The Constitutional Court is reviewing today Sali Berisha’s request to remove the “Reporting Obligation” measure, in a session that will be held on the basis of documents. At the core of the complaint is the former prime minister’s claim that previous court decisions are contrary to the Constitution.
Review at the Constitutional Court, without a hearing with argument from the parties
According to the procedural notice, Berisha’s request is expected to be reviewed at 11:00 in a plenary session on the basis of documents. This means the court will assess the acts filed in the case file, without a standard process involving extended public argument in the courtroom.
At this stage, the case is not related to the substance of the accusations against Berisha, but to the constitutionality of the decisions that determined the security measure against him.
What exactly is being challenged
The request seeks to have declared unconstitutional the January 3, 2025 decision of the Special Court of Appeal for Corruption and Organized Crime, which replaced the “House Arrest” measure with “Reporting Obligation.”
Also being challenged is a decision of the Criminal College of the Supreme Court, identified in the official document as part of the same chain of decisions that Berisha is seeking to overturn at the Constitutional Court.
The opposing party in the proceedings
The case document also mentions the Special Prosecution Against Corruption and Organized Crime as a party, the institution that has handled the procedures in this file.
Beyond the official wording, the Constitutional Court’s review is expected to test whether the ordinary courts respected constitutional standards when they changed and then left in force the measure against Berisha.
The ruling expected from the Constitutional Court
Today’s review is expected to clarify whether the Constitutional Court will consider the challenged decisions incompatible with the Constitution, or leave them in force.
For the moment, the subject of the session remains limited to the constitutional validity of the judicial acts and not to the political interpretations that usually accompany cases of this nature.
The case comes at a time when clashes over high-profile proceedings continue to stir debate over the standard for applying security measures and the role of the special justice institutions.
The Constitutional Court’s decision will carry weight not only for the specific case, but also for how restrictions on subjects under investigation or trial are legally justified.