“Comment is free, but facts are sacred.” — C. P. Scott, 1921.
Constitutional Court upholds amendments to the “Protected Areas” law
Erblin Vukaj · Originally published: 31 July 2025
In this article
The Constitutional Court’s decision and reasoning
The Constitutional Court has decided not to strike down the law amending the framework for “Protected Areas”.
At a press conference this afternoon, the Constitutional Court said it had decided to dismiss the application by one fifth of the members of Parliament and the environmental organisations Albanian Ornithological Society (AOS) and EcoAlbania, which sought to have Law No. 21/2024, “On certain additions and amendments to Law No. 81/2017 ‘On Protected Areas’”, struck down as unconstitutional.
Claims that the law violated equality before the law, the principles of the rule of law and the hierarchy of legal acts were rejected for lack of constitutional arguments.
The claim that the amendments harmed natural heritage and national identity was likewise rejected.
The Court considered that this is a framework law and therefore does not create direct and specific consequences for the environment. Its actual effects will be assessed only when implementing acts, such as Council of Ministers decisions, are adopted.
On public consultation, the Court found that the requirements had been met, since the initiative originated in Parliament and Parliament consulted the public on the final version of the bill.
On these grounds, and also taking into account its divided position, without a qualified majority of 5 judges, on whether the amendments were compatible with the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) and the EU body of law, the “acquis communautiaire”, the Constitutional Court found no violation of the Constitution and decided to dismiss the application.
Law No. 21/2024 therefore remains in force.
At the hearing on 23 June, the parties presented opposing positions on the law’s environmental impact and constitutional standards. The environmental organisations argued that the law paved the way for construction in sensitive natural areas.
The decision, whose full reasoning is expected to be published in the coming weeks, has prompted disappointment in civil society, as it sets a precedent for weakening legal protections for nature in the name of investment.