High Inspector of Justice Artur Metani made a presentation of the annual activity of the institution he leads for the year 2024 to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Public Administration and the Committee on Civic Initiatives, Cooperation and Institutional Supervision.
Focusing on the recommendations made according to the Resolution of the Assembly of the Republic of Albania, for the year 2024, Mr. Metani made a synthesis of the level of their implementation, underlining that the High Inspector of Justice has fully fulfilled all the recommendations made.
Further, the High Inspector of Justice highlighted in numbers the work done in processing complaints, investigations and disciplinary proceedings as well as thematic inspections.
In the last part of his presentation, the High Inspector of Justice presented issues identified in the system during his inspection work, the recommendations given to all justice institutions and the need for other public institutions to engage in addressing these problems in the system.
Presentation of the High Inspector of Justice Artur Metani at the hearing session for the reporting of the annual activity of the High Inspector of Justice, for the year 2024, to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Public Administration and the Committee on Civic Initiatives, Cooperation and Institutional Oversight
___________________________________________________________________
Greetings to all,
First of all, since this is my first time before the new assembly, allow me to congratulate you, especially the new parliament members. I wish you success in the 11th legislature!
Secondly, allow me to appreciate the important role of the Assembly in this situation that we have been through and going through since the event at the beginning of last week. What happened was shocking for everyone. I thank the Assembly for the solemn act of honoring the judge with a minute of silence. Human and institutional solidarity is vital to face such situations, where finding the right boundaries to separate, on the one hand, the problems of the system, the well-founded and unfounded dissatisfaction with the work of judges and prosecutors, and on the other hand, the extreme reactions with very heavy costs, is very difficult.
Having these feelings, we have prepared this report with our colleagues, presenting here not only statistics, but also a view of the issues of the judicial system today, according to the perspective of HIJ, as well as the challenges that we, the bodies of the justice system, but also other institutional and public actors must address.
As for the report, I will first focus on the recommendations given, according to the resolution of the Assembly of the Republic of Albania, in a synthesis of the level of their implementation and to inform you that all the recommendations made have been fully fulfilled.
Recommendation 1. Addressing through the instruments provided by the law, sensitive issues for the public, as a guaranteeing institution of the justice system, in order to further strengthen public trust not only for the HIJ, but for all institutions of the justice system.
In the annual plan of HIJ inspections, these topics include:
- Issues identified from the review of complaints.
- Assessment of the most frequent allegations of various violations by magistrates, court administration or prosecutors’ offices.
- Proposals received from institutions, which are made in accordance with the provisions of Article 194, point 4 of Law No. 115/2016 “On the governing bodies of the justice system”, as amended.
- Data presented by periodic information from the courts.
- Applicable provisions that provide for the undertaking of inspections.
Recommendation 2. Special attention to filling vacancies in the positions of magistrate inspector and non-magistrate inspector.
The High Inspector of Justice has given special attention to the process of filling vacancies in the positions of magistrate inspector and non-magistrate inspector, by:
- Submitting requests for secondment of magistrates to the respective Council.
- Announcing vacancies and issuing an order to initiate the procedure for the recruitment of non-magistrate candidates for the position of inspector at the Office of the High Inspector of Justice.
Recommendation 3. Undertaking regular measures for the checking of the assets/integrity in accordance with the high standards of the re-evaluation process, especially for non-magistrate inspectors.
The background and asset/integrity verification process for candidates for non-magistrate inspectors was carried out in accordance with the legal criteria (Article 209, point 6; Article 283 point 4; Article 240 of Law No. 115/2016), exercising full and comprehensive checking with law enforcement agencies to verify compliance with the criteria.
The verification consists of 3 pillars, for which a full and comprehensive verification is carried out for each candidate, regarding:
– Full check of the declaration of assets, private interests and financial obligations of the candidate and related persons.
– Verification of the integrity, referring to the standards of the law on transitional reassessment.
– Verification of the legal criteria for assessing the professionalism of the candidate, referring to the Judicial Appointments Council standards for this criterion.
3 candidates were disqualified for the asset criterion and 5 candidates for other criteria.
Recommendation 4. Increasing the number of institutional inspections with a clear and defined objective, focused on specific aspects of the activity of courts and prosecution offices for case management and judicial and investigative administration.
This recommendation has been implemented by increasing the number of inspections, through strengthening internal mechanisms for determining the topics in the inspection plan.
– HIJ has established an administrative mechanism for monitoring the activity of magistrates, through receiving periodic information from the courts, thus identifying those phenomena that are included in the inspection topics, related to the quality and efficiency of the system. The relation with the Supreme Court for decisions referred to HIJ, within the framework of the carrying out of the judicial process within a reasonable time frame and active participation in annual analyses of the work of the courts have contributed to the increase in the number of inspections.
