OPEN LETTER/ Come to the dialogue and listen to me speak, otherwise I will cut off your scholarships, you will rot in prison. Please!

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

The Constitutional Court rejects the DP's request for the Law on Protected Areas

2025-07-31 18:55:16Aktualitet SHKRUAR NGA REDAKSIA VOX

The Constitutional Court rejects the DP's request for the Law on Protected

The request of the Democratic Party to repeal the law on protected areas was rejected this Thursday by the Constitutional Court.

The law on protected areas was sent to the Constitutional Court by Democratic lawmakers on November 1 last year. The Socialist Party approved the law in the Assembly on February 22, 2024 amid chaos and opposition from the opposition. The law provides that in some of the territories classified as protected areas, it will be possible to build accommodation structures for the development of tourism or agritourism, but that the opposition says that it risks concreting these areas.

Announcement of the Constitutional Court:

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Albania (the Court) on 23.06.2025 and 01.07.2025 examined in a public session the case with applicants not less than one fifth of the deputies of the Assembly of the Republic of Albania, with the object: "Repeal of the law no. 21/2024 "On some additions and amendments to the law no. 81/2017 "On Protected Areas", as incompatible with the Constitution of the Republic of Albania and international agreements. Suspension of the implementation of the law no. 21/2024 "On some additions and amendments to the law no. 81/2017 "On Protected Areas", until the Constitutional Court expresses its final decision on the merits of the case".

The Constitutional Court met on 31.07.2025 and after considering the claims of the parties, assessed the following.

The Court, during the review of the preliminary criteria, unanimously assessed that the claims for the freedom of scientific research and legal certainty in relation to the community, are new claims, presented after the opening of the judicial review, therefore they cannot be considered. As for the allegations of violation of the principle of equality before the law, the principles of the rule of law and the hierarchy of normative acts, the Court assessed, unanimously, that the applicant has not brought constitutional arguments in support of them.

Regarding the allegation of the incompatibility of the law with the SAA and violation of the acquies communitarire, the positions of the judges were divided, therefore, as long as the required number of 5 judges for decision-making was not reached, based on Article 73, paragraph 4, of Law no. 8577/2000, this claim is considered rejected.

Specifically, according to one position, the SAA is an international agreement that aims at a process to be undertaken by the Albanian state, which defines directives as a basis and reference for approximation of legislation, but without making them instruments with binding force and part of domestic law in the constitutional sense and therefore constitutional control, according to Article 122 of the Constitution, it extends only to the compliance of the law under review with Article 108 of the SAA.

According to the other position, Article 108 of the SAA cannot be seen as detached from the acquis communautaire as otherwise it would remain devoid of substance. Therefore, in cases where the verification of the compliance of the law with the SAA is required, Article 108 also includes in its content acquies communautarire, therefore the control must be carried out considering the content of the directives in question.

Gjykata vendosi të shqyrtojë në themel pretendimet që lidhen me procedurën parlamentare (që kanë të bëjnë me raportin shoqërues të projektligjit dhe konsultimin publik), sipas neneve 82 dhe 56 të Kushtetutës, dhe pretendimet që lidhen me përmbajtjen e ligjit në drejtim të pajtueshmërisë me marrëveshjet ndërkombëtare të detyrueshme për zbatim dhe respektimit të identitetit kombëtar e trashëgimisë natyrore, sipas nenit 122 dhe Preambulës së Kushtetutës.

Për pretendimin për cenimin e nenit 82 të Kushtetutës në lidhje me raportin shoqërues të projektligjit që përligj shpenzimet financiare për zbatimin e tij, qëndrimet e gjyqtarëve u ndanë në dy drejtime, për rrjedhojë nuk u arrit numri i kërkuar prej 5 gjyqtarësh për vendimmarrje, bazuar në nenin 73, pika 4, të ligjit nr. 8577/2000. Në këto kushte ky pretendim u rrëzua.

Konkretisht, sipas njërit qëndrim, u vlerësua se, në mënyrën sesi është formuluar ligji i kundërshtuar në lidhje me krijimin e Zyrave të Administrimit të Parqeve Kombëtare, duket se ai nuk sjell shpenzime financiare dhe për këtë qëllim llogaritja e tyre ishte pamundur të bëhej. Në verifikim të normës kushtetuese, nenit 82, pika 1, të Kushtetutës, duket se qëllimi i kushtetutëbërësit nuk është verifikimi i masës së shpenzimeve, pra llogaritja e tyre, por përligjja e tyre. Në këtë kuptim, për sa kohë që shpenzimet në këtë ligj janë të përligjura, për shkak të angazhimeve që ka marrë shteti shqiptar në kuadrin konventor të pasqyruar edhe në ligjin ekzistues, si edhe në konsideratë që edhe funksionet, në thelb, mbeten të njëjta, nuk duket se ka pasur nevojë për një përligjje të mëtejshme të këtyre shpenzimeve.

