The environment, the concession tender, the shareholders’ dispute, the termination of the contract and changes in the business register. What has happened, and what remains unresolved.
Behgjet Pacolli spent about seven hours at SPAK, Albania’s special anti-corruption prosecution office, on 26 October. Afterwards, the businessman said he had filed a criminal complaint over changes registered in the company behind Vlora Airport. According to Shteg’s report, he was questioned as a person with knowledge of the case, not as a defendant.
His complaint adds another dispute to the project. The airport faces objections over its impact on nature; the concession tender is under investigation; the shareholders are fighting over control of the company; and the state has announced the termination of the contract.
These disputes concern the same airport, but they are separate proceedings. A ruling on the company’s shares does not settle the environmental objections. Nor does an appearance at SPAK prove either side’s allegations.
The winning bid proposed an investment of about €104.3 million and a concession lasting 35 years. Those figures appear in the contract award notice in the Public Procurement Bulletin of 29 March 2021. The 35 years described the duration of the relationship with the state, not the deadline for building the airport.
The bid’s value is not the same as actual spending. At the ceremony marking the first certification flight on 8 May 2025, Infrastructure Minister Belinda Balluku said the consortium reported investing about €140 million by then. This was an investor’s statement relayed by the minister, not a cost established by an independent audit.
On 18 June 2026, Pacolli said MABCO had invested about €95 million in the VIA project. That is the amount he attributes to his own company. It should not automatically be added to the investment figure claimed for the entire consortium.
1. The environment and the start of construction
The airport is being built in Akërni, Novoselë, near the Narta Lagoon in Vlorë. In its July 2024 report to the Bern Convention, the government identified 309 hectares of the project and said that this land had been removed from the protected-area network by Decision No. 694 of 26 October 2022.
Narta and the surrounding area provide feeding, breeding and resting grounds for birds. The organisations PPNEA and the Albanian Ornithological Society, AOS, oppose the location because of habitat damage and risks associated with flights. Citizens has documented their objections.
The organisations also challenge the start of construction without a building permit. The timeline matters: in April 2022, the Prime Minister’s Office said construction had begun on 28 November 2021. The National Territorial Council’s decision conditionally approving the building permit is dated 9 November 2022.
That decision provided for the permit to be issued once the required technical and legal documentation was complete. PPNEA says the permit was issued in early February 2023. The objection therefore concerns work carried out before the permit, rather than a claim that the airport never received one.
The dispute has also reached the Bern Convention, an international agreement protecting wildlife. On 12 December 2025, its Standing Committee reiterated its request to halt construction pending a new, adequate environmental impact assessment and expressed regret that the request had not been implemented.
This is the position of the Convention’s international oversight body, not an order from an Albanian court. In its 2025 report, the government outlined monitoring and mitigation measures, including action on noise, lighting and bird protection. Environmental organisations do not consider these responses sufficient to justify the location.
2. The tender under investigation and YDA’s departure
The Infrastructure Ministry advertised the concession as an open international procedure. The investigation raises the question of whether the winning companies were favoured despite the tender’s formally open nature.
According to Report TV on 5 October 2026, SPAK extended until 23 November an investigation involving seven members of the concession commission over suspected breaches of equal treatment in public tenders. The report refers to alleged favouritism towards the Mabco, YDA and 2A Group consortium. An investigation is not a finding of guilt.
Pacolli’s own account raises another question. In an interview with “Opinion” on 6 November 2025, reported by Lapsi, he said the Turkish representative had invited him to a meeting at the ministry. According to Pacolli, Balluku proposed at that meeting that YDA’s representative participate in the tender as a co-financier.
The meeting raises questions about the ministry’s role in bringing together companies that later entered the competition. But the account does not, by itself, establish that the tender was predetermined. Pacolli’s lawyer, Ili Gërdupi, rejected the interpretation that shares had been allocated in the minister’s office.
YDA, the Turkish partner with experience in airport operations, subsequently left the consortium. The contract dated 8 September 2022 records a price of €4,450 for the transfer of its 40% stake to Mabco. It also refers to another agreement between the parties, so this figure cannot be equated with the full economic value of the exit, much less the value of the airport.
On 15 December 2022, Balluku approved the transfer, requiring financial, technical and operational capacity to be maintained. How was it established that these capabilities remained secured without the partner experienced in airport operations?
In a response to BIRN in March 2023, Mabetex representative Valon Lluka attributed YDA’s departure to its failure to make the promised investment because of internal issues. He said Mabetex had assumed the contractual obligations. This is the company’s explanation, not the investigation’s conclusion.
3. Pacolli and Ademi’s fight for control
VIA is the company established to carry out the concession. Mabco, linked to Pacolli, and 2A Group, whose beneficial owner is businessman Valon Ademi, are disputing shareholdings and decision-making rights. A beneficial owner is the person who ultimately owns or controls a company; these details are registered with the National Business Centre, QKB.
The shareholders’ expectations also appear in court documents. A decision dated 17 October 2025, page 10, paragraph 42, reproduces 2A Group’s claim that BDO’s business plan projected about €734 million for the shareholders over 35 years.
2A describes this as accumulated cash flow: a projection of cash generated by operations under the financial model. It is not the same as net profit, money already earned or damages awarded by the court. The figure represents a financial expectation put forward by one party to the dispute, not a guaranteed return from the airport.
A Citizens report on 11 February 2026 explained the dispute: 2A claimed to have purchased shares under a contract, while Mabco challenged that contract’s validity. The conflict also includes a request to remove Mabco as a shareholder.