– The conclusions of the analyses from the review of public complaints and cases reported to the public, or even requests received from various institutions, have served as an important tool to determine the topics of the inspection plan.
– The proposals of the justice system institutions have also been an important source of information.
All these measures have served to determine the topics of the inspection plan, with a focus on the quality of judicial activity.
For 2025, an inspection plan has been approved, containing 8 inspection topics, which focus on the quality and efficiency of the system, including 3 inspections related to the prosecution system. For the first time, an institutional inspection is foreseen.
Recommendation 5. Completing the ethical-professional evaluation of inspectors in a reasonable time and use the results of the evaluation to develop programs aimed at improving institutional performance.
The ethical-professional evaluation process for 5 inspectors has been completed and also the process for magistrate inspectors is currently completed. Two inspectors have not yet been evaluated and this is a process that will begin during 2026.
Recommendation 6. Commitment to increase cooperation with other institutions of the justice system and the Ministry of Justice in terms of information exchange, cooperation in thematic investigations and inspections, as well as coordination of actions to address common issues.
Regarding this issue, the High Inspector of Justice has been committed to increasing cooperation, participating in meetings, where he has made continuous calls for joint round tables between the bodies of the justice system, to promote discussions on issues that increase the quality and efficiency of the judiciary and the prosecution. Some illustrative cases are:
- In June 2024 – representatives of the HIJ, HJC and HPC, engaged in a round table, in order to increase cooperation and coordination between justice institutions, with a special focus on the continuous assessment of judges and prosecutors.
- In December 2024 – a working meeting was held at the High Prosecutorial Council. The purpose of the meeting was to address the challenges related to institutional communication and further strengthen cooperation between the two institutions, for an efficient and more sustainable justice system, through the topics of inspection in terms of discipline in the work of magistrates.
- Similar meetings have continued during 2025, with a focus on inspection topics, in function of the quality and efficiency of the judicial system and the follow-up of inspection recommendations, and will undoubtedly be continuous.
Recommendation 7. Improving transparency indicators and public accessibility by publishing periodic information, reports and any other data that reflects institutional activity.
Transparency indicators remain a systematic priority for the High Inspector of Justice, since the start of its operation. This is firstly evident from our official website, which has been improved during 2024 with this aim in mind. This has also brought the maximum assessment of the Information And Data Protection Commissioner, for the second consecutive year, for the High Inspector of Justice. In the philosophy of HIJ, the opportunity to exploit every new space for improvement remains an ongoing commitment.
Recommendation 8. Commitment to fully and effectively fulfilling all institutional reporting obligations, contributing in a timely manner to reporting within the framework of the European Union integration process.
Commitments towards European integration have been an absolute priority for HIJ, through timely and quality reporting, whenever requested by the structures of the Ministry of Justice, with periodically updated data. HIJ has also always participated in all high-level roundtables, the High Inspector of Justice himself, or authorized representatives, in technical roundtables, meetings of the Inter-institutional Working Group for European Integration, explanatory and coordination meetings convened in function of the commitments of the integration process. Specifically for this recommendation, the review of the organizational structure has also been assessed, in order to effectively carry out the process of fulfilling the commitments for this process and we await approval from the Assembly.
In addition to the tasks assigned by the Assembly in the resolution, the High Inspector of Justice has continued to work with its organic functions, related to complaints, investigations and disciplinary proceedings and thematic inspections. As is known, the High Inspector of Justice is the institution responsible for verifying complaints, investigating disciplinary violations, initiating disciplinary proceedings against judges and prosecutors of all levels, members of the High Judicial Council, members of the High Prosecutorial Council and the Prosecutor General, as well as for the institutional inspection of courts and prosecutorial offices.
Thus, during 2024, 1491 new complaints against judges and prosecutors were filed with the HIJ. 1363 complaints were carried over from previous years. In total, for the year 2024, the High Inspector of Justice had 2854 complaints to process where 1374 complaints were reviewed, of which 54 concluded with a disciplinary investigation. During 2024, in addition to citizens, there were also complainants from institutions of the system, such as the head of the court with 2 complaints, heads of prosecution offices with 20 complaints, the Independent Qualification Commission with 2 referrals for competence and the Supreme Court with 4 decisions for ascertaining the violation of the reasonable deadline.
In addition to the complaints above, during 2024, HIJ has also reviewed a considerable number of requests from the HPC and HJC, for the evaluation of magistrates for different evaluation periods where for 118 requests brought by the Councils, the High Inspector of Justice has reviewed 674 complaints and 11 complaints are in different stages of processing. Specifically, 578 complaints have been reviewed, based on 64 requests brought by the HJC and 9 complaints are in various stages of processing. While 96 complaints have been reviewed for the HPC, based on 54 requests addressed to the HIJ and 2 complaints are in the initial review phase. Even during the current year, the two Councils have forwarded requests to the HIJ in the context of the need for the assessment of magistrates. 71 requests have come from the Councils by the end of September, for which the HIJ has reviewed 842 complaints and 5 complaints are in the verification phase. So, for the year 2024 to September 2025 alone, there are 1534 complaints for processing by the HIJ at the request of the Councils. The High Inspector of Justice has reviewed 1516 complaints. Only 18 complaints are in process. So, it is a voluminous work and their processing is done with priority so as not to hinder the HJC and HPC in the evaluation processes of judges and prosecutors, also in function of promotions and transfers, according to the needs of the Courts and Prosecution Offices to fill their vacancies.
