From Unfit for the Bench to “Heads” of the Classroom?/ The New Justice System Taught by the Old One

By Etleva Skonja

The restructuring of Albania’s justice system through the vetting process has been one of the deepest and most controversial interventions in the judiciary. Hundreds of judges and prosecutors have been dismissed due to failure to justify their assets, connections with criminal elements, or breaches of professional integrity. But a new and troubling debate has emerged: Should these former magistrates be allowed to teach at the School of Magistrates?

From Vetting to lecturing: A return through the back door?

Some of the former judges and prosecutors, either dismissed or who resigned during the vetting process, have now expressed ambitions to lecture at the very institution tasked with training the next generation of the judiciary – the School of Magistrates. This raises a fundamental ethical concern: Is it appropriate and just for individuals removed due to lack of integrity to hold formative roles in shaping the new justice system?

Brussels Sounds the Alarm: A Problem That Remains Unresolved

Criticism has not only come from civil society and the media. According to the European Commission’s Rule of Law Report on Albania, the situation is deemed alarming. The report states:

“The fact that former magistrates who resigned during the vetting process and are prohibited from holding high positions in the judiciary are still eligible to be employed as teaching staff at the School of Magistrates is serious.”

This assessment underscores that the rigorous standards imposed on the justice system are not being equally enforced in the academic institutions preparing future judges and prosecutors. If someone is deemed unfit to administer justice, how can they be considered fit to teach it?

Permitting such individuals to lecture fundamentally undermines the credibility of the vetting process. It creates the impression that stepping down from official positions is not the end of their influence – they may no longer sit in courtrooms, but they still occupy lecture halls, shaping the minds of tomorrow’s magistrates.

Legal Issue or moral dilemma?

Even if the law does not explicitly prohibit their engagement as educators, the matter remains one of ethics and institutional credibility. The School of Magistrates is not just an academic institution – it is the cornerstone upon which public trust in the judiciary is built.

Therefore, the School of Magistrates, the High Judicial Council, and the High Prosecutorial Council must immediately adopt clear and binding ethical guidelines that exclude individuals dismissed for lack of integrity or those who evaded vetting through resignation from pedagogical roles.

If the new justice system is to rest on solid foundations, it cannot be built upon the shadows of past failures.

The Vetting Process: Where Are We Now?

The reassessment of all judges and prosecutors was completed at the first-instance level in November 2024, significantly reinforcing accountability. However, measures to preserve the high standards set during this process are still pending approval. The International Monitoring Operation (IMO) continues to oversee all aspects of the vetting process.

The current outcomes of vetting decisions are as follows:

• 282 dismissals or termination of employment agreements (56%)

• 350 confirmations in office (44%)

• 4 suspensions with mandatory training orders (0.49%)

An additional 110 appeals are still pending. The Appeals Chamber has increased the pace of its reviews, with four additional staff appointed, and is on track to conclude the vetting process within the constitutional deadline of June 2026.