On 26 May, the Supreme Court rejected a request for a blanket suspension of Mabco’s voting and other rights during these proceedings. This concerned an interim measure, not a final settlement of the ownership dispute.
2A challenged the ruling, defending the restrictions as necessary for the project. On 21 October, the Constitutional Court admitted for review VIA and 2A Group’s challenge to the May ruling. Agreeing to hear a challenge does not automatically overturn the earlier decision or declare a winner.
4. The concession’s termination and arbitration
The concession is the contractual arrangement with the state to build and operate the airport. It is separate from the shareholders’ stakes in VIA: under the Supreme Court’s reasoning, the airport remains state property, while the concession entitled the company to earn revenue from its use.
The state also took on financial risk. The tender documents, pages 5–6, provided for guaranteed revenue levels totalling about €138.2 million over the first ten years. If actual revenue fell below the specified level, the state would cover the difference under the agreement’s conditions.
This does not mean the state has already paid €138.2 million, or that this amount represents the company’s profit.
Revenue is the money coming in from operations; profit is what remains after costs. How much the investor would earn, and what the state budget would have to cover, depend on operations, actual traffic and the implementation of a contract that is now itself disputed.
The ministry linked the termination to the failure to begin operations on time and the impact of the shareholders’ dispute. VIA contested that account on 31 August: it said it had combined investment phases, sought revised deadlines and was awaiting an extension of the building permit.
On 16 September 2026, an emergency arbitrator issued an order in the dispute over the concession’s termination. This did not finally resolve the dispute.
An emergency arbitrator deals with requests that cannot wait until the tribunal hearing the full case has been formed. The arbitrator can impose urgent restrictions on the parties’ actions; the arbitration tribunal can later reconsider them. ICC: how emergency arbitration works.
On 17 September, the Infrastructure Ministry announced that VIA’s request to suspend the termination had been refused. The ministry said the termination had taken effect and presented the order as a victory. But it also acknowledged that the arbitrator had temporarily barred it from exercising certain rights arising from the termination until the tribunal could consider the matter. The ministry’s statement.
Pacolli emphasised another part of the order: he said the ministry had to avoid termination-related actions that might aggravate the dispute or undermine the proceedings. He described the case as arbitration under the ICC, the International Chamber of Commerce, with London as the seat of the proceedings. Pacolli’s statement, 17 September.
In simple terms, refusing to suspend the termination of a contract and restricting some actions that follow from it are different decisions. Both can apply at the same time. The parties’ statements do not provide enough detail to establish every action the ministry was permitted or prohibited from taking.
The September order should therefore not be confused with a final ruling. It does not establish that the state won the entire dispute, that VIA lost all its claims or that compensation was decided. The emergency procedure addresses matters that cannot wait; the full proceedings determine the parties’ responsibilities. ICC.
5. QKB registers new shareholdings, and Pacolli files a complaint
The National Business Centre maintains Albania’s company register. VIA’s historical extract, generated on 27 October, shows a change registered on 19 October: Mabco’s stake fell from 98% to 51%, while 2A Group’s rose from 2% to 49%, following the submission of documents transferring a 47% stake.
Pacolli disputes the legality of that registration. In his statement after leaving SPAK on 26 October, he alleged that court decisions had been disregarded and called for an investigation into QKB’s actions.
Assessing that allegation requires distinguishing between separate court measures. Documents filed with QKB show that the Court of Appeal overturned on 7 October a measure imposed on 5 June, and that the bailiff discontinued enforcement on 13 October. These documents concern a different measure from the December 2025 restriction on transferring the disputed shares to third parties.
The register shows which shareholdings have been recorded; it does not finally resolve the legality of the transfer. Equally, Pacolli’s criminal complaint is not a ruling against QKB. This episode is separate from SPAK’s investigation into the concession tender.
The airport’s significance extends beyond travel to Vlorë. It also features in investors’ plans for large resorts in Zvërnec and Sazan.
At the investment forum in Tirana on 17 May 2025, Jared Kushner cited the airport as one of the reasons he was attracted to investing along this coast. He presented its proximity as an advantage for the tourism projects. His comments were reported that day by Erblin Vukaj in Citizens.
Kushner repeated this connection on 8 October 2026. In his response to The New Yorker, he wrote that the airport was one of the factors that had attracted him and shaped his vision for developing the area. But he disputed the claim that the authorities had approved the airport at his request: according to Kushner, it had already been approved before he first saw the project.
This connection shows the economic importance investors attach to having flights near their resorts: visitors can reach them more easily. It does not establish that the airport and the resorts share owners or belong to the same contract. Expected tourism benefits are not yet revenue earned.
For the public, the question goes beyond who controls the company. What still needs explaining is whether the tender treated bidders equally, how the capacity to complete and operate the airport was secured, what obligations remain towards the state, and how the consequences for Narta were addressed. Changing the shareholdings does not settle those questions.
Illustration credits
The accompanying images are AI illustrations stylised from source photographs. They are not new documentary photographs, and archival images do not necessarily show the airport’s current condition.
Airport: VIA, image from a post dated 31 August 2026, as reproduced on Findglocal. Flamingos at Narta: Ferdinand Bego, via EuroNatur.
SPAK entrance: archival image published by Albanian Daily News, with no photographer identified in the publication. Pacolli leaving SPAK: LSA, via Shteg Investigativ, 26 October 2026.
Ademi and Pacolli: archival photograph showing them together, published by Newsbomb on 13 November 2025, with no photographer identified. Publication dates are not necessarily the dates on which the photographs were taken.