The Supreme Court will not participate in the roundtable called for tomorrow by Prime Minister Edi Rama with justice institutions and magistrates' associations to discuss a new salary scheme.
In his response to the Prime Minister's Office, the head of the Supreme Court, Sokol Sadushi, argues that the discussion about salaries is inappropriate as long as the law approved by the majority has already been sent for review to the Constitutional Court.
"After the invitation of September 18, an institutional development has occurred that did not exist at that moment and that is directly related to the object of the roundtable. The new law on salaries has been subject to the control of the Constitutional Court. This new circumstance affects, in my assessment, both the timing and the content of the dialogue. For a constitutional issue already submitted for judgment, the word belongs to the Constitutional Court. Consequently, the dialogue on this object can be substantial and effective once it has been expressed," Sadushi writes.
The head of the Supreme Court, however, leaves open the possibility of a dialogue with the executive, but requests that it not be limited to salaries, but rather address the problems of the functioning of the justice system.
"Justice needs a roundtable with a broader dimension, dedicated to the functioning and consolidation of the system and the problems that directly affect the quality and timeliness of the delivery of justice. My readiness and that of the institution I represent remain complete for the opening of this dialogue. It is a necessary and already overdue dialogue. I would welcome the development of a roundtable as soon as possible on this topic and with this dimension: a dialogue between the powers, with the citizen at the center", concludes Sadushi.
Two days ago, the Prime Minister's Office had asked institutions to confirm their participation in the roundtable. Until then, only the head of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, Ilir Rusi, had responded positively.
The clash over salaries began after the majority did not approve the new formula by July 31, according to the deadline set by the Constitutional Court. The Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court set the salary levels for August themselves, while the Ministry of Finance blocked their execution. The magistrates reported the Minister of Finance to SPAK and turned to the Administrative Court, which ordered the annulment of the minister's decision and the transfer of salaries.
On September 18, the majority approved the new formula with 84 votes, raising the reference salary of magistrates from 36% to 38% of the salary of the President of the Republic, an increase of about 8,500 lek. According to magistrates' associations, this increase is nine times smaller than that resulting from the Constitutional Court's decision.
On September 21, associations of judges and prosecutors addressed the Constitutional Court, requesting the suspension and repeal of the formula approved by Parliament.
Response of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Sokol Sadushi, sent to the Prime Minister on September 26, 2026
"Good morning,
Following your communication yesterday confirming your participation in the meeting on September 28, I would like to recall the position held at the General Meeting of Judges.
I believe in dialogue between the powers and remain open to it. However, after the invitation of September 18, an institutional development has occurred that did not exist at that time and is directly related to the object of the round table. The new law on salaries has been subject to the control of the Constitutional Court.
This new circumstance affects, in my opinion, both the timing and the content of the dialogue. For a constitutional issue already submitted for judgment, the word belongs to the Constitutional Court. Consequently, the dialogue on this subject can be substantial and effective once it has been expressed.
Under these conditions, participating in a roundtable with the same object, just to repeat the publicly expressed institutional position, would not add new content to the dialogue. Dialogue has value when there is institutional space for it to produce something more than the reiteration of positions made clear.
This does not close the space for institutional dialogue. As I have emphasized, justice needs a table with a broader dimension, dedicated to the functioning and consolidation of the system and the problems that directly affect the quality and timeliness of justice delivery.
My readiness and that of the institution I represent to open this dialogue remains complete. It is a necessary and long overdue dialogue.
I would welcome the development of a roundtable on this topic and with this dimension as soon as possible: a dialogue between powers, with the citizen at the center.
With consideration,
Sokol Sadushi
"President of the Supreme Court"
