Tirana, Albania – A deep-seated conflict between Albania’s judiciary and its legal fraternity has brought the wheels of justice to a grinding halt at the Special Court of Appeal (GJKKO). A sweeping boycott by lawyers, protesting a new court regulation that prohibits mobile phones in courtrooms, has paralyzed proceedings for over a month, jeopardizing procedural deadlines, the right to a fair trial, and the very integrity of the justice system. The ramifications are far-reaching, impacting not only ongoing trials but also the fate of individuals in pre-trial detention, raising serious concerns about human rights and the rule of law.
The Spark of Conflict: A New Regulation Ignites Professional Discontent
The current crisis was ignited on September 1st with the implementation of a new security and conduct regulation at the GJKKO. This regulation, aimed at enhancing courtroom security, categorically banned the carrying and use of mobile phones within the judicial premises. The Albanian Chamber of Advocates immediately voiced strong opposition, arguing that the prohibition infringed upon the fundamental rights and professional duties of lawyers.
On the same day the regulation came into effect, the Chamber of Advocates formally requested the court to review several of its provisions, particularly those restricting mobile phone usage. Their argument centered on the assertion that such a ban would impede lawyers’ ability to effectively represent their clients, access crucial case information, and maintain necessary communication during legal proceedings.
However, their plea for revision fell on deaf ears. The Special Court of Appeal, in its response, rejected the requested amendments. The court maintained that the ban on mobile phones was a uniform application, affecting judges, prosecutors, journalists, and all other individuals present in the courtroom. Furthermore, the court suggested that lawyers could utilize portable computers for case consultations and had legal avenues to challenge the regulation itself.
This refusal by the judiciary to budge on its stance proved to be the tipping point.
Escalation of the Boycott: From Protest to Professional Sanctions
In the absence of a resolution, the Chamber of Advocates escalated its protest. On September 8th, the General Council of the Chamber declared an indefinite boycott of court proceedings at the GJKKO. Initially, this boycott excluded hearings concerning the establishment, replacement, or dissolution of security measures, as well as issues related to amnesty.
The court’s steadfast position, however, led to a further escalation of the boycott. The Chamber of Advocates subsequently extended its protest to encompass hearings for personal security measures and matters related to preliminary investigations. Crucially, the Chamber issued a stern warning of disciplinary proceedings against any lawyer who defied the boycott and participated in court sessions.
This disciplinary threat placed lawyers in an unenviable position. They were caught between the directives of their professional body, which promised sanctions including license suspension, and the legal obligations they held towards their clients and the justice system.
The Human Cost: A Mother and Child Caught in the Crossfire
The stark reality of this legal impasse was brought into sharp focus by the case of Greta Gjoci, a 23-year-old mother who was sent to the Pojskë prison in Pogradec on October 5th. Her imprisonment followed an appeal court decision that upheld her conviction for involvement in a call center fraud scheme, a case that also implicated 15 other individuals.
Gjoci was left with approximately three and a half years of her sentence to serve. However, Albanian law allows for the postponement of sentence execution for pregnant women or mothers with infants under one year of age. After spending approximately 24 hours in prison with her three-month-old infant, Gjoci’s defense lawyers appealed to the Special Court of First Instance to postpone the execution of her sentence.
Their request, however, encountered an unforeseen legal hurdle – the lawyers’ boycott. The scheduled hearing for her plea was disrupted due to the ongoing professional dispute. This left Gjoci and her infant in a precarious situation, highlighting the immediate and tangible human consequences of the institutional deadlock.
A Test of Conscience: One Lawyer’s Defiance and its Aftermath
The pressure on lawyers to adhere to the boycott was immense. The Chief Prosecutor of the Chamber of Advocates had warned that any lawyer who broke the boycott would face disciplinary action, placing Gjoci’s defense team in a difficult situation: uphold the professional organization’s decision or prioritize the immediate needs of a mother and her infant.
On Thursday morning, one of Gjoci’s two defense lawyers, Jurgen Gjoci, made the difficult decision to attend the scheduled hearing, despite the risk of disciplinary measures that could jeopardize his ability to practice his profession. He explained his decision was driven by humanitarian concerns, emphasizing the critical interest of a three-month-old infant. He also revealed that the convicted woman was his relative, making his commitment to her representation even more personal.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Chamber of Advocates acknowledged the humanitarian reasons behind lawyer Gjoci’s participation in the hearing. Consequently, they opted for a lenient approach, issuing him only a reprimand and a piece of advice.
