The Constitutional Court has clarified the decision through which it removed Deputy Prime Minister Belinda Balluku from the government, leaving in force the suspension measure by the Constitutional Court.
Although the judges were divided evenly, due to the law, Rama's request to keep his deputy in office was rejected.
VNA brings the arguments of judges who believe that the suspension should be allowed and does not require permission from the Assembly.
In decision no. 8, dated 06.02.2026, the Constitutional Court has presented several key arguments supporting the possibility of suspending a minister without the authorization of the Assembly. These arguments are based on the narrow interpretation of the Constitution and the nature of the criminal measure.
1. On the limited interpretation of immunity (Article 73)
The Court emphasizes that immunity cannot be extended beyond what is expressly written in the Constitution:
• "Constitutional immunity is not a general exemption from criminal jurisdiction, but a limited balancing mechanism, conceived for certain and clearly defined cases."
• "Any extension of it beyond the cases expressly provided for would violate equality before the law..."
• "The measure of suspension from the exercise of public office [...] against a minister cannot require prior authorization by the Assembly and is not included in the guarantees of immunity, since: a) it is not included in the list of measures of Article 73, point 2, of the Constitution; b) the norms on immunity are interpreted narrowly and do not allow for expansion..."
2. On the nature of the measure: Individual vs. Institution
The court argues that the suspension affects the person under investigation and not the functioning of the state:
• "The measure of securing the prohibition of exercising the duty [...] is temporary and is directed at the individual and not the institution, therefore it cannot be equated with the dismissal of the minister (neither de facto) nor with administrative suspension..."
• "Its implementation does not in itself affect the powers of the executive branch, although it temporarily prohibits the individual for up to three months [...] from exercising the duties of a minister, in order to guarantee the integrity of the criminal process."
3. On the Separation of Powers and the Judiciary's Jurisdiction
The Court protects the independence of the judiciary to act in the criminal field:
• "The imposition of a measure of suspension from the duties of a minister in the context of criminal proceedings is part of the competence of exercising criminal prosecution and administering justice..."
• "This competence constitutes the central object of their activity and no other power can interfere with it."
• "The factual effects for the exercise of the function do not target the institution, but the individual who is suspected of continuing to perform the duty and could seriously harm the criminal investigation..."
4. On the claim of "Dispute of Competences"
The Court (through a minority opinion) rejected the Prime Minister's claim that there was a constitutional conflict:
• "The Constitution does not recognize the competence of either the Prime Minister or the Council of Ministers to suspend a minister from office."
• "It cannot be accepted that its effects [the measure] diminish or interfere with the constitutional competence of the Prime Minister to propose dismissal..."
• "The request, in essence, does not aim at resolving any dispute of competence [...] but at annulling individual judicial decisions..."
