E fundit!

18:23 TODAY

The 10th protest against the government begins

The 10th day of the protest against the government and Pri...

"Irena Gjoka"/Kalaja case: ILD has launched a disciplinary investigation, warning to the Supreme Court

2026-02-25 17:55:00, Aktualitet CNA

"Irena Gjoka"/Kalaja case: ILD has launched a disciplinary

The High Inspector of Justice (ILD) has decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Judge Irena Gjoka, following suspicions of disciplinary violations during the exercise of her duties.

The news was announced by lawyer Adriana Kalaja during an interview on Syri TV, who was the prosecutor in the case, emphasizing that this step should have been taken much earlier, as the case has been public for over 30 months.

The ILD's proceedings relate to actions committed after assuming office, unlike the investigations of the General Prosecutor's Office, which focus on violations committed before assuming office. Kalaja also warned that he will address SPAK for the failure to make the full file available from the Supreme Court of Justice.

This decision is considered a step towards accountability and transparency in the justice system.

"I took with me all the material, that is, the entire decision made by the High Inspector of Justice, and for the sake of truth, I have filed dozens of complaints with this institution and unfortunately all the complaints have been archived, which is equivalent to dismissing the case, for other judges or prosecutors.

Meanwhile, I really want to congratulate this moment of the beginning of the investigations, and on the other hand, I want to state and publicly declare that this is not a favor being done to either Adriana Kala, the complainant, or the public, but firstly, it should have been done on time, because it has been 30 months since we have been dealing with this issue, and secondly, this proves that they no longer have any alibi to protect Irena with a few adjectives.

Meanwhile, the decision taken by the High Inspector of Justice is related to the rules that determine, or the sanctions that the law determines for the status of magistrates. It is law 96 of 2016 and in order to obtain the mandate of magistrate, you must meet a series of criteria and these criteria, based on the revaluation law, were the character criterion, the asset criterion and the professionalism criterion.

Meanwhile, to inform the public, because I saw that some media outlets, even unintentionally, have misinterpreted the situation Irena is in today with some adjectives, overlapping the work of the High Inspector of Justice with that of the High Judicial Council.

So, to clarify with the public, the investigation conducted by the General Prosecutor's Office is based on the law on decriminalization, and the investigation at the General Prosecutor's Office concerns all criminal offenses or legal violations that a magistrate committed before taking office.

And the finding of the prosecutor general or the prosecutor general's office in the report sent to the High Judicial Council, which this decision we are discussing today also referred to, in addition to accepting all our claims, whether with deportations, criminal convictions, or failure to declare, also required the High Judicial Council to make a decision in relation to this judge, a decision which, to their shame, the High Judicial Council did not make.

Do you remember that five-by-four decision-making and one of those members of the career committee filed a complaint with the High Inspector of Justice, saying that it is very important to clarify this, and the High Inspector of Justice, with a decision-making, has done what we actually denounced in time.

First, the complaint by a member of the High Judicial Council is unfounded in law, therefore it has no legal basis. Second, the High Inspector of Justice, like the General Prosecutor's Office, is not a decision-making body.

So, both independently conduct investigations into the actions or inactions of a magistrate and these two institutions send it to the Supreme Court for decision-making. So, the Supreme Court should have either accepted the report of the General Prosecutor's Office, or should have dismissed it, but should have come up with a decision.

The fact that the Supreme Court has overturned the career commission's report shows that, first, the file has even bigger problems than those we have identified, and second, they have taken this position to keep it in good standing with all parties.

Because it is not in vain, even today as we speak, honorable, I have not received a response from the High Judicial Council, a fact for which I will very soon address the SPAK with a criminal report, because first, the General Prosecutor's Office does not make the file available to me, that is, the report, and second, it does not make the submissions made by Irena Gjoka, Shpata, Maneku available to me.

Meanwhile, the High Inspector of Justice investigates violations that were committed after obtaining the mandate. So, this is the difference that the public should understand, if the General Prosecutor's Office investigates violations or criminal offenses that were committed before the magistrate took office, then it passes it on to the Supreme Court of Justice for decision-making. So both, I said, institutions, that's why I said to their shame, they have not made a decision", said Kalaja./ CNA