In addition to the processing of these two categories of complaints, 6 thematic inspections were completed during 2024, while at the start of the calendar year as usual, the General Meeting of Inspectors approved the calendar with 6 thematic inspections.
- From the complaints reviewed during 2024, the complainants raise claims:
- on the manner of resolving the judicial case and evaluating the evidence.
- for delays in the announcement and reasoning of judicial decisions.
- for the performance/failure to perform investigative actions, or the evaluation of evidence collected by the investigative body during the investigative process.
- for unfair decision-making by magistrates during the review of cases.
- for delaying the trial by judges but also delaying investigative activity by prosecutors
- for incompatibility or conflict of interest and violation of ethics by magistrates.
During 2024, from the complaints for which a disciplinary investigation was initiated, the HIJ issued 23 decisions for 25 magistrates (11 prosecutors, 13 judges and 1 council member), of which 10 decisions were initiated on the initiative of the High Inspector of Justice. During 2024, investigations initiated in 2023 were also continued.
From the investigations initiated on the initiative, in two cases the High Inspector of Justice also conducted property investigations, based on data denounced in public. (A denounced judge in an investigative show and a council member during communication in a plenary meeting).
During 2024, there was a doubling of requests for disciplinary proceedings, compared to the previous year. Specifically, this year, 11 magistrates, 6 judges and 5 prosecutors have been prosecuted for disciplinary violations during the exercise of their functions, such as:
– Repeated delays or those that lead to serious consequences or unjustified delays of actions and/or procedural acts.
– Serious or repeated failure to comply with procedural and substantive legislation or incorrect application of procedural and substantive legislation, when ascertained by a higher court.
– Failure to submit a request for not continuing the proceeding or trial of the case, when this is mandatory, according to the law; violation of the rules of incompatibility or prevention of conflict of interest, according to the provisions of the legislation in force.
– Use of the status of magistrate, with the aim of creating benefits for oneself or for others.
– Action, inaction or conduct of the magistrate, which brings unfair benefits or damages to the parties in a judicial process or investigative procedure, contrary to the law.
– Repeated or serious violation of the rules of solemnity, rules of conduct in relations with the parties, other subjects involved in the process, with the head of the court, other magistrates, as well as with the personnel of the judicial administration.
– and cases when the judge has been convicted by a final decision for committing a crime.
Thus, for 6 judges, the disciplinary measure “dismissal from office” was proposed (2 requests were accepted, 1 request was rejected; 1 request was suspended; 2 requests are in process in the reporting year)
Against 5 prosecutors were requested disciplinary proceedings to the HPC. Regarding 2 cases, “Confidential warning” was proposed while for 3 cases was requested “Temporary salary reduction of up to 40% for a period of one year”. (1 request was accepted and 2 were rejected, 2 are in process during 2024.)
Regarding the verification on the initiative of the High Inspector of Justice, the driving force is primarily the dynamics of the work processes and the data coming from several sources. For example, during 2024, from the data resulting from the 4 completed thematic inspections, 11 individual cases were verified (for 3 cases a disciplinary investigation was initiated, 4 cases were archived after verification, as no violations were found that justify the investigation and 4 cases are in the verification process).
Another source has been information made public and denunciations made in the media, such as the public communication of the Minister of Justice, according to which after the start of the implementation of Law No. 33/2024 “On granting amnesty”, issues have emerged dictated by the behavior of magistrates in terms of clarifying judicial decisions, issuing execution orders, or other issues related to the activity of magistrates. Based on this public communication, High Inspector of Justice has approved 19 verification decisions, which are in process.
The High Inspector of Justice is an institution that is supervised in its work, as its decisions are appealable. During 2024, the High Inspector of Justice has issued 762 decisions subject to appeal to the Temporary Commissions for the Review of Appeals in the Councils. Only 89 out of 762 decisions of the HIJ have been appealed. The relevant commissions at the HJC and HPC have decided to reject, as unfounded, the appeal filed by the appellants against the decisions of the High Inspector of Justice, and consequently, none of the decisions of the High Inspector of Justice have been dismissed.
