The lawyer for Tirana Mayor Erion Veliaj, Plarent Ndreca, has reacted after being fined by the court for being absent from a court session, calling the decision unjustified and explaining that his absence was due to an objective schedule conflict.

In a public statement, Ndreca said that he had officially notified the court at 09:00 that he was simultaneously engaged in a civil trial that had been going on for five years and had been scheduled much earlier than the criminal hearing. According to him, the request for the postponement of the hearing was accompanied by the relevant documentation.

"No one can physically be in two courts at the same time. This is an objective impossibility," he says.

Ndreca claims that the reason given for the fine was that he should have announced the scheduling conflict at the previous hearing. However, according to him, the date and time of the hearing were set by the court without consulting the defense attorneys about their other professional commitments.

The lawyer emphasizes that this is not the first time he has publicly criticized the way the process against Veliaj is being conducted and expresses suspicion that the disciplinary measure may be a reaction to his positions. He adds that he will not withdraw from defending his client, regardless of fines or other measures.

Ndreca also announces that it will address the National Chamber of Advocates, arguing that fining a lawyer while performing his duties constitutes a precedent that violates the independence of the profession and the right to effective defense.

He warns that the defense team will also address the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that violations of constitutional and European standards of justice have been identified during the process.

At the end of his reaction, Ndreca emphasizes that "without free lawyers there is no effective defense, without effective defense there is no due process, and without due process there is no rule of law."

Full reaction:

Today, some media outlets, which have long since abandoned objectivity and openly sided with the accusation against Erion Veliaj, rushed to publish the news that I was fined by the court for missing the hearing. Of course, they forgot to state the reason for the absence.

Here's the truth.
Today, at 09:00, I officially notified the court that at the same time (10 am) I was in a civil trial, which has been going on for five years and was scheduled long before the criminal hearing. I attached the evidence and requested a postponement of the hearing. No one can be physically in two courts at the same time. This is an objective impossibility, not for the criminal court.

According to colleagues present in the courtroom, the reason for the fine was "that I should have announced this conflict in the previous session." Meanwhile, in the previous session, the court set the date and time without asking any lawyer. It did not care if the defense attorneys had other commitments, but today it fined one of them because she did not notify it of a scheduling conflict, which she herself never cared to ask or verify.

It is not the first time, and most likely it will not be the last, that I have publicly criticized the way this process is being developed. I sincerely hope that this fine is not a reaction to these attitudes. But if someone believes that with a fine, with several fines, with administrative or even criminal proceedings they can make me silent, they are mistaken. Anyone who knows me, knows that I am not one of those who chooses comfort at the expense of injustice and it is too late to start doing it now.

It is becoming clearer every day that in this process, although still at the beginning, many of our arguments, initially rejected, have been accepted by the highest courts. The same fate will befall other violations before the European Court of Human Rights, which will soon be officially set in motion by our request. The cause is not simply to win a process, but through it to build better constitutional and European standards of justice.

It is precisely for these standards that I will address the National Chamber of Advocates. The fining of a lawyer in the line of duty is not an individual problem, but a precedent that affects the freedom and independence of the legal profession.

If a court claims to dictate the way a lawyer organizes his professional activity and punishes him when it does not match the pace that the court unilaterally imposes, then not only the lawyer's freedom is put into question, but the very right to an independent defense.

I believe in a justice system that accepts adversarialism, debate, cooperation, institutional understanding, and considers protection a constitutional guarantee, not a procedural obstacle.
Therefore, neither this fine nor any other measure will deter me from this path.

Without free lawyers, there is no effective defense, without effective defense, there is no due process, and without due process, there is no rule of law.