The Constitutional Court clarifies the decision (without a decision) for Belinda Balluku

2026-03-03 12:02:00, Aktualitet CNA

The Constitutional Court clarifies the decision (without a decision) for Belinda

The Constitutional Court has released the decision (without a ruling) regarding the suspension from office of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister Belinda Balluku, a matter that sparked an unprecedented clash of powers between the executive and judicial branches.

The decision reflects a deep division within the judiciary, where the equal votes of 4 to 4 led to the rejection of the Prime Minister's request and the leaving in force of the suspension measure granted by the GJKKO.

The judges' argument focused on two diametrically opposed positions: The judges who supported the Prime Minister's request argued that the measure of suspension from office cannot be seen as separate from the minister's constitutional function.

According to them, like the deputy, the minister also enjoys procedural guarantees aimed at protecting the executive branch from possible arbitrary judicial interference. This group of judges assessed that, since the suspension directly affects the composition of the government and the political confidence granted by the Assembly, any measure that interrupts the function of a minister must be subject to the prior authorization of the Parliament. According to them, the suspension of an individual has inevitable institutional effects on the progress of state policies.

On the other hand, the four judges who voted against argued that constitutional immunity is limited only to personal liberty, arrest or control and does not protect the administrative function. They emphasized that the new architecture of justice after the 2016 reform offers sufficient guarantees for the prosecution to act independently. According to this group, the minister is not directly elected by the people, so he cannot claim the same protection as the deputy against suspension.

They underlined that the suspension of an individual does not block the institution, as the Prime Minister can appoint a replacement, and that justice should be effective without the need for the political approval of the Assembly.

In the absence of the 5-vote majority required by law to repeal an act, the government’s request was deemed rejected. This result gives the Special Court the right to continue implementing such measures, treating the suspension as a legal remedy independent of the will of Parliament. The decision closes the legal battle in this case, but leaves behind an open debate on the balance between the independence of the government and the effectiveness of criminal prosecution of high-ranking officials.