E fundit!

11:44 TODAY

"Let's maintain standards"/ Head of the Supreme Court of Justice: Evaluation of judges and magistrates, a process of trust in justice

The President of the High Judicial Council, Ilir Rusi, was...

Constitutional Court rejects Beqaj's request, reserves decision

2026-01-31 12:53:00, Aktualitet CNA

Former Minister of Health, Ilir Beqaj, has expressed reservations about the Constitutional Court's decision.

The latter rejected the former minister's request for the lifting of the prison sentence.

In his reaction through his legal representative, Beqaj stated that he is unaware of the voting results. According to him, the rejection of the request shows that at least 4 judges voted against his appeal, but perhaps all eight judges voted "en bloc".

Beqaj ironically points out that requests to overturn security measures are perhaps annoying and secondary to the Constitutional Court compared to other, much more fundamental issues for the rule of law that they judge, but this should not lead you to comparatively more simplistic assessments like in his case.

Ilir Beqaj's reaction

Honorable members of the Constitutional Court!

I am addressing you publicly following the announcement published on the Court's website on January 28, 2026, announcing that my request to challenge the GJKKO decision of July 6, 2024 on the security measure "prison arrest" has been rejected.

This undoubtedly makes me subjective and I believe that for this reason you can neglect this communication. You have the cliché that court decisions are not commented on.

But, since Albanians win cases at the ECHR (Strasbourg), this is because you too are giving unfair decisions.

Then, in a democratic society like ours, everyone has the right to freely express themselves against injustice. It is enough to do so peacefully and ethically.

I still don't know the result of the vote. But the rejection of the request shows that at least 4 judges voted against my request, but perhaps all eight judges voted en bloc.

This public communication is only for those judges who voted to dismiss the request.

I filed a request with your Honorable Court on July 1, 2025. According to the previous notice, the hearing was to be held on December 23, 2025, while the notice of rejection of the request was made public on January 28, 2026. That is enough to understand how serious you are in handling the cases you judge. 7 months to assess a security measure. Does it make sense to issue a decision on a security measure 19 months after the first decision was issued? Such a prolonged review loses its function as an effective guarantee. What kind of justice is this? Who needs this kind of delayed justice?

For you, requests to overturn security measures may be "annoying", they may be "second-rate" compared to other, much more fundamental issues for the rule of law that you judge, but this should not lead you to comparatively more simplistic assessments in cases like mine.

On July 6, 2024, the GJKKO reasoned that, since the criminal offenses that I am suspected of having committed as a senior official provide for a high sentence, there is a risk that I will leave Albania. The GJKKO Appeal on August 7, 2024 also confirmed this risk.

But the very texts of the reasoning of the first instance and Appeal decisions of the GJKKO, if read, are contradictory to the decisions of these same courts against me.

From reading the decisions that I have asked you to overturn, it results:

Senior official

The courts (July 6 and August 7) ??have reasoned from the beginning that the general director of SASPAC is not a high-ranking official neither according to the Constitution (Article 135, point 2) nor according to the Criminal Procedure Code (75/a). Even though SPAK has entered its seventh year of operation, it still does not know who its subjects are.

Passive corruption

The courts (July 6 and August 7, 2024) have reasoned from the outset that the suspicions of passive corruption are based only on conjecture. They have invited the prosecution for further investigations to determine the suspected value of corruption, because this is also related to the subject matter competence of SPAK. In the absence of a corruption value, however minimal, the accusation of corruption did not exist from the outset.

Fraud with serious consequences

How serious consequences are qualified in Albanian criminal law is determined by a unifying decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of 2003. But that decision itself states that, based on the “current development of the country” (i.e., 2003), serious consequences are any value over 2 million lek. The minimum wage nationwide has increased 5 times since 2003. Wasn’t the minimum value of serious consequences set at 10 million lek back then? But this invalidates serious consequences. Coincidentally, one day before the request against me was dismissed, the Parliament approved amendments to the Criminal Code. Article 143/a/8 speaks of fraud against the financial interests of the EU. So, the criminal offense suspected of me under Article 143 was wrongly qualified. My defense had no way of knowing this until October 30, 2025, when it brought information to you. But you yourself should be interested in the development of criminal law in Albania. I believe Article 143/a/8 of the Criminal Code will come into force in 2–3 weeks. That's why the charge of fraud didn't exist at the beginning.

Violation of equality in the tender

A 2006 CC decision is enough to prove that the accusation of violating equality in tender is unfounded from the beginning. The EU acquis is not a source of criminal law in Albania. Albania is not yet an EU member state. The EU regulations that I am alleged to have violated are not yet law in Albania. Meanwhile, the famous PRAG Guide is not law either in the EU or in Albania. So this doubt did not exist from the beginning.

If the above may seem to pertain to the merits of the case, I disagree.

I disagree because the suspected criminal offenses were artificially placed in SPAK's request for a security measure. The maximum sentence was artificially increased to raise the alibi of the risk of departure. What prompted me to leave the country? I had and still have another criminal proceeding for a much more serious criminal fact and I had the measure "compulsory appearance".

According to your procedure, we do not have the opportunity to be heard. Your rules prevent us from speaking in front of you. In the 7 months that you have been handling the case, you have not given us even 2 hours of time to speak before you. If I had had the opportunity, you would have heard from me what I have stated above on December 23, 2025. Also the expected changes to the Criminal Code, because the draft with the changes was released for public consultation in October 2025.

I am clear about what the reasoning for rejecting the request will be. It will be very formalistic. Typical reasoning of a court of fact.

But you, honorable ones, are not the fourth level of the judiciary in Albania.

You have been back in the fourth instance for years. It has happened day after day. Those members who came from the judiciary have brought this spirit. They have brought the procedural spirit, the excessively long deadlines for trial and reasoning.

Therefore, perhaps it should be prohibited by law for judges from the three levels of the judiciary to be members of the CC.

This week began with the formalization of the Justice Corporation. The inaugural meeting of the Corporation was held on Monday. At that meeting, concern was also shared about the unfair ratio between pre-trial detainees and prisoners in Albania.

I did not expect my request to be accepted simply because I belong to this biased report. But the illogical rejection of my request is clear evidence that you do not care at all about the concerns of Albanian society.

Honorable members of the Court,

I have no particular interest in the reasoning behind the decision.

But you have the opportunity to act as a court of law. For the benefit of anyone who encounters issues like the ones I encountered in my case at the three levels of court.

You have the opportunity to establish the framework of senior officials subject to SPAK.

You have the opportunity to assess the legal weight of EU regulations as long as Albania is not an EU member state.

You have the opportunity to establish a mechanism that allows courts to update past absolute monetary values ??that determine specific levels of criminal damages.

If you provide an assessment of these issues, you will also directly influence the reduction of litigation, because you will guide the courts towards more unified decision-making.

I hope that the reasoned decision is up to your role: a real defense of freedom and legality./ CNA