commission, as you are also aware, have some kind of discussion with the EU experts for an agreement, but in the meantime this agreement and this parliamentary process is going on. Can other ways be found to review the complaints without having staff from non-magistrate inspectors so that your work can go on? The next question is about thematic inspections. At the moment we speak, you have completed 4 thematic inspections, while at the time of reporting there were two. One on judgement deadlines, (very important in our judgment), and other issues that you addressed in your reporting. What are the other two thematic inspections about and are these two other inspections related to the concerns that have often been raised in the commission, but now also recently in the report of the committee of the Council of Europe for the prevention of torture, where the number of detainees in relation to the number of convicts in Albania is very problematic and all institutions must take measures to address this phenomenon, because not only do we violate the standards, we do not respect human rights, and on the other hand, we are also not fulfilling those obligations that come to us from the international community as a member country of the Council of Europe. Have you thought on handling this matter and will this be on the inspection schedule for the future work? This is actually a recommendation. In the resolution, the issue of recommendations is a set of procedures which in my opinion, is complicated even in the law on how the duties are implemented.
High Inspector of Justice Artur Metani: In relation to the first question regarding complaints, the possibility of the re-evaluation of the methodology of examining complaints and the efficiency of work. I think the answer is no. We have tried to solve this with other work organization tools. Firstly, the backlog that was completed was a great relief for the inspectors’ work and this has given another dynamic to the work in the institution, because old complaints required more work than an ordinary complaint due to the missing information being old. This has given another dimension to work effectiveness. Secondly, we have reached an agreement with the High Judicial Council, that the High Inspector of Justice has access to the system used by the courts, because one of the most important work phases of the High Inspector of Justice, which is the verification of complaints, takes a lot of time because we take and receive letters from the courts, or from the prosecution offices. It takes a month depending on the case. So, the agreement we have made with the HJC is that the HIJ will have access to the system and this whole verification process will be avoided, so there will be no need for a month or two depending on the complaints, but it will be done in a few days. This will give more dynamics to meeting deadlines and processing more complaints. I don’t see a need to change the methodology at the moment. The work is dynamic and brings needs, but for the moment, I have these two answers. Regarding the vacant positions, I understand the reaction of the committee. I do not misunderstand it at all, but this is an issue that must be addressed anyway. I understand that the system can be affected by making legal changes regarding the criteria for magistrates, but the situation is like this. There is no interest from those magistrates who have more than 13 years of work experience. To my knowledge, there are prosecutors who are interested, and for this reason, I have insisted that the High Prosecutorial Council announce vacancies. It has been a year since the High Prosecutorial Council refuses to carry out this announcement according to their reasoning, but this is the situation anyway. Now, there are no legal changes, there are no announcements… and I have a legal obligation for inspectors that half of their unit to be magistrate inspectors, but this is not the most fundamental. The fundamental issue is the professional level brought by magistrate inspectors, especially of the judge profile in terms of the work that the High Inspector of Justice must do. As for non-magistrate inspectors, the announcement was made twice. The procedure lasts one year, because information is received, vetting of all candidacies is done. There have always been many candidates, so the process has been prolonged. For the sake of truth, we made the last announcement two months ago, maybe one day after we reported to the Commission of Laws. So far, after the end of the application, about 19 candidacies have been submitted. Naturally, the commission has begun to process each candidacy in accordance with the law, but as I said, the procedure takes almost 10-11 months.
Regarding the thematic inspections, the first inspections that were carried out are the inspections that are mandatory by law regarding the issue of the distribution of cases by draw in the prosecution offices. We carried out in 2022 this thematic inspection in 2023 and this year we have started it again. Apart from them, we also inspected the case of replacement of the prosecutors, which is also an issue that shows concern according to the complaints received from the citizens. We have carried out inspections regarding the prisons being released prematurely on parole and we also carried out an inspection that was suggested to us as a request from international partners in terms of the options or the possibilities to shorten court proceedings. These are mainly some thematic inspections that are also in the report. What I want to say is that the procedure for drawing up the inspection plan is done in accordance with the work methodology approved by the inspectors working in the HIJ. First, some information is requested or a letter is sent to the councils, the Minister of Justice or the Prosecutor General asking if they have suggestions for plans, or thematic inspections that can be carried out, according to the information they have, or the opinion they have. This practice has been followed every year since the beginning of the HIJ’s work. For the sake of truth, two institutions that have always been permanent in seeking opinions on thematic inspections are the Prosecutor General, then the Minister of Justice. The councils have not been cooperative in terms of the ideas and opinions they have to give about what needs to be inspected or changed in the system. Then, this planning is also based on the basis of complaints, more specifically on the biggest issued presented by the citizens’ complaints. That is where we focus the few human resources we have. Of course, also depending on those issues that are published in the media that affect the High Inspector of Justice, that can be addressed through a thematic inspection. This is the methodology we follow in terms of conducting thematic inspections, balancing the few human resources, because on the one hand there are the thematic inspections and on the other hand there is also the reviewing of complaints, the disciplinary investigation that is carried out, which obviously need their time as well own human resources. Regarding the issue you mentioned, this has not been part of a thematic inspection until today, but we will propose it in the meeting with the inspectors depending on all the proposals that come both within the system and from the partners, as they have requested that this the inspection that I mentioned above, to continue for the year 2025. We will take it into consideration and we will evaluate it in accordance with the opportunities we have.
The question of MP Ina Zhupa: As the High Inspector of Justice, have you conducted any thematic or complaint-based inspections in SPAK on the violation of human rights or on double standards?
High Inspector of Justice Artur Metani: As I said before, from 2020 when the HIJ started until today, 81 complaints have been submitted regarding SPAK, 54 have been reviewed, and 27 are in process. 41 complaints have been submitted against the Special Court of First Instance for Corruption and Organized Crime, 27 have been processed and 14 are in process. For the Court of Appeal for Corruption and Organized Crime, 40 complaints have been submitted, 35 have been processed and 5 are under review. For the Supreme Court, 96 complaints have been submitted, 66 have been reviewed and 30 are under review. For the High Judicial Council, 18 complaints have been submitted, 13 have been processed and 5 are under review. For the High Prosecutorial Council, 8 complaints have been submitted, 3 have been processed and 5 are under review. For the Prosecutor General, 10 complaints have been submitted, 5 have been processed and 5 are under review.
MP Flamur Noka: I will not ask you about the scandal of incinerators when you were the legal director of the prime minister office, but I will ask you a question about a matter that belongs to the HIJ: Have you started a disciplinary proceeding for judges like Irena Maneku, Gjoka, Shpata, for hiding being convicted by a court decision in the neighboring country of Greece or her non-declaring of such legal obligations, or to investigate the way she travelled to Italy in 2004, while 2 years ago, Greece had forbidden her entrance in the 27 Schengen countries of the EU. Do you as HIJ, as a new body of new justice, bear the responsibility of how this lady convicted in Greece, is today the representative of new justice? Thank you!
High Inspector of Justice Artur Metani: First, you didn’t ask the question, but anyway, I will give an answer. The case is under investigation and those who are investigating the case know it. Regarding the High Inspector of Justice, or Artur Metani, be sure that I have no problem.
Secondly, regarding the question. We follow with priority any public information that comes out about anyone, including Judge Irena Gjoka, and we are handling it in accordance with Law 96/2016 on the status of Judges and Prosecutors in the Republic of Albania.
Lindita Nikola: Thank you!
