How legislative moves to protect senior officials are putting Albania’s rule of law and EU path at risk
By Zef Preçi
When governments begin rewriting the rules to protect themselves from the courts, the problem is no longer legal. It is political. Albania’s latest debate over judicial measures against senior officials reveals a troubling convergence with practices long criticized elsewhere in the Western Balkans.
Last week, I wrote about the parallelism between the positions adopted by the ruling majority in Belgrade, led by Aleksandar Vučić, and in Tirana, led by Prime Minister Edi Rama, respectively, regarding the activities of Serbia’s Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime and Albania’s Special Anti Corruption Structure. It is now worth examining the reaction from Brussels to these initiatives, which at their core pursue the same objective: to protect the political decision making elite from criminal investigations by using parliamentary arithmetic as a political shield, while overlooking the fact that special prosecution offices were established under strong international pressure and support precisely to put an end to the culture of impunity that this political elite has cultivated for decades, particularly with regard to abuse of public office, corruption, unlawful influence, and related criminal offenses.
Two days ago, Reuters reported, citing EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos, that the European Union may suspend funds from a 1.6 billion euro package of loans and grants for Serbia after Belgrade adopted laws that are undermining trust in the country’s commitment to the rule of law. Judicial reforms that entered into force last week have drawn criticism from judges and prosecutors, who view them as strengthening President Vučić’s power, weakening the fight against organized crime, and diminishing Serbia’s efforts to join the EU. In a coordinated response, Serbian authorities, including President Vučić and the Ministry of Justice, have dismissed EU criticism regarding concerns over backsliding in the judiciary, claiming that the amendments constitute necessary reforms to improve efficiency and to return the judiciary to the people. Key elements of the Serbian authorities’ reaction include defensive rhetoric, the launch of a denigration campaign against the special prosecution, particularly following investigations into former and current officials, and the systematic disregard of EU warnings.
In Albania’s case, the EU has consistently emphasized that the independence and effectiveness of SPAK are non negotiable cornerstones of the justice reform and a critical requirement for the country’s EU accession process. Following recent legislative debates and political tensions related to SPAK, the EU’s response has been characterized by strong support for the institution, alongside serious concern over attempts to exert political pressure on the judiciary. This has been reflected in unwavering public support for SPAK through a series of official statements by the Head of the EU Delegation to Albania, by the U.S. Embassy in Tirana, and by envoys arriving from Washington. At the same time, there has been growing concern over excessive pressure on the justice system, particularly reactions from the executive and legislative branches following high profile arrests, with repeated warnings that increasing efforts by politicians to influence the judiciary remain a serious matter of concern. EU officials have also cautioned against narratives of a captured judiciary, which closely resemble controversial and anti democratic narratives observed elsewhere in the Western Balkans.
The EU has placed particular emphasis on accountability and immunity, urging the Albanian Parliament to act without delay on SPAK requests to lift the immunity of its members, most notably in the case of Deputy Prime Minister Belinda Balluku, stressing that Parliament must not serve as a barricade against justice. Moreover, Brussels has warned that progress under the Fundamentals cluster, covering the rule of law and SPAK’s independence, will determine the overall pace of accession negotiations, with clear signals that no chapter can be closed without tangible progress on these fronts.
Various sources confirm that the EU’s main concerns in the Balluku case relate to issues such as obstruction of justice and abuse of immunity, prompting the European Commission to issue a strong statement calling on the Albanian Parliament to address without delay the lifting of her immunity. Political interference in the judiciary represents an additional concern, reflected in the European Commission’s 2025 report, which underlines that such interference remains a serious issue, while refusal to lift immunity is viewed as a direct blow to the justice reform.
As in Serbia’s case, where the EU has demanded the repeal of amended judicial laws that have severely undermined the ability of the special prosecution to pursue high level corruption, the Balluku case has been presented by Brussels as a decisive test of Albania’s rule of law progress. Continued and active protection of Balluku, the EU has indicated, could lead to serious consequences for Albania’s EU integration process. Several member states, particularly Germany, have reportedly signaled that such actions could trigger an unprecedented disruption of the accession process itself.
Based on public statements by senior figures within Prime Minister Rama’s ruling majority, it is increasingly evident that, despite the gravity of the situation both for domestic institutional relations and for Albania’s EU integration, the next step under consideration is legislative change aimed at protecting officials. After a testing of the waters with public opinion, the opposition, and international partners by the Minister of Justice, it was Prime Minister Rama himself who, in his weekly monologue on a public holiday, outlined plans for amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent the suspension of ministers under investigation. Both the EU and the opposition view this as an attempt to shield high level officials from accountability.
Rama has announced that in the coming days he will submit a legislative initiative concerning judicial competences, following the decision to suspend Minister Balluku, arguing that the judiciary must not interfere with the work of the executive. Once again, principle and person appear to be deliberately conflated. While acknowledging the court’s right to impose security measures on any person under investigation, he simultaneously argues that there are certain functions, including that of a minister, which are paralyzed if the minister is suspended. He draws questionable parallels with the potential suspension of the President of the Republic, the head of the State Audit Institution, and others, stressing that these officials, including himself at present, hold non delegable functions. In such cases, suspension, he argues, produces an immediate effect equivalent to dismissal, because it is not merely the person who is suspended, but the function itself.
By framing this as a legal vacuum in the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the suspension of non delegable functions, Prime Minister Rama, together with the chair of the parliamentary Legal Affairs Committee and the head of the parliamentary majority, appears poised to enter a legislative confrontation with a broad segment of Albanian society. This includes citizens who view SPAK as the primary source of hope for rebuilding trust in rule of law institutions, a political opposition firmly opposed to turning Parliament and the law into a shield for senior officials suspected of looting public funds and national assets, and international partners who supported and assisted in establishing SPAK to end impunity for high level corruption. It also includes the United States, which has been deeply engaged not only in its continued support for SPAK but also in strengthening bilateral cooperation to combat corruption and transnational organized crime.
In this context, much is already clear. Yet Prime Minister Rama’s initiative still fails to answer a simple question: if corruption is not committed by ministers and senior politicians who, behind closed doors, decide the fate of hundreds of millions or even billions of euros of taxpayers’ money, then who does commit corruption? If those who hold power and control public resources are shielded from accountability, the very purpose of justice reform is fundamentally undermined.
The post Shielding Power from Justice appeared first on Tirana Times.