However, the Chamber’s response was far more stringent towards his colleague, Lefter Xhengo. Xhengo participated in a security measure hearing at the GJKKO, an act deemed a violation of the boycott. The Disciplinary Committee imposed a two-year suspension of his license for breaking the professional strike. This disparity in treatment underscores the internal complexities and pressures faced by legal professionals navigating this crisis.
The Court’s Retaliation: Fines and Legal Interpretations
While the Chamber of Advocates wielded disciplinary measures, the Special Court retaliated by imposing fines on lawyers who failed to appear for scheduled hearings. The court justified these fines by arguing that the lawyers’ boycott did not constitute a constitutionally recognized strike. The court’s reasoning was that the Chamber of Advocates is not a trade union, and the duty of defense lawyers to appear in court stems from procedural law and client authorization.
Furthermore, the court asserted that the boycott conflicted with the public function of the Chamber of Advocates, which is to guarantee effective legal defense. This legal interpretation by the court effectively delegitimized the lawyers’ collective action.
The Higher Echelons: Judicial Council’s Stance and the Advocates’ President’s Counter
The conflict has also drawn the attention of higher judicial bodies. The High Judicial Council (KLGJ), in a written response, stated that the regulation in question was an approved act and could only be overturned through an appeal process. "Any claim regarding its content is subject to appeal procedures in accordance with the legislation in force," the KLGJ stated.
This position, however, was vehemently rejected by the President of the Chamber of Advocates, Maksim Haxhia. Haxhia characterized the regulation as a violation of the Constitution and international standards for the protection of the legal profession. He argued that the ban on mobile phones was not based on concrete problems caused by lawyers during hearings and that the regulation was enacted without consultation.
Haxhia also revealed that the Chamber had sought the KLGJ’s mediation to organize a joint roundtable discussion to resolve the issue, but without success. He criticized the court’s imposition of fines and warned that lawyers who broke the boycott risked losing their licenses. "We are open to dialogue and solutions, but not to imposition and submission," Haxhia declared, emphasizing that the decision to boycott would be implemented without compromise.
Legal Ramifications: Threat to Due Process and Pre-Trial Detention
The implications of this protracted legal stalemate extend far beyond the immediate disruption of court schedules. The continuous postponement of hearings raises serious questions about the respect for procedural deadlines and the right of defendants to a trial within a reasonable time, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 42 of the Albanian Constitution.
The situation is particularly acute for individuals in pre-trial detention. Albanian law imposes strict time limits for the judicial review of security measures. Under Article 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the questioning of an arrested person must occur within three days of the measure’s execution. Article 261 stipulates that pre-trial detention loses its validity if the court fails to conduct this procedure within the legal timeframe.
The ongoing boycott, coupled with the inability to secure legal representation, makes the scheduling and execution of these critical hearings nearly impossible. This could lead to the invalidation of security measures, potentially resulting in the release of individuals arrested under investigation for organized crime and corruption by SPAK, a scenario that undermines the effectiveness of these crucial investigations.
For the past two weeks, there have been no such hearings recorded at the Special Court of First Instance. This chilling effect on judicial processes highlights the profound impact of the institutional deadlock.
A System Under Strain: The Cost of Impasse
The legal professionals are caught in a difficult bind. The Chamber of Advocates threatens disciplinary action and license revocation for those who participate in hearings, while the Special Court imposes fines on those who do not appear. This institutional clash is creating significant financial and professional burdens for lawyers, defendants, and their families. The state, too, bears the cost of transporting detainees from correctional facilities to Tirana for hearings that are not taking place.
As the conflict drags on, the Special Court refuses to amend its regulation, while the Chamber of Advocates remains steadfast in its boycott. This deadlock leaves court proceedings stalled, with the cost of this disagreement borne by the very individuals seeking justice and by the integrity of the Albanian justice system itself. The absence of a clear resolution leaves Albanian citizens waiting for justice in an increasingly uncertain legal landscape.
