A petition by 39 MPs concerning Diella was rejected, but the court did not give blanket approval to transfer public powers to artificial intelligence. The institutions designated by law remain responsible for public services and the spending of state funds.
Lexojeni këtë artikull në shqip
Albania’s Constitutional Court announced on 8 October 2026 that it had rejected, by majority vote, a petition by 39 Democratic Party MPs concerning two provisions of presidential decrees linking Prime Minister Edi Rama to the virtual minister “Diella”. The challenged wording therefore remained in force. The announcement explains why the petition could not be examined on its merits through the constitutional avenues considered.
Examining a case “on its merits” means deciding whether what is being challenged complies with the Constitution. Here, the court first addressed the nature of the act and the conditions the petition had to meet. Rejecting it therefore does not mean the court declared Diella “constitutional”.
In this article
What Diella is and what was challenged
According to the Prime Minister’s Office’s official presentation, Diella was launched on 19 January 2025 as a virtual assistant on e-Albania, the platform where citizens access public services online. The government presents it as “Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence”. That political title was part of the debate, but the court case concerned the wording of two decrees.
Decree no. 331 of 12 September 2025, which appointed Rama prime minister, also assigned him responsibility for establishing and operating the virtual minister. The same sentence appeared in decree no. 333 of 15 September, setting out the government’s composition. Diella was not listed as a separate appointment among the ministers.
The MPs sought to remove that wording. According to BIRN’s summary of their arguments, they claimed the President had created a new ministerial structure and assigned the prime minister a responsibility that derived neither from the Constitution nor from legislation.
Why the petition was rejected
The court considered whether the case could be addressed through three avenues provided by the Constitution. First, it found that the decrees’ wording could have an effect on the prime minister but did not itself create new powers or structures. It therefore did not treat it as an act laying down general rules.
Second, in a conflict of powers, meaning a dispute over who holds a particular power, the 39 MPs were not shown to be parties to the conflict or directly affected by it. That obstacle applied to this particular avenue of review. It does not mean MPs cannot petition the Constitutional Court at all.
Third, the court found there was no specific constitutional officeholder, meaning someone holding a post provided for by the Constitution, whose appointment or status it could review through the other avenue considered. The title “virtual minister” was not enough to treat the case as a review of an officeholder’s status.
The announcement of 8 October summarises the reasons for the ruling and says the full decision, with its reasoning, would be issued within the statutory time limits. The summary also sets a clear limit: using a technological tool cannot create, expand, transfer or replace institutions’ powers.
What this means for public tenders
A tender is the procedure through which an institution selects a company to provide work, goods or services. The Diella debate also concerns the government’s promise to use artificial intelligence in those procedures.
On 11 May 2026, Rama said the technical specifications for an AI procurement system had been completed and work would move on to building it. He described a system covering stages from market research to checking the implementation of contracts, with the option of human review if objections arose. This was how the government presented the project.
On 12 August, Public Procurement Agency head Reida Kashta told BIRN the project was still under way. At the Innovation Forum on 8 September, Rama again described the AI procurement system as under construction. These statements show how the authorities presented the project on those dates.
Who is responsible for public money
Law no. 162/2020 on public procurement assigns responsibility to the institution organising the procedure. It identifies the people and unit carrying it out, as well as oversight by the institution’s head or an authorised person. Using a computer programme does not remove those responsibilities.
If a company claims it has been harmed in a tender, the law provides for complaints to the relevant institution and the Public Procurement Commission. Following administrative review, it can pursue an appeal in the Administrative Court of Appeal. This is a separate procedure from the constitutional petition concerning the Diella decrees.
For citizens, the main consequence is this: the ruling this week left the decrees’ wording in force, but responsibility for decisions and public funds remains with the institutions. The name “Diella” and the use of artificial intelligence do not transfer that responsibility to a computer system.
Updated 10 October 2026.