The High Inspector of Justice has administered and reviewed cases, both for the highest courts and prosecution offices of the system, as well as the Councils, based on complaints or initiations, both during 2024, but also since the institution began operating in 2020, in order to have an extended overview over the years of the HIJ checking over these institutions. I would like to bring to your attention that a complaint can be linked to 1 or more magistrates.
During 2024, the following were filed with the HIJ:
- 18 complaints against Prosecutors of the Special Prosecution Office against Corruption and Organized Crime. The HIJ has processed a total of 25 complaints against special subjects of SPAK
- 4 complaints against subjects of the Special Court of First Instance for Corruption and Organized Crime. A total of 12 complaints against special subjects of the GJKKO have been handled
- 3 complaints against subjects of the Special Court of Appeal against Corruption and Organized Crime. 1 complaint against special subjects of this Court (GJPAKKO) has been processed
- 24 complaints against members of the Supreme Court
If you are interested, I will provide you with a more extended overview in time, such as the total of complaints against higher institutions of justice, for the period 2020 – September 30, 2025.
- 158 complaints against the Special Prosecution Office against Corruption and Organized Crime (SPAK), of which 108 complaints have been processed and 50 complaints are in process.
- 74 complaints against the subjects of the Special Court of First Instance for Corruption and Organized Crime, of which 58 complaints have been processed and 16 complaints are in process.
- 83 complaints to the subjects of the Special Court of Appeal against Corruption and Organized Crime, of which 73 complaints have been processed and 10 complaints are in process.
- 206 complaints against the Members of the Supreme Court, of which 131 complaints have been processed and 75 complaints are in process.
- 24 complaints against members of the HJC, of which 22 complaints have been processed and 2 complaints are in process.
- 7 complaints against members of the HPC, of which 4 complaints have been processed and 3 complaints are in process.
- 13 complaints against prosecutors of the Prosecutor General Office, of which 12 complaints have been processed and 1 complaint is in process.
- Thematic inspections are the second (after the complaints) functional dimension of the HIJ work. As I said at the beginning, 6 thematic inspections were finalized during 2024. Specifically:
- 2 inspections on the allocation of cases by draw, as well as electronic checking of electronic system reports, monitoring for the periods of 2022 and 2023;
- 1 inspection on the practice and causes of the replacement of prosecutors 2023;
- 1 inspection on the assignment of cases to the prosecution office 2023;
- 1 inspection on the documentation by judges of informing the parties about the possibility of resolving the case through mediation.
- 54 recommendations were given after 6 inspections, where 9 recommendations are related to taking measures for the approval/issuance of acts, 29 recommendations for the carrying out of administrative actions and 15 recommendations for the High Inspector of Justice. (5 monitored)
At the beginning of 2024, a calendar for 6 thematic inspections for this year was approved, based on proposals from those institutions that have submitted proposals for inspections, as well as indications obtained from the processing of complaints administered and commitments within the framework of the integration process. The topics are:
- Allocation of cases by draw and electronic checking of electronic system reports,
- On the practice and reasons for replacing prosecutors,
- On the assignment of cases to the prosecution office,
- On the duration of the trial of court cases,
- On the procedure for announcing and reasoning court decisions,
- Documentation by judges of informing the parties about the possibility of resolving the case through mediation
In addition to this overview of activity figures for 2024, I would like to share with you an overview, based on the detective role of the High Inspector of Justice, the issues that are presented to us from the complaints and inspections we carry out, which we record and refer.
From its activity, the High Inspector of Justice has identified several issues and has drawn conclusions.
- Duration of trials beyond reasonable deadlines, protracted investigative actions and delays in the reasoning of judicial decisions
The effectiveness and standard of the justice system is not at the appropriate and satisfactory level for Albanian citizens. As far as is noticeable, the excessive duration of judicial processes continues to remain problematic, a problem continuously identified by complaints, the jurisprudence of the ECHR, but also in the reports of international organizations. In its latest decision-making, the ECHR has also addressed specific recommendations to local authorities, emphasizing the need to fill vacancies in the Administrative Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction. The excessive duration of judicial processes directly affects the perception and trust of the public in the justice system, the increase of whose trust is one of the main reasons for which the justice reform was conceived and undertaken.
Through the available legal instruments, the High Inspector of Justice has addressed this issue, through recommendations of a regulatory and administrative nature, resulting from the thematic inspection carried out at the Court of First Instance of General Jurisdiction of Tirana, on the duration of the trial of judicial cases, during the period 01.03.2023-31.05.2023 which is an inspection already concluded with concrete recommendations for the actors of the justice system.
From this thematic inspection it resulted that:
- The first reason that has influenced the duration of judicial processes beyond reasonable deadlines is the workload of the magistrates of this court. For the year 2023, the average workload for a judge of the Court of First Instance of General Jurisdiction of Tirana, has been on average 1176 cases, while for judges at the courts of the same judicial level it has been 841.7 cases per judge. The First Instance Court of General Jurisdiction of Tirana results to be the court with the highest number of cases transferred for the year 2023, with a total number of 19275 cases, which constitutes 48% of the total backlog for the first instance courts of general jurisdiction. Also, this court results to have registered the highest number of new cases during the year 2023, (31833 cases specifically), which constitute 38% of the total number of cases registered at the national level for this group of courts.
