The debate about Balluk/ Which Europe is Rama talking about?

Prime Minister Edi Rama's statements in his podcast, where he called Belinda Balluku's suspension "absurd, unprecedented in Europe", undoubtedly open a new political and legal debate. 

Today on the "Flasim" podcast, Rama said, referring to Venice and the Strasbourg Court regarding the GJKKO decision to suspend former Deputy Prime Minister Belinda Balluku from public office, that ministers cannot be dismissed by the court as it is a direct interference in the competencies of the prime minister and the president.

Rama even called the GJKKO decision an invention.

"Prosecutors and courts do not get involved in this at all and they never do this. Never. Nowhere in Europe."

And if Albania were to enter the annals of the history of European justice with such an invention, this would be, by far, a blatant display of democratic and institutional immaturity.

"I hope the Constitutional Court spares Albania this spectacle ," Rama said.

But which Europe is the Prime Minister talking about?

This is due to the fact that in the Europe we all know, ministers resign over even a suspicion, or an irregular invoice. While in the "Europe" that Rama describes, apparently, accused ministers are victims of justice and the courts are seen almost as a destabilizing factor.

In fact, as the head of the DP parliamentary group, Gazment Bardhi, points out, in various European countries ministers have been suspended or resigned for much simpler cases, from investigations into unclear management of funds to conflicts of interest, showing that the suspension of a senior political official is not at all 'unprecedented', but a normal standard of democratic governance.

The irony lies precisely in the use of the conclusion "Nowhere in Europe".

If we analyze this phrase of the prime minister, it is true that we are unique: nowhere on the continent is there a prime minister who comes out publicly to defend a cabinet member who has been officially declared a defendant by SPAK.

In no EU country is there a debate about "whether it is permissible" for justice to affect a high-ranking political official because the law applies equally to everyone.

Whereas in the version of Europe that Rama describes, it seems that it is the court that intervenes in the affairs of the government and that the government should not be subject to the law.

But anyone who knows international institutions knows that they talk about the independence of powers, not about political immunity from investigation.

Therefore, the question remains: which Europe is Rama talking about?

For a Europe of standards, where political responsibility precedes justice, or for an imaginary Europe, where courts must be careful not to "upset the government's balance"? SF