According to the other position, it was assessed that the Office of National Park Administration is a new structure and in addition to the current state functions, new functions related to management plans are added in accordance with the new legal amendments that allow economic activity, tourism and supporting infrastructure for them. The financial effects result not only from the content of the law that provides for the establishment of these offices, but are also confirmed by the report of the Law Commission that has affirmed that the draft law brings financial effects. Article 82, paragraph 1, of the Constitution establishes the obligation for the draft law to be accompanied whenever the case with the report that justifies the financial expenditures for its implementation, as this is an issue that concerns not only public finances, which are expressly protected by the Constitution, but also with the fact that the procedure of drafting, approving and implementing the budget is subject to specific constitutional procedures, which are also characterized by the principle of transparency and accountability. This obligation has not been fulfilled in this case, according to Article 17 of Law no. 21/2024 and other provisions related to it should be repealed.

Regarding the claim for public consultation, according to Article 56 of the Constitution, the Court, by a majority of votes, decided to dismiss it with the following reasoning.

According to Article 56 of the Constitution, the right to public consultation includes not only information on the state of the environment, but also information on its protection. This article, together with Article 8 of the Aarhus Convention, defines the positive obligation for public consultation, which extends both to individual acts and concrete projects, as well as to normative regulatory acts of a general nature in the field of the environment. The Court notes that the challenged law, which brings changes to protected areas, is clearly a law pertaining to the environment and therefore it was analyzed in the light of Article 56 of the Constitution and Article 8 of the Aarhus Convention as above.

Although the Aarhus Convention has limited the obligation to consult only to governmental acts and procedures undertaken by executive public authorities and not to legislative ones, since the right to be informed about the state of the environment and its protection is a constitutional right, according to Article 56 of the Constitution, it extends to all bodies, including the Assembly. In this sense, in the case under consideration, the initiative to amend the Law on Protected Areas is an initiative of the MPs and despite the fact that that initiative has undergone changes, among other things, based on the suggestions of the Council of Ministers, it remains an original initiative of the MPs. For this reason, the public consultation made by the Assembly regarding the draft submitted by the deputies fulfills the obligation set out in Article 56 of the Constitution and does not violate Article 8 of the Aarhus Convention, which, for the above, does not apply to the Council of Ministers in the preparation of its suggestions for the law, as long as this was not a legal government initiative.

The allegations of violation of national identity and natural heritage, provided for in the Preamble to the Constitution and of respect for international obligations, the Court decided to examine them together within the meaning of Article 122 of the Constitution. Regarding the essence of these claims, the Court, by a majority of votes, decided to dismiss them, with the following reasoning.

The Court notes that the SAA aims to cooperate in the fight against environmental degradation, by establishing a legislative approximation process without imposing concrete applicable obligations. Despite the apparent fact that the requested law liberalizes state policies in the administration of protected areas, it is, in essence, a framework law, which is not self-applicable and in itself does not bring consequences and, therefore, does not violate international obligations for environmental protection under the SAA.

The Court specifically focused on the compliance of the law under review with Article 108 of the SAA, which provides that "The Parties shall develop and strengthen cooperation in the very important task of combating environmental degradation, with the aim of promoting environmental sustainability". The Court assessed that this article aims at cooperation in the fight against environmental degradation and concluded that the challenged law, being a framework law, even though it adds some new elements of the administration of protected areas in relation to the existing law, does not seem to bring concrete direct consequences in this regard. Taking into account that specific DCMs for the declaration of protected areas will be issued for the implementation of the law, which will make the relevant detailed determinations for each area, only at that moment can the non-compliance with the international obligations under Article 108 of the SAA be verified, i.e. if the obligation for non-environmental degradation is fulfilled.

The same analysis applies to the compliance of this law with the international conventions of Rio, Bern, Ramsar and Paris, due to the lack of concrete effects and consequences of the framework law under review.

In conclusion, for the above reasons, the Court, by a majority of votes, decided:

Dismissal of the request.
The final decision will be declared reasoned within the legal deadlines provided by law no. 8577, dated 10.02.2000 "On the organization and functioning of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Albania", as amended by the Regulation on Judicial Procedures of the Constitutional Court.


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×