STRASBOURG denounces the Constitutional Court/ Incompetent and ignorant

2026-07-08 12:47:00, Aktualitet CNA

The official report of the State Attorney's Office on the execution of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) during 2025, submitted to the Albanian Parliament, calls on the Constitutional Court.

The Strasbourg findings point to repeated violations by the Constitutional Court, highlighting the disregard for recommendations.

Here is what is evidenced in Strasbourg's findings for the Constitutional Court:

Denial of access to the Constitutional Court

The report points to another consolidated and repeated violation: the incorrect calculation of the 4-month deadline for filing appeals by the Constitutional Court.

The 2025 decisions such as "Ibrahimi et al.", "Ilia," and "Fortuzi" confirm that Albanian citizens are unfairly denied access to the highest level of constitutional adjudication.

Ignoring recommendations: The State Attorney's Office reveals that it has recommended that these cases be resolved amicably to avoid punishments from Strasbourg, requesting that the Constitutional Court review its practice. However, the Constitutional Court has chosen not to take any position, resulting in the continuation of the ECHR punishments for Albania.

Courts that "hide" the reasoning behind decisions

Another critical point raised by the ECHR is the practice of national courts to dismiss citizens' complaints without providing any full and adequate justification, making do with sterile formulas or simply presenting the result of the vote.

"Frroku" case: The ECHR found a violation of Article 6 because the Constitutional Court left the applicant without any reasoning on the merits of the case, limiting itself only to votes for and against.

Violation of judicial impartiality and conflict of interest

The report highlights flagrant cases of structural and procedural lack of impartiality in judicial bodies.

"Kroi & Noçka" case: Three Constitutional Court judges, who had previously judged the same case when they were part of the Supreme Court, refused to recuse themselves from the consideration of the constitutional request. The decision taken by this incomplete body (due to unfilled vacancies in the Constitutional Court) ended with equal votes of 3 to 3, creating strong doubts about the impartiality of the process.

Faced with this critical framework, the State Attorney's Office has forwarded official calls to key institutions such as the Supreme Court of Justice, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, and the School of Magistrates to urgently change their practice./ CNA