Flash News

Rama e shpalli

Daughter drowned with cousin/ Father: She begged me to go to the beach with her aunt, the first time I let her

SP rejects protesters' demands, rejects DP's request for a motion with debate

60 students poisoned at the Security Academy, police provide details: They are being investigated, food samples have been taken

Details from the crime in Kavaja, how a brother killed his brother over a road

E-TJERA

"Continuing house arrest was unconstitutional", the Constitutional Court's decision on Berisha, full reasoning published

Politiko 2026-01-15 22:05:41

"Continuing house arrest was unconstitutional", the Constitutional

The full decision of the Constitutional Court on the request of the leader of the Democratic Party, Sali Berisha, regarding the three decisions of the lower courts on the security measure "house arrest", is published, finding that the duration of this measure was excessive.

In the decision taken in the plenary session, the Constitutional Court found that the continuation of this measure was contrary to the Constitution, due to the lack of sufficient and proportionate justification for the restriction of personal freedom, partially accepting Berisha's request and declaring the relevant decisions unconstitutional, although without repealing them because the measure was no longer in force.

Full decision:

The Constitutional Court of Albania on 17.12.2025 considered in a plenary session, based on documents, the case with the applicant Sali Berisha, with the subject: "Abolition of decisions no. 400, dated 30.07.2024 of the Special Court of First Instance for Corruption and Organized Crime; no. 172 (87-2024-248), dated 13.09.2024 of the Special Court of Appeal for Corruption and Organized Crime; no. 00-2024-2076, dated 17.12.2024 of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, as incompatible with the Constitution of the Republic of Albania.".

The Constitutional Court (Court) convened on 15.01.2026 and, after considering the claims of the parties, assessed the following:

In 2023, it turns out that, at the request of the prosecutor, the ordinary courts imposed the personal security measures "Obligation to report to the Judicial Police" and "Prohibition on leaving the country", since in assessing the security needs, the courts accepted that there were reasons that put at risk the obtaining or authenticity of the evidence and, likewise, there was a risk of the applicant's escape (first trial). The judicial decisions that have disposed of these security measures have become the subject of review by the Court, which, with decision no. 81, dated 21.11.2024 (decision no. 81/2024), has decided to partially accept the request and annul the court decisions that had imposed those measures, as incompatible with the Constitution of the Republic of Albania, only for the part that imposed the personal security measure "Prohibition of leaving the country", with the reasoning that in imposing these two measures on the applicant, the court decisions lack justification, therefore it does not appear that they have assessed the need for imposing them for the same proceedings against him.

Për shkak se kërkuesi nuk ka respektuar një prej masave të sigurimit të caktuar nga gjykata, “Detyrimi për t’u paraqitur në Policinë Gjyqësore”, për kërkesën e prokurorit gjykatat e zakonshme, në datën 30.12.2023, kanë zëvendësuar masat e sigurimit të vendosura ndaj kërkuesit me masën “Arresti në shtëpi” (procesi i dytë). Edhe procesi gjyqësor që disponoi për zëvendësimin e masave të sigurimit ndaj kërkuesit, duke caktuar masën “Arresti në shtëpi”, është bërë objekt i kontrollit kushtetues nga Gjykata, e cila, me vendimin nr. 1, datë 17.01.2025, ka vendosur rrëzimin e kërkesës.

