The Constitutional Court has reacted to the State Attorney's Office's Report on the execution of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, rejecting the assessments that it did not reflect the recommendations given following the Strasbourg decisions.
According to the Court, the report creates an incomplete picture of how the ECHR's decisions have been implemented and does not take into account the changes made to its practice over recent years.
In its response, the Court clarifies that it does not act on the basis of recommendations from other institutions, including the State Attorney's Office, but directly implements the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court.
According to her, the practice for reviewing individual constitutional complaints was changed immediately after the ECHR decision in the case "Supergrav v. Albania", of May 9, 2023.
The court explains that, if the Supreme Court does not prove when the decision was notified to the appellant, the burden of proof does not shift to the citizen and the appeal is considered filed within the legal deadline.
"Every time an individual constitutional complaint is filed, official information is requested from the Supreme Court on the manner of communication of the decision subject to appeal and, if the latter does not present evidence in this regard, the burden of proof does not shift to the individual, while the complaint is considered filed within the deadline," the reaction states.
In conclusion, the Constitutional Court calls on the State Attorney's Office to draft complete, objective and updated reports, emphasizing that accurate reflection of the implementation of ECHR decisions is important for public trust and the functioning of institutions.
The Court reiterates that it remains committed to the implementation of the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court.
Full reaction:
𝐀𝐧𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡
The Constitutional Court (Court) has been informed of the findings of the State Attorney's Office Report dated 23.06.2026 "On the execution of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for the period January-December 2025", which has been sent to the Parliament of the Republic of Albania.
This report, which reflects the activity of the State Attorney's Office in relation to the execution of ECHR decisions against the Albanian state, including those in which violations of rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) have been found in the procedures conducted by the Court, also presents assessments of the Court's practice after issuing these decisions. According to the State Attorney's Office, although it has issued recommendations, "we have not had a position from the Court regarding these recommendations, therefore this year the ECHR has continued to find violations in this regard", referring to the right of access to constitutional judgment and the interpretation of the legal deadline for submitting an individual constitutional complaint.
The Court has previously called for prudence and caution in the statements of actors or persons involved in the public discussion about the institution and its judges. Although it has not intended to engage in such debates, the fact that the reaction of a public institution contains elements of misinformation and has been publicly used to question its integrity and authority makes this clarification necessary in order to properly inform the public.
First, the Court draws attention to the manner in which the State Attorney’s Office reports. In compliance with the principle of the separation of powers, while remaining open to institutional cooperation, the Court does not act on the basis of recommendations from any public institution, including the State Attorney’s Office, nor does it take cognizance of the decisions of the ECHR or implement them on the basis of notifications from this institution. As for any other public body, the Court’s obligation to implement the decisions of the ECHR and its case-law stems directly from Articles 5, 17 and 122 of the Constitution.
Regarding the issue of access to constitutional proceedings, the Court clarifies that the State Attorney's Office report refers to the 2025 ECHR decisions in the cases of Ibrahimi and Others v. Albania (Court decision, dated 16 June 2017), Fortuzi v. Albania (Court decision, dated 7 December 2017) and Ilia v. Albania (Court decision, dated 14 January 2020). These cases were examined after the entry into force of the constitutional and legal amendments of 2016, which changed the deadline for filing an individual constitutional complaint from two years to four months and brought about the need to interpret the moment from which this deadline begins to run.
After this way of interpretation was assessed by the ECtHR as incompatible with the ECHR and immediately after the decision in the case of Supergrav v. Albania (9 May 2023), the Court changed its practice, interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the organic law (Law No. 8577, dated 10.02.2000 “On the organization and functioning of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Albania”, as amended) in accordance with the standards set by the ECtHR. To this end, whenever an individual constitutional complaint is filed, official information is requested from the Supreme Court on the manner of communication of the decision subject to the complaint and if the latter does not present evidence in this regard, the burden of proof does not shift to the individual, while the complaint is considered filed within the deadline.
Likewise, in accordance with the obligation to implement the decisions of the ECHR and the procedural rules provided for in the organic law, whenever a violation has been found in its procedures and the parties have requested the reopening of the process, the Court has reopened it without reopening the issues already assessed by the ECHR.
As regards the standard of reasoning of decisions, the State Attorney's Office report does not indicate that the case of Frroku v. Albania (Court decision, dated 24 April 2018) was examined in a period when the Court was functioning without its full composition. It also fails to take into account that, according to Article 73, point 4, of the Organic Law, in the absence of a majority of five judges, the request is considered dismissed.
In this regard, the Court emphasizes that its practice has changed since 2021. In any case where the necessary majority for decision-making is not reached, often dictated by its composition (currently with only eight judges), the decisions are accompanied by the relevant reasoning, reflecting in detail the judges' separate positions and guaranteeing the standard of reasoning, in accordance with the practice of the ECHR.
Despite the importance of the role of the State Attorney's Office in reporting on the execution of ECHR decisions by the Albanian state, the Court underlines the necessity of a complete, objective and accurate reporting, as well as the avoidance of conclusions that create incorrect perceptions not only about the real state of implementation of these decisions, but also about the activity of Albanian institutions. The State Attorney's Office is the institution charged by law with the qualitative, transparent and professional representation of the Albanian state in the procedures before the ECHR and, in order to fulfill this function, it must have complete, accurate and up-to-date information.
Also, in view of the principle of loyal cooperation, which is based on mutual respect for the competences of each institution and implies the creation of a cooperative relationship between them, and taking into account that the responsibility for the execution of ECHR decisions does not belong to just one institution, the Court has provided the necessary assistance whenever the Department for the Execution of Decisions of the ECHR has requested information through the State Attorney's Office, and has built bridges of cooperation with the Council of Europe Office in Tirana.
In conclusion, the Court reiterates its commitment to the implementation of the Constitution, the ECHR and the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, ensuring the reflection of its standards in constitutional practice and the effective protection of fundamental rights and freedoms.
