Constitutional Court responds to State Advocacy report: Practice has been aligned with Strasbourg standards

The Constitutional Court has issued a response to the State Advocacy’s report on the implementation of European Court of Human Rights rulings, disagreeing with claims that it failed to take into account recommendations made following Strasbourg judgments.

According to the institution, the report provides only a partial picture of how ECHR rulings have been executed and leaves out changes made to its own practice in recent years.

The Court stresses that it is not guided by recommendations from other institutions, including the State Advocacy, but acts directly on the basis of the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the case law of the Strasbourg Court.

It explains that its practice for examining individual constitutional complaints was revised immediately after the ECHR’s ruling in the case of “Supergrav v. Albania” on May 9, 2023.

According to the clarification provided, when the Supreme Court does not prove the moment the decision was notified to the complainant, the burden of proof does not shift to the citizen and the complaint is treated as having been filed within the legal deadline.

“Whenever an individual constitutional complaint is submitted, official information is requested from the Supreme Court on the manner in which the decision being challenged was communicated and, if the latter does not provide evidence in this regard, the burden of proof does not shift to the individual, while the complaint is considered to have been filed within the deadline,” the response states.

In conclusion, the Constitutional Court asks the State Advocacy to ensure that its reports are complete, accurate and up to date, underlining that a proper reflection of the implementation of ECHR rulings carries weight for public trust and for the functioning of institutions. It reiterates that it remains committed to respecting the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the Strasbourg Court.

Full statement:

Response of the Constitutional Court on the findings of the State Advocacy Report dated 23.06.2026

The Constitutional Court (the Court) has taken note of the findings of the State Advocacy Report dated 23.06.2026 “On the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for the period January-December 2025,” which has been sent to the Assembly of the Republic of Albania.

This report, which reflects the work of the State Advocacy on the execution of ECHR rulings against the Albanian state, including cases where violations of rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) were found in proceedings conducted by the Court, also contains assessments of its practice following those rulings. According to the State Advocacy, although recommendations were given, “we have not had a position from the Court regarding these recommendations, and therefore this year the ECHR has continued to find violations with regard to this aspect,” referring to the right of access to constitutional adjudication and the way the legal deadline for submitting an individual constitutional complaint is interpreted.

The Court recalls that it has previously called on actors and individuals participating in public debate about the institution and its judges to show care and restraint. Although it has not wished to engage in polemics, the fact that a public institution included inaccurate elements in its reaction and used them publicly to cast doubt on its integrity and authority makes this clarification necessary for the proper information of the public.

First of all, the Court addresses the way the State Advocacy has reported. In respect of the principle of separation of powers, and although it is ready for institutional cooperation, it is not set in motion on the basis of recommendations from any public institution, including the State Advocacy, nor is it informed of ECHR judgments or implements them because of communications from that institution. As with every other public body, for the Court too the obligation to implement ECHR judgments and its case law derives directly from Articles 5, 17 and 122 of the Constitution.

As regards access to constitutional adjudication, the Court clarifies that the State Advocacy report refers to ECHR rulings from 2025 in the cases of Ibrahimi and Others v. Albania (Court judgment dated June 16, 2017), Fortuzi v. Albania (Court judgment dated December 7, 2017) and Ilia v. Albania (Court judgment dated January 14, 2020). These cases were handled after the entry into force of the 2016 constitutional and legal amendments, which changed the deadline for submitting an individual constitutional complaint from two years to four months and created the need to determine the point from which that deadline begins to run.

After this method of interpretation was considered by the ECHR to be incompatible with the Convention, and immediately after the judgment in the case of Supergrav v. Albania (May 9, 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 harmony with the standards established by the ECHR. For this reason, whenever an individual constitutional complaint is filed, official information is requested from the Supreme Court regarding the manner in which the challenged decision was communicated and, if it does not provide evidence in this respect, the burden of proof does not shift to the individual, while the complaint is considered to have been filed within the deadline.

Likewise, in line with the obligation to implement ECHR rulings and with the procedural rules of the organic law, whenever a violation has been found in its proceedings and the parties have requested the reopening of the process, the Court has reopened it without reopening for discussion issues that the ECHR had already assessed.

As regards the standard for reasoning decisions, the State Advocacy report does not point out that the case of Frroku v. Albania (Court judgment dated April 24, 2018) was examined during a period when the Court was functioning without its full composition. Nor does it take into account that, under Article 73, paragraph 4, of the organic law, in the absence of a majority of five judges, the request is considered rejected.

In this respect, the Court underlines that its practice has changed since 2021. In every case where the required majority for decision-making is not secured, something that is often also linked to its current composition of only eight judges, decisions are accompanied by the relevant reasoning, reflecting in detail the differing positions of the judges and guaranteeing the standard of reasoning in line with ECHR practice.

Despite the important role the State Advocacy has in reporting on the execution of ECHR rulings by the Albanian state, the Court stresses that it is essential for reporting to be complete, impartial and accurate, and for conclusions that create incorrect perceptions not only about the real situation of the implementation of these rulings, but also about the activity of Albanian institutions, to be avoided. The State Advocacy is the institution legally tasked with the high-quality, transparent and professional representation of the Albanian state in proceedings before the ECHR and, in order to fulfill this function, it must have complete, accurate and up-to-date information.

Moreover, in the spirit of the principle of loyal cooperation, which is based on mutual respect for each institution’s competences and implies building a cooperative relationship among them, and bearing in mind that responsibility for the execution of ECHR rulings does not belong to only one institution, the Court has offered the necessary assistance whenever the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR has requested information through the State Advocacy, and has also built bridges of cooperation with the Council of Europe Office in Tirana.

In closing, the Court reiterates its commitment to implementing the Constitution, the Convention and the case law of the ECHR, ensuring that its standards are reflected in constitutional practice and that fundamental rights and freedoms are effectively protected.