Rasti në shqyrtim lidhet me një vendim të Gjykatës së Posaçme të Shkallës së Parë për Korrupsionin dhe Krimin e Organizuar të datës 30.07.2024, përmes të cilit është disponuar për vijimin e zbatimit të masës së sigurimit “Arresti në shtëpi”. Gjykata, bazuar në jurisprudencën e GJEDNJ-së (shih, ndër të tjera, Buzadji kundër Moldavisë, Dhoma e Madhe, datë 05.07.2016), vlerësoi t’i analizojë vendimet gjyqësore në drejtim të kufizimit të lirisë personale për periudhën që ato kanë prodhuar pasoja juridike. Në vlerësimin e kësaj çështjeje, Gjykata konstatoi se gjykatat në shqyrtimin e kushteve dhe të kritereve për vijimin e masës së sigurimit “Arresti në shtëpi” (të caktuar në procesin e dytë), kanë arsyetuar se nevojat e sigurimit paraqiten të pandryshuara me ato për të cilat në gjenezë është konkluduar se kërkuesi duhej të vendosej nën një masë sigurimi. Në këtë kuptim, Gjykata evidentoi se gjykatat që kanë lejuar vijimin e masës së sigurimit personal “Arresti në shtëpi”, u janë referuar të njëjtave nevoja sigurimi si në momentin fillestar kur janë caktuar masat e sigurimit ndaj kërkuesit “Detyrimi për t’u paraqitur në Policinë Gjyqësore” dhe “Ndalimi i daljes jashtë shtetit” (procesi i parë). Gjykata konstaton se për këtë të fundit, në vendimin e saj nr. 81/2024, ka konsideruar që për sa kohë u konstatua mungesë në vlerësimin e elementit të nevojës për kufizimin e të drejtave dhe të lirive të kërkuesit, në raport me mbarëvajtjen e procedimit penal, kjo përbën shkak të mjaftueshëm për të konstatuar cenimin e parimit të proporcionalitetit në caktimin e masës “Ndalimi i daljes jashtë shtetit”. Po kështu, Gjykata, mbi bazën e të njëjtave argumente, konstatoi se edhe vetëm masa e sigurimit personal “Detyrimi për t’u paraqitur në Policinë Gjyqësore” duket se i plotësonte nevojat e sigurimit.

Meanwhile, in the decisions of the ordinary courts subject to review, although 7 months had passed since the imposition of the security measure "House arrest", there is no justification regarding the risk of absconding, while regarding the risk of obtaining and verifying the evidence, the prosecution body, subsequently, but also the ordinary courts, at the initial moment of imposing the security measures, have assessed that it was fulfilled by the security measure "Obligation to report to the Judicial Police". However, for the same security need and without identifying any new circumstances for any specific behavior of the applicant in terms of this security need, in the case under review the ordinary courts have considered that it was fulfilled by a more severe security measure, that of "House arrest". Based on this, the Court found that the reasoning of the judicial decisions is not sufficient in constitutional terms in assessing this security need, taking into account the fact that the justification for initially imposing the security measure “House arrest” consisted of the applicant’s failure to comply with, or failure to implement, the measure “Obligation to report to the Judicial Police”. In the Court’s assessment, such a circumstance alone cannot justify the continued application of the measure “House arrest” to the applicant, i.e. it cannot constitute sufficient grounds for the long-term extension of the restriction of liberty, without justifying any new reason justifying the continuation of the specific measure (“House arrest”). For this reason, the Court assessed that the decisions subject to this constitutional judgment, which have ordered the continuation of the security measure “House arrest”, are in conflict with the Constitution.

Because the security measure "House Arrest" is no longer in force, as the Special Court of Appeal for Corruption and Organized Crime on 03.01.2025 decided to replace it with the security measure "Obligation to report to the Judicial Police", the Court decided not to repeal the decisions subject to this constitutional review.

At the end of this trial, the Court decided: "Partial acceptance of the request. Declaration as unconstitutional of decisions no. 400, dated 30.07.2024 of the Special Court of First Instance for Corruption and Organized Crime; no. 172 (87-2024-248), dated 13.09.2024 of the Special Court of Appeal for Corruption and Organized Crime; no. 00-2024-2076, dated 17.12.2024 of the Criminal Chamber of the High Court, according to the above reasoning of this decision, only for the part available to the applicant Sali Berisha. The applicant's representation expenses in the amount of 75,000 lek are charged to the Ministry of Finance."