The Committees on Legal Affairs and the Governance of Justice in the European Integration Process (Albania – Romania – Moldova)

Ladies and gentlemen, 

• It is an honour to address you today on a subject that lies at the very heart of democratic governance: the Parliament’s role in justice reform and the balance between institutional oversight and judicial independence.

• Let me first congratulate Albania for fulfilling the EU accession interim benchmarks on rule of law and fundamentals. This is a historic achievement that brings Albania one large step closer to the EU. In no small part, this achievement is due to the rigorous justice reform of 2016 and its continued good implementation.

• The experience of Albania's justice reform offers lessons that resonate beyond its borders — lessons about how a democracy can transform its judiciary while shielding it from the very political pressures it seeks to eliminate.

[Appointment mechanisms]

• When we speak of Parliament’s role in justice reform, we must be precise: involvement is not the same as control. The Albanian justice reform drew this line carefully and deliberately.

• Parliament retained certain appointing competences — but without the possibility to block justice institutions. Parliament has no power to dismiss members of justice institutions or to impose disciplinary measures.

• The relationship between Parliament and the High Councils of Justice is one of the most delicate in the constitutional architecture. The Councils are independent — but not hermetically sealed from democratic life.

• Consider the appointment of the General Prosecutor. Parliament casts what is, in effect, an affirmation vote by qualified majority. But the selection and evaluation are conducted by the High Prosecutorial Council. If Parliament fails to reach the required majority after three rounds, the Council’s first proposal is automatically appointed. Parliament participates in the process — but it cannot hold it hostage.

• A similar logic applies to Constitutional Court appointments.

• The complexity of these mechanisms is not accidental. It exists to maintain a close relationship between Parliament and the judiciary, while preventing political influence or dynamics from compromising the meritocracy of appointment procedures.

• This relationship requires constant dialogue, but one thing is certain: As the EU has repeatedly noted, Albania’s justice reform architecture has a legal and institutional framework that ensures a fair balance between accountability and independence. It is important that all relevant institutions work towards this goal.

• The independence of justice institutions is a core principle of modern democracies and must be protected from undue influence — whether political, institutional, or societal.

• At the same time, independence must be balanced with effective accountability mechanisms, including reporting. These reports should normally contain data on caseloads, durations, disciplinary proceedings, budget execution and reform implementation. They are instruments of democratic accountability.

• Every year, justice institutions report before Parliament and answer questions from Members. Parliament may adopt resolutions setting priorities for the following year. Last year, SPAK reported before Parliament for more than four hours. That is accountability in its proper form: open, substantive, and public.

• Cooperation between Parliament and the High Councils is also channelled through accountability processes, namely trough annual reporting and the appointment of lay members. It works best when all parties honour the boundaries of their respective mandates. When Parliament asks searching questions of justice institutions, it performs a democratic service. When it uses that platform for political ends, it undermines the very reform it is meant to support.

• What the Parliament could do further to make the reporting even more meaningful is to strengthen its capacity to ask specific, data-driven questions, identify systemic gaps, and feed what it learns back into the legislative agenda.

• Let me briefly highlight two further elements brought by the justice reform, which will be discussed in greater detail today and tomorrow.

• First, the systematic evaluation of magistrates — a mechanism designed not merely to measure performance, but to anchor integrity in the system.

• In fact, for important promotions, asset and background checks are compulsory, ensuring not only professional competence, but personal integrity.

• Evaluations are carried out by both the High Judicial Council and the High Prosecutorial Council, based on specific methodologies. They form the core of the career progression path for all magistrates. No promotion may take place without the proper evaluation procedures having been completed.

• Building this tradition has not been easy: a decade without evaluations left a real gap in institutional culture and in magistrates’ expectations. But the system is now functional.

• The challenge ahead is to ensure the sustained quality of the judiciary, including by further reducing the backlog of evaluations and improve the quality of the evaluation reports. This is a priority for Albania’s EU accession path. 

• Second, perhaps no mechanism in the justice reform is more intricate than the selection of lay members for the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils.

• I will not go into detail of the process but allow me to be candid: this mechanism has not been perfect. In practice, the lot system has on several occasions determined lay membership, because Parliament could not reach the required qualified majority.

• While this possibility ensures that deadlock is avoided, it is not ideal. Political parties should agree on the best candidates — people who have already been filtered through multiple independent bodies — rather than treating appointments as a political contest.

• On a positive side, however, in the context of Albania’s EU accession efforts, genuine progress in the system was achieved recently with legal amendments applicable to the appointment of High Judicial Council and High Prosecutorial Council non-magistrate members. They are now subject to the same standards of merit and integrity as magistrate members, including background checks and asset declarations.

• At its core, the justice reform is a project of trust. Trust in institutions that are independent, competent, and accountable. Trust in a Parliament that oversees without controlling. Trust in a legal framework that prevents deadlock while preserving meritocracy. And above all, trust that the entire system delivers for the citizens.

• Every evaluation cycle, every transparent appointment, every annual report presented and publicly discussed is not merely a domestic achievement. It is a signal that Albania takes its commitment to the rule of law seriously - that the justice reform is real and sustained.

• This is a specific, measurable content of Albania's EU accession obligations and it will continue to be instrumental in advancing Albania’s path towards EU membership. 

• The path has not been without imperfections, but the direction is correct and the architecture is sound, underpinned by Albania’s adherence to EU standards.

• Improvements are always possible, and all relevant actors — civil society and Parliament included — have an important say. But this debate must be grounded in constructive dialogue, data and evidence-driven arguments, expertise, and above all irreversibility of reforms achieved.

Thank you