Parliament’s disregard for Constitutional Court on Xhacka sparks local condemnations, EU, U.S. concerns
Story Highlights
- Parliamentary vote on MP Olta Xhaçka’s mandate seen as the ruling party disregarding the country’s constitution.
Related Articles
TIRANA, Sept. 14, 2024 - In a move that has raised major concerns among locals and the international community, the ruling Socialist Party in Albania's parliament has again blocked the Constitutional Court from reviewing the mandate of former foreign minister and current MP Olta Xhaçka.
The decision has been sharply criticized by the political opposition, independent analysts and both the EU Delegation and the U.S. Embassy, who see the move as a setback for the rule of law in Albania.
The dispute, which began in 2022, centers on allegations of a conflict of interest involving Xhaçka’s husband, former Socialist Party MP Artan Gaçi, who was granted "strategic investor" status to build a hotel in the coastal town of Dhërmi. Opposition parties argue that this status gives Gaçi and Xhaçka undue access to state resources, while parliamentary efforts to refer the case to the Constitutional Court have been consistently blocked by the ruling Socialist Party.
-EU Delegation, U.S. Embassy criticize Albania’s parliament-
The EU delegation in Tirana expressed deep concern over the failure to refer Xhaçka’s mandate to the Constitutional Court for review, calling it “a step in the wrong direction.” The delegation highlighted that this is not the first instance in which the Albanian parliament has disregarded the rulings of the Constitutional Court, raising alarms about the country's democratic processes.
“The implementation of decisions by the Constitutional Court is essential for the system of checks and balances in Albania’s democratic framework. This latest move by parliament does not contribute to the rule of law, which remains a key requirement for Albania's EU integration,” the EU statement noted.
The EU Delegation also expressed disappointment after what appeared to be positive signals from the Speaker of Parliament, Elisa Spiropali, who had previously committed to prioritizing unresolved Constitutional Court decisions.
The U.S. Embassy in Tirana also voiced its displeasure, echoing the EU’s concerns. In a statement, the embassy emphasized the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions and the rulings of the judiciary.
“Government and institutions must adhere to regulations, laws, court rulings, and the constitution – all of which are put in place to ensure a democratic system is healthy and thriving,” the embassy’s statement read. It also noted that parliament's refusal to comply with the Constitutional Court's ruling undermines the separation of powers and diminishes public trust in the country’s democratic institutions.
-Spiropali appeals to the Venice Commission-
In response to the international criticism, Speaker Spiropali defended parliament's actions, stating that there is a legal ambiguity surrounding the Constitutional Court’s ruling on Xhaçka’s mandate. Spiropali announced that the Albanian government has formally requested an opinion from the Venice Commission, a prominent international advisory body on constitutional matters.
“We seek clarification on certain aspects of the Constitutional Court's decisions, especially whether parliamentarians can be forced to vote in a specific way,” Spiropali said. “We will follow the recommendations of the Venice Commission without delay.”
However, critics, including opposition leader Sali Berisha, have dismissed this move as a stalling tactic. In a statement made from house arrest, Berisha accused the ruling party of orchestrating a "constitutional coup."
-Opposition accuses of constitutional breach-
The main opposition Democratic Party, led by Berisha, has strongly condemned the parliament’s vote, framing it as a direct assault on Albania's Constitutional Court. Berisha labeled the ruling party’s actions as a “flagrant violation” of the constitution and accused Prime Minister Edi Rama of manipulating the parliamentary process to protect political allies.
“The parliament, under orders from Edi Rama, has obliterated the Constitutional Court. This is a clear coup against the constitution,” Berisha said. He urged the Venice Commission to reject what he called a “fraudulent justification” for parliament’s refusal to send Xhaçka’s case to court.
Other opposition representatives echoed these concerns, pointing to broader issues of corruption and lack of accountability within the SP. Xhaçka, once a close ally of Prime Minister Rama, has been a lightning rod for controversy since her husband’s company was granted strategic investor status.
Genc Pollo, a former DP MP and deputy prime minister, argued that the international criticism of a third refusal in two years by the Socialist Party majority to comply with a repeated ruling of the Constitutional Court was a first in years but should get more attention in EU reports, which in previous years have had a “whitewashing of the democratic backsliding in Albania.”
“Xhacka … has benefited from state resources via her family. This is prohibited under Albanian law and other MPs, on both sides, have seen their mandates voided by the Constitutional Court over this,” Pollo said. “For the first time in two decades, Parliament repeatedly refuses to send the case for scrutiny to the Constitutional Court, which is the established practice.”
Pollo added that the coastal high-end property was given to her husband through falsifying property records and a former Socialist mayor of Himara is in pre-trial detention for that reason. Xhacka is also under criminal investigation for serious wrongdoing as defense minister. “Despite all this she is protected by PM Edi Rama,” Pollo wrote on X.
-Conflict of interest allegations against Xhaçka-
The controversy surrounding Xhaçka dates back to June 2022, when opposition MPs filed a motion alleging that her husband, Artan Gaçi, had unfairly benefited from government support through his designation as a strategic investor. The status allowed Gaçi’s company to secure public land for the construction of a luxury resort in Dhërmi, raising concerns of a conflict of interest.
While Xhaçka has denied any personal financial gain from the project, arguing that her husband's investments were made independently, opposition parties insist that her involvement in public office constitutes an ethical breach. They note that the Albanian constitution explicitly forbids MPs and their families from benefiting from state contracts.
Local commentators have also weighed in on the case, with analyst Lutfi Dervishi remarking that Albania’s judicial hierarchy has effectively been upended by the ruling party’s control over parliament. “What we have now is a system where the Socialist Party’s parliamentary group has become the highest court of the land,” Dervishi wrote in a viral social media post.
-Implications for Albania’s rule of law
The repeated refusal of Albania's parliament to comply with the Constitutional Court’s ruling is being viewed as a critical test of the country’s commitment to democratic norms. Experts warn that continued disregard for the judiciary will have serious implications for Albania's EU accession process, which hinges on the country’s ability to uphold the rule of law and demonstrate judicial independence.
“The situation is worrying,” said a Western diplomat based in Tirana. “Albania’s parliament is acting more like an extension of the government than an independent legislative body. This erosion of democratic checks and balances could have long-term consequences for the country’s stability and its relationship with the European Union.”
SP MPs chose a new tactic to defy the Constitutional Court in the latest vote, held to avoid media attention past midnight: most of them abstained, making the vote invalid, this once more refusing to recognize and implement the decisions of the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court rarely issues statements beyond its rulings, but this case was so grave that Chief Justice Holta Zaçaj has spoken out publicly several weeks ago.
“It is really an unusual and implausible situation for a democratic state,” she said at the time. “The Court’s decisions must be respected and implemented, there is no equivocation for the Court’s decisions. It is not for the Parliament to decide how and in what manner it should implement the decisions of the Constitutional Court.”