For the year 2023, the number of judges in the approved organizational structure of this court is 80 judges, while only 43 judges have effectively exercised their duties during this year. During the period under inspection, 26 judges have exercised their duty in the Civil Chamber, who have issued 1748 civil court decisions with opposing parties.
- The second reason is related to the vacancies at this court. This inspection resulted in the fact that the staffing of the Court of First Instance of General Jurisdiction of Tirana (Criminal and Civil Chamber) for 2023 is 54% complete, as far as this body is concerned. Assessing the importance of filling vacancies in the system, based on the reports of the European Commission and the 2025 Rule of Law Report, the High Inspector of Justice has recommended to the High Judicial Council, as the institution responsible for following up on human resources issues in the courts, to take effective and immediate measures to fill the vacancies of this court, setting a 1-year deadline for its fulfillment. We will continuously monitor the fulfillment of this recommendation, within the scope of the competences that the HIJ exercises.
- The third reason is infrastructure, but I will discuss this issue later in the presentation.
On the other hand, in all those cases where the HIJ, within the framework of the verification and disciplinary investigation, has found that the delays or procrastination have exceeded any reasonable deadline, demonstrating the negligence of the magistrate in fulfilling his/her duty, for reasons unrelated to reasons beyond the checking of the magistrate, it has submitted requests for disciplinary proceedings to the relevant councils. In total, in cases of delays in trial or proceedings, the High Inspector of Justice has decided to initiate disciplinary investigations for 51 magistrates and at their conclusion, requests for disciplinary proceedings have been submitted for 17 magistrates (8 judges and 9 prosecutors). The proposed measures for these disciplinary violations are:
– “Dismissal from duty” – for 2 judges and 3 prosecutors;
– “Temporary salary reduction of up to 40 percent, for a period not exceeding one year” – for 3 judges and 5 prosecutors;
– “Public remark” – for 3 judges and 1 prosecutor.
Another inspection conducted by HIJ is the use of alternative adjudication mechanisms. This inspection was conducted at the courts of first instance of general jurisdiction in Elbasan, Tirana, Durrës and Vlorë and the inspection found that mediation was used in a very limited manner, despite the legal obligation provided for in Article 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At the end of these inspections, it was recommended, among other things, that any orientation of the judge for mediation be reflected in the minutes of court hearings, in order to enable monitoring and analysis of this practice in subsequent inspections.
In order to monitor the activity of prosecutors, in the context of continuous complaints about the delay of investigative activity, the High Inspector of Justice has initiated a thematic inspection of cases for which the prosecutor has proceeded with a request or decision to dismiss, due to the statute of limitations of criminal prosecution throughout 2024. Through this inspection and the institutional inspection, which is taking place at the Prosecution Office at the First Instance Court of General Jurisdiction in Dibër, over the entire process of documentation circulation in this prosecution office, the High Inspector of Justice aims not only to identify problems, but also to address issues of a systemic aspect.
Delayed reasoning of judicial decisions constitutes another systemic problem with an impact on the right of individuals to a fair legal process. Reflecting the recommendations given for the activity of this institution during 2023, The High Inspector of Justice, in the Resolution of the Assembly of Albania, has decided to carry out thematic inspections in several courts of general jurisdiction and in one court of administrative jurisdiction. Through these thematic inspections, the HIJ has taken a snapshot of the situation of the delivery of judicial decisions at the Court of First Instance of General Jurisdiction in Tirana, the Administrative Court of First Instance in Tirana, the Courts of First Instance of General Jurisdiction in Fier, Shkodër and is currently concluding the thematic inspection at the Court of First Instance of General Jurisdiction in Gjirokastër. At the end of each inspection, the HIJ has assessed to identify a reasonable period of time that the magistrate needs to submit the final reasoned decision, taking into account the average time that each magistrate in the same court needs to reason decisions related to issues of the same typology. The deadline estimated by the High Inspector of Justice at the end of each inspection does not replace the legal deadline in any case, but constitutes a finding by the HIJ at the time of conducting the inspection, taking into account the current situation of the workload that the system has today and the vacancies in the justice system. In this context, I personally think that the commitment of the court, the HJC, or even the Assembly itself, to draft and approve measures with the aim of reducing the backlog, which has reached a large number, is an indispensable tool.
