Constitutional Court Responds to State Advocacy: We Are Not Set in Motion by Your Recommendations, We Directly Apply the Constitution and Strasbourg

The Constitutional Court has issued a firm stance regarding the latest report of the State Advocacy on the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). According to the institution, the document contains data that misleads public opinion and presents a distorted picture of its work.

In the document dated June 23, forwarded to the Parliament, the State Advocacy noted that despite Strasbourg’s recommendations, the Constitutional Court had not adopted any official position. As a result, the ECtHR continued to find violations concerning the right of access to the constitutional court and the method of calculating the time limit for individual complaints.

In its response, the Constitutional Court clarifies from the outset that its activity is not guided by the suggestions of the State Advocacy or any other state body. It emphasizes that the legal basis for implementing the ECtHR’s case-law is exclusively the Constitution, specifically the relevant articles that enshrine this obligation.

“Respecting the separation of powers, while open to institutional coordination, the Court is not activated by recommendations from other public institutions, including the State Advocacy, nor does it take into account ECtHR judgments because of its notifications. For the Court, as for any public body, the implementation of these judgments and jurisprudence stems directly from Articles 5, 17, and 122 of the Constitution,” the statement stresses.

The Court explains that the issues raised for which Strasbourg has found violations relate to the interpretation of the time limit for complaints after the 2016 constitutional reform, when this limit was reduced to four months from the previous two years. It indicates that after the case “Supergrav v. Albania” on May 9, 2023, internal practice changed to align with the requirements of the Convention.

For cases where the ECtHR has confirmed procedural violations, the Constitutional Court confirms that it has reopened proceedings at the request of the parties, without reviewing cases already adjudicated by Strasbourg.

“Immediately after the ECtHR ruled that our previous interpretation was contrary to the ECHR, especially after the ‘Supergrav’ judgment of May 9, 2023, the Court changed its approach, aligning the application of the organic law with European standards. Now, for each individual constitutional complaint, we formally request information from the Supreme Court regarding the notification of the contested decision. If no official evidence is provided, the burden of proof is not shifted to the citizen, and the complaint is considered to have been filed within the time limit,” the statement further explains.

As for the criticism on the reasoning of decisions, the Constitutional Court argues that the State Advocacy’s report does not highlight that the case “Frroku v. Albania” was dealt with during a period when the institution lacked a full bench. According to the organic law, when the required majority of 5 judges is missing, the application is automatically dismissed.

The institution stresses that, since 2021, the approach has evolved and now every decision is accompanied by full reasoning, including separate opinions of judges, in cases where the proper majority is not reached, a situation also influenced by the fact that the court currently operates with only eight members.

At the end of its reaction, the Constitutional Court appeals to the State Advocacy to prepare high-quality reports that are complete and impartial, and it reaffirms its commitment to rigorously implement ECtHR judgments and to protect fundamental individual rights.

“The State Advocacy is the legally responsible body for the dignified, transparent, and professional representation of Albania in Strasbourg. To perform this task, it must necessarily possess complete, accurate, and up-to-date information,” the statement concludes.