Investigative show Vetting | News24

From 2019 to the end of 2025, the Albanian government has issued 25 normative acts solely for amending the state budget. Normative acts are decisions that have immediate effect as law, without first passing through Parliament. The Constitution allows the Council of Ministers to use them as a tool only in exceptional cases, when the country cannot wait for a parliamentary debate. In these cases, the government can intervene immediately when something urgent happens, such as a crisis, disaster or the risk of paralyzing the state.

Research conducted by “Vetting” and analysis by fiscal and legal experts, based on the decisions of the Constitutional Court, reveal that normative acts have become a tool to channel funds to corrupt projects, which are now under investigation by SPAK. This research focuses on the way in which normative acts have been used, the role of the Minister of Finance and the responsibility of the Prime Minister’s firm.

Precedents set by the Constitutional Court
The Albanian government issues and approves the normative act according to the Constitution and the standards set by the Constitutional Court. In the reports on the normative acts or the acts themselves, you will find that they refer to Article 101 of the Constitution, based on two decisions by the Constitutional Court.

According to fiscal expert Eduart Gjokutaj, these decisions provide guidelines for the use of the act.

"The Constitutional Court has expressed itself in 2 cases, in 2006 and in 2014, regarding the normative acts drafted and approved, how they conflict with the relevant articles of the Constitution, regarding intervention in the budget bypassing the Parliament," expert Gjokutaj told "Vetting".

In decision no. 24, on 10 November 2006, the issue was directly related to the Albanian Power Corporation (KESH) and the risk of the country’s electricity supply being cut off. The problem was that KESH was in such a financial situation that it did not have a sufficient legal basis to ensure the continuation of electricity purchases, given the lack of production and unpaid debts.

The Albanian government of the time declared that without immediate legal intervention, the Corporation could not borrow, guarantee contracts or secure financing for the purchase of energy, which would lead to the inability to supply the country with electricity. The court would rule in favor of the government since the country was in a state of emergency and needed electricity.

Unlike the 2006 decision, in decision no. 23, on April 16, 2014, we would have a normative act that was directly related to the budget amendment by the government.

The Democratic Party would take the case to the Constitutional Court because the Rama 1 government, which is still in power today, would change the state budget by significantly increasing the public debt through a normative act. Even in this case, the Court would again rule in favor of the government because it had arguments for the need and urgency and because the normative act was subsequently approved by the Assembly, which fulfilled the control provided for by Article 101 of the Constitution.

Normative acts as an instrument for corruption affairs
In December 2022, the Albanian government would approve Normative Act No. 17, dated 1.12.2022, and Normative Act No. 19, dated 29.12.2022, for changes to the 2022 budget, relying on the claim of "need and urgency" while the Covid-19 emergency had long since been lifted.

These acts would be proposed by former Minister of Finance and Economy Delina Brahimaj and would be signed by Deputy Prime Minister Belinda Balluku. The importance of these acts is related to the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister has allocated 5 billion lek or 50 million euros for payments for these projects, to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Energy, which she herself heads. For both of these projects, Balluku is under accusation by SPAK for abuse of office for pre-scheduling tenders. The majority is even delaying SPAK's request to lift Balluku's immunity with the aim of arresting him, passing the ball to the Constitutional Court.

According to the deputy leader of the "Mundësia" party, Erald Kapri, Balluk's case is a conspiracy against justice.

"It is clear that this is a battle to protect all the corrupt acts that have been committed all these years to intimidate witnesses and obstruct justice. This is beyond question," said MP Kapri.

The vice-chairman of the "Mundësia" party, Kapri, added that the case of the deputy prime minister is an open conflict of interest, which is now being done to survive in power, for the great battle that Prime Minister Rama is having to save himself.

It is the reports on these projects that have given the first signals that normative acts by the Albanian government are being used without criteria and without real emergency or need.

From the analysis of the relationships, these changes are not related to an unexpected or emergency situation, but to the redistribution of funds, the technical closure of the fiscal year, and the financing of large infrastructure projects.

According to the leader of the "Albania Becomes" party, Adriatik Lapaj, the normative act is an exception to the rule.

"The use of a normative act for actions related to the governance of a country is inappropriate and is applied abusively," lawyer Lapaj told "Vetting".

The Supreme State Audit Office itself, in its audit of the Ministry of Finance and Economy for 2022, highlights that both normative acts were approved beyond the legal deadline for budget redistributions, which ends on November 15. Also, according to the audit, the reports of these acts do not contain detailed analyses of the changes, but only general summaries of the destination of the funds, which makes it unclear where the urgency that justifies the normative act lies.

Another problematic element identified by the SAI is the use and expansion of the Reserve Fund through these acts, emphasizing that the reserve fund was used for foreseeable expenses, contrary to the legal principle that this fund should serve only for unforeseen cases.

This context also includes the treatment of funds for large projects, including the Llogara tunnel. This project was financed in a climate of frequent budget changes, where decisions were made through normative acts at the end of the year, without a full parliamentary debate and without sufficient transparency on the real cost and financial performance.

According to fiscal expert Eduart Gjokutaj, the audit consistently highlights, both in terms of planning, but also in terms of the distribution of these funds, that the problem is systemic.

"This means that planning has problems in the way it is conceived and is influenced more by political decisions than by economic decisions and public interest," expert Gjokutaj told "Vetting".