- Court infrastructure and audio recording of hearings
Another issue that courts are facing today is the way in which court hearings are conducted in the absence of the necessary infrastructure to comply with the procedural requirements for conducting trials with audio recording. The content of complaints, verifications and periodic information administered at the Court of First Instance has shown that the current infrastructure does not allow for all court hearings to be equipped with audio recording, in accordance with the legal obligation, especially in the Court of First Instance of General Jurisdiction in Tirana. These shortcomings, together with the vacancies in the system, have affected the quality of working conditions, exposing the judiciary to a lack of solemnity regarding judicial processes.
During the inspection in the Court of First Instance of General Jurisdiction in Tirana, with the objective of the duration of judicial processes, this issue was identified and the HIJ recommended that the High Judicial Council, in cooperation with the Head of the Court and the Council of the Court, take the necessary measures to guarantee the use of the court premises, so that the trial of all civil cases with opposing parties is conducted in courtrooms equipped with audio recording, within the first 6 months of 2026.
- Respect for the solemnity of the trial and ethical standards
Respect for the rules of ethics and solemnity is the focus of the work of the High Inspector of Justice. The behavior of the magistrate is linked to ensuring the preservation and strengthening of public trust in the justice system. In each disciplinary proceeding initiated, the High Inspector of Justice has tried to maintain the balance between the shortcomings and challenges that magistrates are facing in their work, with the duty that the magistrate has to display a behavioral model, which carries values and which must not only be transmitted, but also displayed, during and outside the exercise of the duty. In cases where unethical behavior has been proven during the carrying out of the disciplinary investigation, proposals for disciplinary measures to be taken by the Councils have been forwarded. The HIJ has initiated disciplinary investigations for 14 magistrates, 10 judges and 4 prosecutors for violating the rules of ethics and at their conclusion, requests for proceedings have been submitted against 7 magistrates, (3 judges and 4 prosecutors), proposing:
– “Temporary salary reduction of up to 40 percent, for a period not exceeding one year” for 2 magistrates.
– “Public reprimand” for 3 magistrates.
– “Confidential warning” for 2 magistrates.
As has been consistently demonstrated, punitive measures, are the last resort, which should be applied to guarantee the accountability of the system and for this reason, I believe that the relevant Councils should have closer cooperation with the School of Magistrates in the ongoing training of magistrates, especially those with fewer years of experience in the system, in the context of increasing the frequency of training and their individualization for cases referred by the HIJ and cases for which disciplinary measures have been imposed. At the same time, attention should be paid to the ongoing training of other magistrates, in preparing topics with an awareness-raising and preventive effect to avoid such behaviors in the future, which may have a serious impact on the public’s perception of the justice system.
- Attitude regarding judicial decision-making and the role of the High Inspector of Justice in relation to this issue
The HIJ would like to reiterate that its role in reviewing allegations of unfair decision-making by justice system actors cannot replace the interpretation and application that the prosecutor makes of criminal procedural norms and institutions, or the independent judicial review that the court performs. This is a competence of the justice system bodies, which is fundamentally controlled by the hierarchical organization of the judiciary itself, through procedural mechanisms provided for by law. In accordance with his constitutional and legal powers, the High Inspector of Justice conducts an independent analysis of the facts alleged in the content of the complaints, which is unaffected by the claims raised by the complaining subjects, including by subjects who have a legal obligation to submit reliable data on the commission of a disciplinary violation (such as the Minister of Justice, the Prosecutor General or the heads of prosecutorial offices or court presidents).
The element of responsibility and accountability, according to the positions already established by the Appeal Chamber, comes to the fore when the magistrate during his decision-making acts in open and flagrant contradiction with the law, or the unifying practices of the higher courts by distorting the internal conviction, which must be in accordance with the law, the analysis of facts and evidence. Even the infringement of decision-making within the judiciary is part of the checking of judicial decisions and the hierarchical exercise of judicial power. This judicial check is carried out in the context of increasing the quality of justice and does not have as its purpose the disciplinary liability of magistrates. The change or annulment of a judicial decision by a higher court cannot constitute apriori a sufficient factual basis for disciplinary proceedings against a magistrate, if it is not accompanied by other elements, which show that the magistrate has acted in bad faith, ceding the obligation to exercise his duty with dignity in accordance with the conscience for the interpretation of the facts, in application of the norms of law.
Despite this, in various cases where the decision-making of lower level courts has been changed by a higher level court, evidencing decision-making in open and flagrant violation of the law, or the unifying practices of the high court, which have brought discredit to the position and image of the magistrate, the High Inspector of Justice has initiated 25 disciplinary investigations and submitted requests for proceedings for 9 magistrates, 7 judges and 2 prosecutors, requesting:
– dismissal from office, for 3 magistrates;
– suspension from office for 1 magistrate;
– temporary reduction of salary up to 40 percent for a period not exceeding one year, for 4 magistrates;
– public reprimand for 1 magistrate.
