“Comment is free, but facts are sacred.” — C. P. Scott, 1921.
The new Criminal Code: which articles threaten media freedom?
Erblin Vukaj · Originally published: 25 September 2025
In this article
The draft of the new Criminal Code proposes penalties that risk silencing journalists and penalising public opinion. In an analytical report, the Science and Innovation for Development centre (SCiDEV) raises the alarm over the consequences of adopting it without changes.
The proposal, published by the Ministry of Justice on 27 August, represents one of the most far-reaching reforms of Albanian legislation since 1995. The government says it aligns the code with European standards. But, according to SCiDEV’s analysis, it risks being turned into an instrument of censorship.
In a detailed report examining legal issues and media rights, SCiDEV highlights the most problematic articles, which could be used against journalists, civil society activists or whistleblowers themselves.
Among the articles identified as most concerning are those on defamation, insult, influence over the justice system and the vilification of state figures. The report offers five specific recommendations.
The most problematic articles: from defamation to serious insult
Article 865 of the draft expands the definition of defamation to include damage to the reputation of institutions as well as individuals. It provides for public apologies, retractions and fines that can be doubled if defamation occurs in the media or on social networks.
The wording removes the requirement that statements be made “knowing them to be false” in Article 120 of the current Criminal Code and takes a double-standard approach, favouring officials by increasing penalties in cases directed at them.
SCiDEV considers that these changes should not be adopted because they “conflict with the principles of proportionality and with the EU’s own recommendations on decriminalising defamation”.
Article 863, which deals with insult, amends Article 119 of the current code by adding a new category, “serious insult”, with vague legal definitions, such as damage to the victim’s self-esteem, good morals, disturbance of public opinion and so on, but punishable by up to 2 months in prison.
The report raises concerns that these formulations could be used to punish critical opinions or political comments, increasing fear and self-censorship. Here too, SCiDEV argues that the changes should not be adopted because they do not comply with EU recommendations to eliminate imprisonment for insult.
Article 536, on protecting judicial independence, a provision with no similar specifications in the current code and considered a positive innovation, contains vague formulations such as “oppressive circumstances” affecting judicial independence, or “manifest intent” to exert influence.
The wording provides no protection for journalists. SCiDEV considers that it risks being misused to restrict freedom to express opinions on court proceedings of major public interest, opinions that constitute legitimate criticism.
Practice in other countries is generally limited to the unlawful dissemination of investigative evidence, while imprisonment is considered disproportionate.
This concept, known as “scandalizing the judiciary”, originated in English common law and has been abolished in England and Wales since 2013, precisely because of the risk it poses to freedom of expression. SCiDEV therefore recommends rewording Article 536.
Eroding free speech, satire and political humour
Article 852, entitled “Violation of freedom of thought and expression”, amends Article 261 of the current code on “Obstruction of the exercise of the right to expression, assembly and demonstration”. It expands protection of freedom of expression to include “freedom of the press”, but SCiDEV says it could instead use the wording “media freedom”.
In the report, SCiDEV says that the protection offered is not systematically linked to existing criminal provisions on violence against journalists and does not include the anti-SLAPP measures, protections against abusive lawsuits intended to silence public participation, recommended by the EU. It therefore proposes that journalists be treated in the same way as workers in services of public interest and included in Article 338, which penalises violence or threats against them.
Article 235, on “vilification of the Republic”, amends Article 268 of the current code, which concerns “Denigration of the Republic and its symbols”. It provides for criminal penalties of up to four years in prison for “vilification of state figures” such as the President, Parliament, the Government or even the martyrs of the nation.
Including these categories turns political criticism, satire and even protest itself into criminal offences. SCiDEV considers that the paragraph including these categories should be removed.
“The origins of this article resemble ‘lèse-majesté’ laws. These have been removed from French and Belgian legislation as antidemocratic,” the report stresses.
Article 515, which addresses the publication of secret investigation documents, a provision absent from the current code, allows imprisonment for up to four years even if the information was obtained from official sources. It does not clarify whether the journalist or citizen who publishes the document can invoke a public-interest defence.
Without exceptions for journalists, this wording could be used to silence whistleblowers and media reporting on corruption or important proceedings. SCiDEV therefore recommends revising it.
A draft code that could undermine the foundations of democracy
At a time when Albania claims to be meeting the criteria for EU integration, even at an accelerated pace to achieve it by 2030, according to the government, the draft of the new Criminal Code puts at risk important elements of a democratic system: pluralism of opinion, media freedom and the very space for public debate.
“Journalists and other public watchdogs […] should not face criminal penalties for performing a function in the public interest,” stresses the SCiDEV report, which argues that transparency and civil liability, rather than a harsher Criminal Code, are the democratic routes to protecting dignity.
The report therefore concludes with recommendations to decriminalise defamation and insult, strengthen protections for journalists and public watchdogs, revise provisions that potentially restrict expression, align the code with European and international commitments, and ensure proportionality and legal clarity.
* This article was reviewed and corrected on 8 October 2026.