The Constitutional Court has dismissed a request by 39 opposition MPs seeking the annulment of parts of two presidential decrees related to the establishment and functioning of the so-called virtual artificial intelligence minister, “Diella.” But the essence of the ruling is not that the Court gave a constitutional seal of approval to the concept, but that it closed the case without examining the claims about the substance of the decrees.
Ruling: the request was dismissed without being examined on the merits
The decision was taken on October 8, 2026, and announced on November 9. In its published reasoning, the Constitutional Court held that the challenged provisions do not have a normative character and that the applicant MPs do not have standing to raise a competence dispute in this case.
It was precisely on that basis that the Court did not proceed to verify whether or not the decrees are contrary to the Constitution. In other words, the opposition’s request was dismissed because of a procedural and jurisdictional filter, not because a final answer was given on the constitutionality of their content.
What the opposition challenged
The request was submitted by 39 MPs, represented by Democratic Party parliamentary group leader Gazment Bardhi and lawyer Marash Logu. They challenged Article 2 of Decree No. 331, dated September 12, 2025, on the appointment of the Prime Minister, as well as part of Decree No. 333, dated September 15, 2025, on the appointment of the Council of Ministers.
Both decrees provided that the Prime Minister would also exercise responsibilities for the establishment and functioning of the virtual artificial intelligence minister “Diella.” According to the opposition’s claims, the President had exceeded his constitutional powers by effectively creating a new ministerial structure and assigning the Prime Minister new responsibilities.
How the Court reads the status of “Diella”
In its reasoning, the Court stresses that the challenged provisions do not in themselves constitute a sufficient legal basis for the creation of new powers, obligations or structures. According to the Court, any further action must be based on the legal source of the authority of the body undertaking it.
The Court also addresses the status of “Diella” itself, finding that the content of the decrees does not show that it was appointed as a member of the Council of Ministers or as an official of a body provided for by the Constitution.
Further, the ruling defines “Diella” as an artificial intelligence platform, not as a real natural person with legal capacity, nor as a ministry in the constitutional sense. Likewise, the Court underlines that the use of artificial intelligence cannot alter the constitutional and legal order governing the exercise of public powers, responsibility and accountability.
Dissent: the case should have been adjudicated
The decision was taken by majority vote, but not without objections within the Court itself. Judges Marsida Xhaferllari and Asim Vokshi dissented, finding that the case should have been examined on the merits and that the challenged provisions were contrary to the Constitution.
According to the dissenting opinion, an artificial intelligence system cannot exercise the constitutional function of minister, because that function requires a natural person who bears responsibility for decision-making. The two judges also opposed the idea that presenting “Diella” as a minister could be treated simply as a matter of image or political choice.
Along the same lines, the dissent also considered problematic the very “appearance of a minister who does not exist,” viewing it as contrary to the legal framework governing the organization and functioning of the state administration, including the Council of Ministers.
In conclusion, the Constitutional Court found that the case did not fall within its scope of review for normative acts, nor for verifying the appointment of constitutional officials under this procedural form.
This means that the political and constitutional dilemma surrounding “Diella” was not clarified in substance by the final ruling. What was closed was the opposition’s lawsuit, not the debate over the real limits of the use of artificial intelligence in government.