Another point that should be highlighted in the powers and role of the High Inspector of Justice is the clear distinction between disciplinary and criminal proceedings. The Constitution and the law have given the High Inspector of Justice clear attributes in carrying out disciplinary investigation procedures against magistrates, or other subjects included in the field of competence of this institution. The investigation and disciplinary proceedings are not criminal in nature. They do not have search tools like prosecution bodies but relate more to an administrative process. The rules and procedures that the law has provided serve to guarantee the carrying out of a regular legal process against the magistrate, who is suspected of having committed a disciplinary violation and other parties participating in this process and do not provide mechanisms to evidence the existence of a criminal fact. The legislator gives priority to criminal, civil or administrative proceedings by forcing the High Inspector of Justice to suspend the disciplinary investigation, when a criminal investigation against the magistrate is being conducted for the same facts.
- Issues related to the organization and functioning of prosecution offices
In the function of inter-institutional cooperation with the Prosecutor General Office, the High Inspector of Justice has maintained ongoing contacts with this institution and for this purpose has also concluded a cooperation agreement. Complaints referred by the General Prosecutor have served as data for the initiation of disciplinary verifications and investigations against several magistrates, which have been concluded with the proposal of disciplinary measures, including dismissal from office.
At the same time, the activity of the prosecution offices, in terms of the implementation of regulatory acts in relations with the head, has been the subject of a thematic inspection. This inspection aimed to implement the orders of the General Prosecutor, on maintaining the stability of the prosecution institution, through institutional cohesion and uniformity of activity in all prosecution offices, in guaranteeing the functional independence of the prosecutor in decision-making on concrete issues. This inspection is expected to continue in the future, as issues have been identified again from monitoring the implementation of the recommendations made, but also from the verifications carried out within the framework of the complaint review process. In fulfillment of the legal obligation to inspect the allocation of cases by draw in the prosecution offices, HIJ has recommended for a review of the regulatory act “On the allocation of cases in the prosecution office” and unification of the various practices identified during the inspection, in the prosecution offices at the Courts of General Jurisdiction. This inspection referring to legal obligations will be continued, focusing on monitoring the implementation of the recommendations made.
- Productivity during the court hearings
Based on several complaints, which have been subject to verification, but also on information submitted by the courts of first instance of general jurisdiction themselves, one of the issues of the judicial system today is the productivity and effectiveness of magistrates in the planning and carrying out of court hearings, as well as the performance of the necessary procedural actions to avoid unproductive hearings. In order to address this situation, the High Inspector of Justice has decided to conduct a thematic inspection in several courts of general jurisdiction, with the aim of inspecting the manner of planning court hearings and managing the examination of cases according to the relevant categories, in accordance with the deadlines established by the procedural provisions. As we have also highlighted in our thematic inspection reports, one factor that influences the insufficient rate of resolving of judicial cases, , is the failure to fill vacancies in the courts of first instance and in particular in the Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction and the Administrative Court of Appeal. This process, as evidenced, is linked to the failure to complete the ethical-professional evaluation procedures of magistrates on time. In this context, we consider it necessary to take concrete measures to increase the effectiveness of this process by giving instructions and cooperating with the Councils in the application of uniform evaluation standards in light of the guidelines given by the decision-making of the Supreme Court.
Honorable Members of Parliament!
Despite the results so far, the institution of the High Inspector of Justice finds that the justice system faces significant challenges related to its organization and functioning. The effectiveness and quality of the justice system are not at the level that meets the expectations of Albanian citizens. This is part of the process of consolidating the Justice Reform and a responsibility of all our bodies, starting from the Assembly of the Republic of Albania, the governing bodies of the judicial power, or the magistrates, judges and prosecutors.
One aspect that requires special attention is the infrastructure of the judicial power. The lack of appropriate facilities and the application of information technology, including audio recording systems of sessions, case management systems, archives, circulation of procedural and administrative documentation, or technology systems that cover specific processes of the work of the court or prosecution office, directly affect the quality and solemnity of the trial or the carrying out of the criminal investigation process. In some cases, these conditions have also affected the ethical and professional behavior of magistrates, exposing the justice system to negative perceptions by the public. For this reason, investment in infrastructure should be seen as an integral part of policies to strengthen the independence, legitimacy and integrity of the judicial power.
The extraordinary workload and the high number of court cases remain one of the most serious challenges, which undermine the quality and duration of court proceedings, as well as the rights of Albanian citizens in the framework of a due process of law. In this regard, the joint commitment of all public bodies, such as the Assembly, the Councils, the Prosecutor General, the courts and the prosecution offices is required to draft concrete measures to reduce the backlog; increase the number of judges and prosecutors, fill the staff vacancies, increase human resources and improve the infrastructure. At the same time, the courts and prosecution offices themselves should draft case prioritization systems, to ensure a faster and fair processing of court files.
