Journalists barred from using phones and cameras during GJKKO hearings, Journalists’ Union reacts: Media access restricted

The Albanian Journalists’ Union has reacted to the new regulation of the Special Court against Corruption and Organized Crime (GJKKO), which sets out rules on security, order and conduct within the institution’s premises, raising concerns about restrictions on media access. In an official statement, the AJU said that several provisions of the regulation and the accompanying commentary create obstacles to journalistic reporting, undermining media freedom and the public’s right to information about court proceedings.

The Union is calling for the documents to be reviewed, particularly the sections concerning accreditation, the number of journalists allowed in courtrooms and the rules governing media recordings. In its statement, the AJU also referred to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees that court proceedings are conducted publicly, while Article 10 of the Convention protects the right to public information about the functioning of justice. The AJU is also calling for these two documents to be reconsidered in the chapters concerning relations with the media, while demanding immediate editorial amendments.

The full reaction:

The Special Court against Corruption and Organized Crime (GJKKO) has published Decision No. 49, dated 17.07.2026, “INTERNAL REGULATION ‘ON SECURITY, ORDER, SOLEMNITY AND RULES OF CONDUCT ON THE PREMISES OF THE GJKKO’,” along with the commentary ON THE INTERNAL REGULATION “ON SECURITY, ORDER, SOLEMNITY AND RULES OF CONDUCT ON THE PREMISES OF THE GJKKO.” These are two documents that establish new criteria, procedures and restrictions on the presence of media outlets and journalists at this institution.

The accompanying 532-page commentary, in a separate chapter, embodies several restrictions that raise serious concerns when viewed against the right to report and media freedom. This regulation establishes obstructive bureaucratic procedures for journalists, limits on the number of journalists, and new rules on media recordings and presence on the premises of the judicial institution.

The AJU notes that, in this case, the Regulation and the commentary contain instructional text on how to violate the country’s Constitution, Article 22 of which guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of the press. These two documents instruct and order how journalists are to be prevented from reporting and broadcasting, but above all how they are to be restricted from recording the facts taking place in court.

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees that court proceedings are conducted publicly, while Article 10 of the Convention protects the right to public information about the functioning of justice.

The AJU believes that these two documents expose the conviction of the institution’s drafters and leaders that the media poses a risk to judicial proceedings and that, for this reason, they have created a chapter and specific provisions obstructing and restricting journalists, camera operators and their professional equipment in courtrooms and on the premises of the institution in question.

After fully reviewing the texts in question, the AJU notes that the requirement for prior authorization conditions the presence of the media and turns access from a right into an administrative permit. Under this procedure, what happens with unexpected hearings or sudden developments, when the media cannot meet the deadline set out in this regulation? Does this not constitute a precedent for obstructive restrictions?

The provision establishing limits on the number of journalists, without selection criteria, undermines the principle of each media outlet’s right to be present and of informational pluralism. The absence of such criteria in the Regulation and Commentary gives the institution’s administration or security structures the authority to select which journalists and media outlets may be present, legitimizing the administration’s discretion to allow or refuse entry.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights stipulates that restrictions must be foreseeable and based on clear criteria. The other provision of the regulation establishing restrictions on photography and recording carries the risk of absolute bans. In our view, this commentary is a source of additional restrictions. At the same time, we believe that the concept of treating the media as a risk to order conflicts with the principle of public hearings. These two documents contain no appeals mechanism: if a journalist or media outlet is refused access, there is no procedure for challenging the decision.

The other provision establishing accreditation criteria presents serious problems for newsrooms and for the specialist reporters who cover proceedings at this institution. Having the Court conduct the accreditation process once a year is absurd and excludes not only many reporters from this right, but could also obstruct media outlets that have secured accreditation if, for one reason or another, the reporter leaves their job and activity for a period of time. The established accreditation procedure does not provide for replacements or subsequent accreditations.

The AJU draws the attention of the drafters of these two documents and the institution’s leaders to the fact that decisions and previous proceedings at higher European judicial institutions have reference value in order to avoid violations and infringements of the fundamental law and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Albanian Journalists’ Union, based on the principle that the media is democracy’s public watchdog, notes that these two basic documents governing the relationship between the GJKKO and the media and journalists set out concrete guidelines on how the media is to be administered and severely restrict its access, particularly through limited accreditation, among other measures.

The AJU appeals to this institution to reconsider these two documents in the chapters concerning relations with the media. We are calling for immediate editorial amendments. At the same time, we are addressing the European Union Office in Tirana, as the main donor and supporter of Justice Reform; the United States Embassy in Tirana; the OSCE Presence in Tirana; and the international institutions monitoring fundamental freedoms in our country, urging them to exert their immediate influence to prevent such regulations and commentaries from becoming models of censorship and violations of fundamental freedom within a special court such as the GJKKO.