The lawmakers had sought a review of Shabani’s eligibility and compatibility with the post, as well as the annulment of parliament’s decision to elect him.

The court said the Ombudsman is a constitutional official and that questions concerning eligibility, incompatibility and the verification of his election fall within its jurisdiction. It nevertheless found no constitutional grounds to uphold the lawmakers’ claims.

One of the main issues concerned whether Shabani met the constitutional requirement of having recognised knowledge and activity in the field of human rights and law. The court said parliament has discretion in assessing candidates for constitutional posts, provided fundamental procedural guarantees are respected and the process is not arbitrary.

The court also rejected the lawmakers’ claim that Shabani’s previous political activity was incompatible with the Ombudsman’s position, saying the argument was unfounded in light of the circumstances at the time he took his oath in parliament.

On the issue of the 28 lawmakers required to support a candidacy, the court said the requirement had been met when the candidates were verified by parliament’s Laws Committee and advanced to a plenary vote. It said the subsequent withdrawal of support could no longer affect the parliamentary procedure.

Shabani was elected Ombudsman in December 2025 with 85 votes. The dispute began after Democratic Party lawmakers withdrew their signatures supporting candidates for the post, including Shabani, saying he no longer had their backing.

/e.i/r.e/a.f/u.sh/

Zhupa, who chairs parliament’s Committee on Culture, Tourism and Diaspora, said the decision changes the area’s classification from a Category IV managed nature reserve to a Category V protected landscape, while reducing its size from 5,551 hectares and removing previous zoning restrictions.

She said the changes also eliminate core zones where construction had been prohibited.

“In practice, this means that not only is the area being moved from Category IV to Category V, but the sub-zones have also been removed, meaning that construction could take place anywhere in Pishë Poro-Nartë,” Zhupa said.

Zhupa said the opposition had taken the case to the Constitutional Court to assess the decision against European Union standards, as protests over the changes continued.

She also said the EU had raised concerns that the changes were inconsistent with Albania’s Stabilisation and Association Agreement and EU standards.

The Constitutional Court will determine whether the government decision complies with the Constitution and applicable legal obligations.

/m.q/j.p/u.sh/

The court said the 60-day deadline for electing a president began on August 8 and expires on October 6.

The ruling came after the opposition Democratic Party of Kosovo (PDK) challenged the constitution of parliament and the formation of the government. The court also rejected a request to suspend parliamentary proceedings through an interim measure.

Parliament was constituted on September 13 by lawmakers from the ruling Vetevendosje (Self Determination, the Democratic League of Kosovo (LDK) and minority communities, in the absence of PDK, LDK and Alliance for the Future of Kosovo (AAK) lawmakers. Kurti’s government was approved several hours later.

The court said parliament must still elect its second deputy speaker, while noting that the legislature had been constituted after the 30-day constitutional deadline.

The presidential election has remained a key political issue after Kosovo failed to reach consensus on a successor to the acting president. Kosovo has been led by an acting president since April 4, with the constitution limiting the period to six months.

Vetevendosje and LDK agreed in late August to propose Bekim Sejdiu as a consensus candidate, but six LDK lawmakers said they would not support him, leaving the candidacy short of the 81 votes required in the 120-seat parliament.

Sejdiu withdrew his candidacy on September 14, citing insufficient support.

Kosovo could face another parliamentary election, potentially its fourth since February 2025, if political parties fail to agree on a new president by the October 6 deadline set by the Constitutional Court.

/REL/u.sh/

AGSH Chairman Isa Myzyraj said the association had asked the court to suspend the rules and ultimately declare them unconstitutional.

“We are convinced that these regulations undermine media freedom and journalists’ right to inform the public about what takes place inside the Special Anti-Corruption Court,” Myzyraj told reporters.

He said the 127-page petition focused on freedom of expression and the right to information, which he described as fundamental pillars of democracy. It also challenged restrictions on media and public access to the court.

Myzyraj criticized GJKKO for failing to consult journalists before adopting the rules, despite calls for dialogue.

The new regulations, which took effect on Sept. 1, prohibit journalists from attending court hearings with their mobile phones.

/m.q/j.p/u.sh/

The Court said parliament failed to follow proper procedures when, at the start of the new legislature in September, it restructured the system of parliamentary standing committees, increasing their number from eight to 11.

The decision followed a complaint by the main opposition Democratic Party (DP) lawmakers, who argued the changes were adopted unilaterally.

In its reasoning, the Court said the use of a fast-track procedure to approve the amendments, without giving minority MPs prior access to the draft, exceeded parliament’s discretion and failed to strike a fair balance between parliamentary autonomy and representative democracy.

It added that both the convening of the plenary session and the expedited procedure undermined the principle of representative democracy, particularly the opposition’s ability to express its views, making the complaint well-founded.

