The Constitutional Court has rejected the request of a group of Democratic Party deputies, who sought the repeal of the President's decree appointing "Minister Diella".

The request of opposition MPs was submitted to the Constitutional Court, challenging the presidential decree regarding the appointment of "Diella" to the government.

With its decision, the Constitutional Court has decided not to accept the request of the DP deputies, leaving the President's decree in force.

DECISION:
The Constitutional Court, on 26.05.2026, considered in a plenary session on the basis of documents the case, in request no. group of 39 deputies of the Assembly of the Republic of Albania (the Assembly), in the capacity of a constitutional subject of no less than one fifth of the deputies (the applicant), with the subject: “Repeal of Article 2 of Decree No. 331, dated 12.09.2025, of the President of the Republic of Albania “On the Appointment of the Prime Minister”, as incompatible with the Constitution of the Republic of Albania. Repeal of Article 1, point 1, second sentence, of Decree No. 333, dated 15.09.2025, of the President of the Republic of Albania “On the Appointment of the Council of Ministers”, as incompatible with the Constitution of the Republic of Albania.”.

The Constitutional Court, convened today on 08.10.2026, after examining the subject matter of the request, the nature and essence of the claims submitted by the requester, as well as the objections of the interested parties, observed that:

First, this is a new issue, on which there have been no previous positions in the context of artificial intelligence.

Secondly, the use of artificial intelligence cannot change the constitutional and legal order of the exercise of public powers, responsibility and accountability. The use of a technological tool cannot create, expand, transfer or replace these powers. Such a requirement stems from the principle of the rule of law and legality.

Thirdly, in the present case, the applicant has alleged, in essence, that through the contested decrees, the President has created a new ministerial structure and has assigned to the Prime Minister a responsibility that does not stem from the Constitution or the law, thereby violating the constitutional powers of other bodies and the constitutional guarantees for the appointment of the minister. Based on these arguments and the legal basis selected by the applicant, the Court assessed the case according to its nature and object, analyzing its competence defined by the letters “c”, “ç”, and “e” of point 1 of Article 131 of the Constitution.

Regarding letter “c” of point 1 of Article 131 of the Constitution, in principle this provision gives the Court the power to decide on the compatibility of normative acts of central and local bodies with the Constitution and international agreements. In the specific case, the Court concludes that the contested formulation is capable of producing an individual legal effect against the Prime Minister, but it does not result that it has an autonomous constitutional effect for the creation of new competencies or structures and in any case its effect does not have a normative character. Consequently, the case cannot be examined based on Article 131, point 1, letter “c” of the Constitution.

Regarding the letter “ç” of point 1 of Article 131 of the Constitution, in principle this provision provides for the competence of the Court for disputes of competence between the powers. In the specific case, the Court considers that the existence of a dispute of competences of a constitutional nature cannot depend on the expressed position of the bodies involved nor are they in conflict, but on the nature of the alleged competences and on the fact that the act or conduct of one body may have over the sphere of constitutional competences of another body. On the other hand, the case in the specific request is legitimized to raise such a dispute regarding its legitimacy ratione personae, a criterion which it does not meet, since it is neither a subject in conflict nor a subject directly affected by it. Consequently, the case cannot be examined based on Article 131, point 1, letter “ç” of the Constitution.

Regarding letter “e” of point 1 of Article 131 of the Constitution, in principle this provision determines the competence of the Court for matters related to the eligibility and incompatibility in the exercise of the functions of officials of the bodies provided for in the Constitution, as well as the verification of their election, which also includes the constitutional body of the minister. In the specific case, the Court highlights that despite the terminology used in the contested decrees, it does not appear that we are dealing with a specific constitutional official whose eligibility, incompatibility or election/appointment could be subject to control under letter “e” of point 1 of Article 131 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court considers that it cannot examine the case on this basis either.

In conclusion, the Court, by majority vote, decided to dismiss the request.