Court Fines Him 50,000 Lek for Absence/ Plarent Ndreca Responds: GJKKO Unilaterally Imposed the Pace, Right to Independent Defense Was Violated

Plarent Ndreca, the lawyer for Tirana Mayor Erion Veliaj, has responded after being fined by the court for failing to attend a hearing, calling the decision unjustified and explaining that his absence was due to an unavoidable scheduling conflict.

In a public statement, Ndreca said he had officially notified the court at 9:00 a.m. that he was due to attend a civil case at the same time. The proceedings have been ongoing for five years and the hearing had been scheduled well before the criminal court session.

According to him, the request to postpone the hearing was also accompanied by the relevant documentation.

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

Ndreca claims that the reason given for fining him was that he should have notified the court of the scheduling conflict during the previous hearing.

However, according to him, the date and time of the hearing had been set by the court without consulting the defense lawyers about their other professional commitments.

The lawyer stressed that this was not the first time he had publicly criticized the way the proceedings against Veliaj were being conducted, and voiced suspicion that the disciplinary measure may have been a response to his positions.

He also added that he would not withdraw from defending his client, regardless of fines or other measures.

Ndreca also announced that he would refer the matter to the National Chamber of Advocates, arguing that fining a lawyer while performing his duties sets a precedent that undermines the independence of the profession and the right to an effective defense.

He warned that the defense team would also take the case to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that violations of constitutional and European standards of justice had been identified during the proceedings.

Concluding his statement, Ndreca stressed that “without free lawyers there can be no effective defense, without an effective defense there can be no due process, and without due process there can be no rule of law.”

Full statement:

Today, several media outlets that abandoned objectivity long ago and have openly sided with the prosecution against Erion Veliaj rushed to report that I had been fined by the court for failing to attend a hearing. Naturally, they forgot to explain the reason for my absence.

Here is the truth.

Today, at 9:00 a.m., I officially notified the court in writing that at the same time, 10:00 a.m., I was due to attend a civil case that has been ongoing for five years and had been scheduled long before the criminal court hearing. I attached the evidence and requested that the hearing be postponed. No one can physically be in two courts at the same time. This is an objective impossibility—though apparently not for the criminal court.

According to colleagues who were present in the courtroom, the reason for the fine was “that I should have notified the court of this conflict during the previous hearing.” Yet at the previous hearing, the court set the date and time without asking any of the lawyers. It showed no interest in whether the defense lawyers had other commitments, but today it fined one of them for supposedly failing to notify it of a scheduling conflict that the court itself never bothered to ask about or verify.

This is not the first time, and in all likelihood it will not be the last, that I have publicly criticized the way these proceedings are being conducted. I sincerely hope that this fine is not a response to those positions. But if anyone believes that one fine, several fines, or administrative or even criminal proceedings can silence me, they are mistaken. Those who know me know that I am not someone who chooses comfort at the expense of justice, and it is far too late for me to start doing so now.

It is becoming increasingly clear each day that, although these proceedings are still at an early stage, many of our arguments that were initially rejected have been accepted by higher courts. Other violations will meet the same fate before the European Court of Human Rights, which will very soon be formally petitioned through our application. The cause is not simply to win a case, but to use it to establish better constitutional and European standards of justice.

It is precisely regarding these standards that I will also turn to the National Chamber of Advocates. Fining a lawyer while performing his duties is not an individual issue, but a precedent that affects the freedom and independence of the legal profession.

If a court claims the right to dictate how a lawyer organizes his professional activities and punishes him when they do not conform to the pace unilaterally imposed by the court, then it is not only the lawyer’s freedom that is being called into question, but the very right to an independent defense.

I believe in a justice system that accepts adversarial proceedings, debate, cooperation and institutional understanding, and regards the defense as a constitutional safeguard, not a procedural obstacle.

Therefore, neither this fine nor any other measure will divert me from this path.

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