Furthermore, upon concluding its review of the case, the Constitutional Court established the infringement of the freedom of expression and freedom of the press due to the implementation of the Council of Ministers’ decision.

According to the decision, the Constitutional Court “concluded that the suspension of access to the TikTok platform constitutes a restriction on freedom of expression and the press,” while adding that “for this reason, it deemed it necessary to review this restriction in light of the criteria laid down in Article 17 of the Constitution, namely, whether it was established by law, served a public interest, and whether the principle of proportionality between the interference and the circumstances giving rise to it was respected.”

The Constitutional Court stated that, with respect to the first criterion of restriction, “prescribed by law,” it found that although the legislation upon which Council of Ministers Decision No. 151/2025 was based confers certain regulatory and protective competencies in the areas of electronic communications and children’s rights, it does not provide the Council of Ministers with clear, specific, and foreseeable authority to impose a measure of general application, such as the shutdown of an online platform for all users within the territory of the Republic of Albania.

The Constitutional Court concluded that the government’s decision to close access to TikTok went beyond merely enforcing a pre-existing legal restriction, instead constituting the direct imposition of the restriction itself, and as such, did not satisfy the constitutional requirement that restrictions must be “established by law.”
With regard to the second criterion, namely the restriction being justified by public interest or other significant public reasons, the Constitutional Court “considered it to be fulfilled, as it relates to the protection of the rights and best interests of children and young people. The purpose of Council of Ministers Decision No. 151/2025 was to adopt measures aimed at preventing the negative effects of the online platform TikTok, particularly in promoting violence among children, causing psycho-social developmental problems, and generating broader social issues.”
The Constitutional Court found that the measure failed to meet the proportionality criterion, ruling that the existence of alternative communication channels for journalists does not justify completely blocking access to a platform that serves as a public space for communication and information dissemination.

The Constitutional Court held that the provisional nature of the measure did not make it proportionate, since it constituted a general ban tied to uncertain, future technical developments of the platform.

One year after the shutdown, the Government reinstated access to the social network “TikTok.” The Council of Ministers decided to revoke the provisional measures restricting access, after addressing concerns pertaining to public and social security within the digital environment.
/m.q/a.f/sm/