/m.m/a.f/u.sh/

In its ruling, the court upheld earlier decisions by the Special Anti-Corruption Court (GJKKO) and the Supreme Court, leaving Meta in custody.

The court said it could not examine Meta’s claims that his arrest was inhumane, noting that the matter remains under investigation.

It found that the detention measure had been imposed for a legitimate purpose.

The court also said there were sufficient facts and information to convince an objective observer that Meta may have committed the alleged offences, meaning the restriction of his liberty could not be considered unjustified.

It noted that Meta had already raised his claims before lower courts during proceedings reviewing the detention measure, including through appeals, while competent authorities had not independently intervened at the time to address those claims.

In a statement, the court said the security measure complied with procedural rules and was not disproportionate in light of the needs of the investigation.

The ruling was adopted by a majority of judges.

Reacting on social media, Meta said he was not surprised by the decision, referring to the Constitutional Court as the “Lana River Court”, and criticised the handling of his case after what he described as a six-month delay.

/e.i/r.e/a.f/u.sh/

Speaking on his Let’s Talk podcast on Sunday, Rama commented on a recent decision by the Constitutional Court of Albania regarding the case, saying that by the time the ruling was issued the issue had already been resolved through dialogue with the company.

According to the prime minister, the government imposed the temporary block following concerns raised by parents and teachers, after which authorities entered into discussions with the platform.

As a result, he said, the company began implementing several new measures for Albanian users, including improved age-verification systems, algorithmic filters and additional controls targeting violent language and harmful content.

Rama noted that the Albanian language had previously not been adequately addressed by the platform’s moderation systems, but the measures introduced after the discussions have helped strengthen safeguards for young users.

He argued that the temporary restriction prompted a constructive dialogue with the company and led to tangible improvements in online protections.

“These companies are larger than many states in terms of capital,” Rama said, adding that even small countries must act when children’s safety is at stake.

Rama also said the government respected the court’s ruling but described it as unnecessary, arguing that the issue had already been addressed through cooperation with the platform.

He added that the move had not been criticised by international institutions, including the European Union, and had been viewed positively in public debates on regulating social media and protecting minors online.

/gj.m/j.p/u.sh/

In a statement on Monday, the court said it had decided to strike down parliament’s Decision No. 57/2025, which amended the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly and raised the number of standing committees.

The court said changes to parliament’s rules were passed incorrectly as they breach the principle of representative democracy, linked to lawmakers’ freedom of expression.

According to the ruling, procedural rules governing the convening of the parliamentary session and the adoption of the act under review had been violated.

The court also ruled that the effects of its decision will enter into force 30 days after publication in the Official Gazette, giving parliament time to reorganise the committees in line with the procedural standards set out in the judgment.

Parliament had approved at the start of the current legislature an increase in the number of parliamentary committees from eight to 11.

Opposition lawmakers had argued that the procedure followed by the ruling majority was irregular.

/gj.m/r.e/u.sh/

Bardhi was responding to remarks by Prime Minister Edi Rama, who earlier described the Constitutional Court’s stance on the suspension of a government official as a failure to decide, calling it a serious issue for the balance of powers. Rama said the government would continue to challenge the practice through institutional channels.

The senior opposition official said any political pressure on judicial decisions threatens the principles of equality before the law and the separation of powers.

“Whenever justice approaches his criminalised and corrupt power, Edi Rama chooses to attack the justice system,” Bardhi said.

He added that justice is not owned by any individual or political force and does not require political oversight, but equal respect for the law by all citizens.

“When a Prime Minister publicly seeks to delegitimise a court ruling, he is not only defending a minister. He is defending his own power by placing it above the law,” Bardhi said, adding that in a rule-of-law state, justice is guaranteed by the constitution, not by individuals or parties.

Bardhi called on parliament’s Mandates Council to convene and review a request submitted by the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecution Structure (SPAK), warning that any further delay could be seen as obstructing justice.

“The law is not negotiable. It must be enforced,” he said.

/r.e/u.sh/

Arbi said that neither a lawmaker nor a minister can be barred from carrying out their duties or arrested without parliament’s prior approval, and that the suspension affects both the individual and the work of the Council of Ministers.

She argued that the GjKKO decision constitutes a direct intrusion into the constitutional powers of parliament, undermining the principle of separation of powers

“The appointment of cabinet members is reviewed by parliament, linking their legitimacy to the mandate. Suspending a minister interferes with the executive and violates the separation of powers,” she said, adding that GjKKO’s decision creates legal and institutional confusion.

Arbi concluded that the ruling “was issued without a constitutional basis and conflicts with parliament’s authority in forming and overseeing the Council of Ministers.”

/m.q/r.e/a.f/u.sh/