The accountability system constitutes the cornerstone of a state based on the rule of law. The only way for the system to function fully, fairly and effectively is that the judiciary be organized on a sustainable basis of professionalism, integrity and legitimacy. On the contrary, an accountability system that functions only in a punitive and not a preventive aspect loses its educational role and contributes to the decline of public trust. The accountability of the judiciary should be perceived as a preventive and improvement mechanism, not as a mechanism of intimidation, intervention or punishment.
The role of the High Inspector of Justice should not be seen simply in a disciplinary aspect, but in a broader educational and preventive prism. The aim is to create a high ethical and professional culture in the justice system, where the sense of accountability is part of the consciousness of magistrates and not an external factor. If the accountability system, i.e. education at the School of Magistracy, secondments and promotions of magistrates by the Councils, the role of the highest courts in increasing the quality of judicial decisions, etc., functions fully, fairly and effectively, then the judicial power will be organized and will function on a stable basis of professionalism, legitimacy and integrity. Otherwise, if this system does not function, the application of the system of accountability of magistrates (i.e. sanctions) may result as a delayed mechanism and reaction, not playing a preventive role, but only a punitive one, and resulting in not only undermining public confidence in the judicial power, but also the legitimacy or authority of this power.
This is the true dimension and philosophy of a legitimate reform in a justice system: building a justice system that self-regulates through its integrity. This discussion leads us to a universal dilemma, faced by many countries: the balance between independence and accountability. Even in Albania, where the justice system is still in the consolidation phase after a deep institutional reform, this balance requires special care. On the one hand, the functional independence of the magistrate must be protected, as the foundation of the rule of law, while on the other hand, it must be guaranteed that this independence does not turn into a lack of responsibility.
The greatest challenge of the High Inspector of Justice today is to preserve its institutional independence and ensure a constructive role in guaranteeing the independence of the judiciary, and not as a play on words or a shield for eventual irregularities that the system may commit, but as an important principle for the future of the country and as a principle that shows that the system accountable to magistrates is not a choice or emotion, much less of the High Inspector of Justice. It is a principle on which a legal state is based. In a context where direct or indirect interference with the judiciary is not unknown, the High Inspector of Justice has the obligation to demonstrate integrity, transparency and impartiality in every decision-making. This is a sensitive process, where the institution must act as a defender of the principles of justice, but not as a factor that influences or orients the decision-making of the judiciary. In this process, the High Inspector of Justice will continue to apply with dedication, the highest standards of due process, as well as to be a guarantor of the balance between independence and accountability in the Albanian judicial system.
Today we are faced with an ambiguity regarding the role and function of the High Inspector of Justice, which does not only arise from citizens, who through complaints filed with the HIJ claim resolution of judicial disputes, interference in judicial processes, or influence on judicial decision-making, but is also encountered in the context of numerous claims from other public circles, including political actors, the media, or other public bodies themselves.
This phenomenon requires addressing from a systemic perspective. The Supreme Court, as the highest body in the pyramid of the judicial hierarchy, also has an essential importance in guaranteeing a quality justice system, not only through the resolution of conflicts, but also in ensuring the avoidance of divergences and maintaining consistency in the interpretation and application of the law. For this reason, the High Inspector of Justice requires special attention from the Supreme Court, to exercise its balancing role in establishing sustainable standards and practices.
At the same time, I believe that the process of legal education of the public constitutes a necessary prerequisite for consolidating trust in justice. An informed, aware and active public is the most valuable partner of justice institutions. Here, the Parliament and the Ministry of Justice must also play an essential role, within the framework of the Strategy for Legal Education of the Public.
If citizens do not understand the role of justice institutions, magistrates, the limits of the institutions’ competences and the complaint mechanisms, the justice system risks being perceived as closed and incomprehensible. Today we are facing a worrying situation, where the factors that have influenced its creation may be different but the lack of reaction and taking measures on our part to prevent these negative phenomena can bring serious consequences, not only for the justice system, but also for our society itself. For this reason, I personally believe that all our bodies should continue their efforts and invest in transparency, legal education and public communication, making justice closer to the citizen, clearer in its functions and more reliable in the results it produces or is legally obliged to produce.
The institution of the High Inspector of Justice offers maximum commitment regarding the culture of institutional cooperation and coordination, where all institutions of the justice system such as the HJC, HPC, the Supreme Court, the School of Magistrates, or other bodies, such as the Parliament and the Ministry of Justice, work on joint strategic action plans to improve the quality of justice and strengthen the trust of citizens. This process requires a long-term vision, a structured implementation plan and a continuous assessment of the results, so that each recommendation becomes an institutional reality. The path towards an efficient and sustainable justice system requires institutional coordination, transparency and respect for the principle of separation of powers. Only through cooperation and shared commitment can we guarantee a justice system that serves the citizens and only in this way will Albanian justice be able to function on a solid foundation of professionalism, integrity and trustworthiness.
Thank you!
