Journalist Klodiana Lala reports that the preliminary hearing against Erion Veliaj has been postponed to January 5th.

Veliaj dismissed one of his defense lawyers, Artan Gjermeni, while the GJKKO has assigned him a primary lawyer, specifically Valentina Teodorescu.

Veliaj requested the removal of the measure of being placed in a cage during hearings, the full and immediate availability of the file documents in an accessible form, and the postponement of the procedure until these rights are guaranteed.

“1. “The immediate abolition of the measure of placement in a cage, in accordance with the binding standards of the ECHR and the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, which considers this practice to be degrading, prejudicial treatment and incompatible with Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention.

2. The full and immediate availability of the file documents, in a readable and accessible form, which enables me to be truly informed about the accusation and to have the necessary time to prepare my defense.

3. Postponement of the procedure until this fundamental right — the right to be defended — is fully and effectively guaranteed to me. No fair process can proceed without respecting these three minimum conditions,” the request states.

Full request:

The criminal request of the Special Prosecution Office against Corruption and Organized Crime as an attribution against the defendant Erion Veliaj for the criminal offenses under trial is pending in a preliminary session before the Court of First Instance for Corruption and Organized Crime.

In the preliminary court session on 02.12.2025, the defendant Erion Veliaj, present at this session, requested, among other things:

1. “The immediate abolition of the measure of placement in a cage, in accordance with the binding standards of the ECHR and the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, which considers this practice to be degrading, prejudicial treatment and incompatible with Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention.

2. The full and immediate availability of the file documents, in a readable and accessible form, which enables me to be truly informed about the accusation and to have the necessary time to prepare my defense.

3. Postponement of the procedure until this fundamental right — the right to be defended — is fully and effectively guaranteed to me. No fair process can proceed without respecting these three minimum conditions.”

This request submitted by the defendant Erion Veliaj, by an interim decision of the First Instance Court Against Corruption and Organized Crime dated 02.12.2025, was dismissed with the arguments cited in the court minutes of the session.

We note that there are different positions within this Court in the application of criminal procedural law, regarding the recognition of acts based specifically on articles 34/a and 327 points 2 & 3.

It is noted that in most cases, the various defendants are given the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the acts and receive a copy of them.

In particular, we bring to the attention of this Court that in criminal proceeding no. 55 of 2019, in the session of 04.12.2025, the same request for recognition and copies of the acts was submitted by the defendant himself in the session, and the Court accepted this request, ordering the proceeding body to provide the defendant in custody with copies of the acts requested personally by him. The case brings to light that also in criminal proceeding no. 55/2019, one of the representatives of the prosecution body coincides both in the related proceeding and in the proceeding against the defendant Erion Veliaj.

Considering the different decision-making method of this Court for the proceedings against the defendant Erion Veliaj as well as the need to guarantee equal treatment of defendants in the implementation of Article 34/a and 327 points 2 and 3, on the right to know and receive a copy of the acts, personally by the defendant, we conclude that the purpose of this request is to establish the same standard for the manner of proceedings and the parties participating in the trial before this Court.

The purpose of this request is not to delay the process but to guarantee the constitutional right based on Article 31 of the Constitution, which provides that the defendant in custody must be made fully, realistically and effectively aware of the materials of the case, which in this case constitute a volume of approximately 60.000 pages (21 GB electronically).

We emphasize that this Court has reasoned on the rejection of the request for familiarization with the acts with the argument that the defense attorney chosen by the defendant Erjon Veliaj has been recognized and his relationship with the defendant is sufficient to acquaint him with the acts.

Meanwhile, Article 327, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code provide that:

"2. Within the time limit provided for in Article 324 of this Code, the prosecutor shall notify the defendant, his defense attorney, as well as the victim or her heirs, of the completion of the preliminary investigations, when their identity and residence result from the procedural acts.

3. The notification contains a brief description of the criminal act for which proceedings are being conducted, the time and place of its commission, the legal qualification, the notification of the filing of the acts in the secretariat and the right to familiarize oneself with the acts and to receive copies.”

From the literal interpretation of Article 327, point 2, it results that the prosecutor is obliged to notify each listed subject separately, i.e. “the defendant, his defense attorney, as well as the victim”. The use of commas and the independent ordering of the subjects prove that the notification is not unique, is not united and is not interchangeable between them. The law does not use expressions such as “through the defense attorney” or “the notification made to the defense attorney applies to the defendant”. On the contrary, the grammatical formulation clearly shows that every subject has the right to receive the notification and to become acquainted with the acts personally, and not through another subject.

Point 3 of Article 327 stipulates that the notification must also contain “the right to familiarize oneself with the acts and to receive copies”. This right is addressed to all subjects who receive notification according to point 2, including the defendant himself. The provision does not provide that the defendant’s right is consumed or extinguished by its exercise by the defense attorney. On the contrary, the grammatical structure and logic of the provision indicate that every notified person has the autonomous right to personally familiarize oneself with the acts, without being replaced by a representative.

The court's reasoning that the recognition of the defense attorney is sufficient for the defendant also contradicts the literal interpretation of the law, since the provision is clearly addressed to two distinct subjects: the defendant and his defense attorney. In the absence of a legal formula indicating that the defense attorney replaces the defendant for the purpose of the notification, such an effect cannot be artificially created. The defense attorney is a procedural guarantor, but not a substitute for the defendant's personal rights, which the law recognizes in a self-consistent manner.

When the defendant expresses a direct will to familiarize himself with the documents, the proceeding body has a legal obligation to guarantee this right. This will cannot be ignored on the grounds that the defense attorney has had access to the file, since the procedural right of the defendant is personal and independent of the manner in which the defense attorney exercises his defense. The court's refusal to assess the defendant's direct request contradicts the structure and text of the legal provision.

If it were accepted that the knowledge of the defense attorney is sufficient, then the inclusion of the defendant in the list of subjects who must be notified becomes completely unnecessary.

The procedural provision must be interpreted in a way that provides more guarantees for the defendant and not that limits them. Between the two interpretations – one that recognizes the defendant’s right to see the documents himself, and one that denies it on the grounds that the lawyer has been recognized – the interpretation that guarantees the effective right to defense must prevail.

The court's reasoning turns the defendant into a passive subject of the process, unjustly limiting a right clearly granted by law.

For these reasons, based on Articles 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; 34/a, 327/2/3, 332/c; of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Articles 31 et seq. of the Constitution of the Republic of Albania; Articles 3, 6 et seq. of the ECHR.

SEEKING

– Revocation of the interim decision of the First Instance Court Against Corruption and Organized Crime, dated 02.12.2025.