The European Commission effectively postponed Albania’s EU accession process last year when it declined to issue a positive Interim Benchmark Assessment Report (IBAR) in its Enlargement Package. The report assessed Albania’s progress toward meeting the legal and institutional standards required for EU membership. Rather than delivering an endorsement of reform, the Commission highlighted concerns surrounding politically sensitive prosecutions and shortcomings in anti-corruption enforcement led by the Special Anti-Corruption and Organised Crime Structure (SPAK), the institution established in 2019 to combat systemic corruption.
Albania had once been viewed as one of the EU’s most promising candidate states. Yet judicial reforms initially designed to align the country with European legal standards have instead contributed to institutional imbalance and growing rule-of-law concerns. Critics increasingly argue that some anti-corruption mechanisms risk undermining the very legal safeguards they were intended to strengthen.
The Unintended Consequences of Judicial Reform
Albania’s judicial reform process began in 2016 with strong backing from the European Commission and the Venice Commission. Central to the reform agenda was a sweeping vetting process intended to remove judges and prosecutors with unexplained wealth or compromising affiliations.
While the initiative was welcomed internationally, its implementation led to the dismissal or resignation of more than half of Albania’s judiciary. The resulting institutional vacuum severely weakened the court system. Civil proceedings that averaged roughly 250 days in 2016 can now take well over 1,200 days to conclude.
At the same time, SPAK emerged with broad prosecutorial authority and relatively limited external oversight. One consequence of the dysfunctional judicial landscape has been the extensive use of pretrial detention, increasingly employed as a substitute for timely judicial procedure.
This trend stands in tension with European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) jurisprudence, which maintains that detention before trial should be used only in exceptional circumstances, such as preventing flight or obstruction of justice. Nevertheless, Albania now ranks among the highest countries in Europe in the use of pretrial detention.
Erion Veliaj and the Risks of Selective Prosecution
The case of Tirana mayor Erion Veliaj illustrates many of the structural concerns surrounding Albania’s judicial system. In February 2025, SPAK detained Veliaj following allegations that originated from an anonymous complaint. He remained in detention for an extended period without trial, effectively preventing him from carrying out his mayoral responsibilities.
Although a lower court sought to remove him from office during his detention, Albania’s Constitutional Court later ruled that an elected official could not be stripped of his mandate without due process. Yet concerns surrounding procedural fairness remain, including restrictions on access to international legal counsel that critics argue conflict with ECHR standards.
Further controversy emerged after Italian citizen Gabriele Tarroni Longinotti reportedly admitted to fabricating allegations against Veliaj for financial gain. Although Veliaj later prevailed in defamation proceedings, SPAK continued pursuing passive corruption charges based on a revised indictment.
Supporters of the prosecution insist that anti-corruption investigations must continue irrespective of political office. Critics, however, argue that the prolonged detention and shifting legal basis of the case raise broader concerns about proportionality, consistency, and judicial accountability.
Veliaj’s case is not isolated. Similar concerns have been raised regarding the treatment of other political figures, including former President Ilir Meta, while prosecutors themselves have faced comparatively limited scrutiny.
A Double Standard the EU Cannot Ignore
Concerns surrounding consistency intensified after Albania’s parliament granted immunity protections to former Deputy Prime Minister and current MP Belinda Balluku. Critics argued that the decision stood in sharp contrast to the continued detention of Mayor Veliaj despite his own democratic mandate.
The European Commission responded cautiously, stating that “commitment to the rule of law and the fight against corruption are of paramount importance for the EU accession process.”
The contrast between these cases has fueled concerns about selective prosecution and unequal legal standards. As Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama warned, “When anti-corruption goes off the rails, it becomes even more dangerous than corruption itself.”
That warning increasingly reflects a broader dilemma facing Albania’s reform process: anti-corruption institutions can strengthen democracy only when they themselves remain constrained by consistent legal standards and independent oversight.
The Threat to Albania’s EU Future
The stakes extend far beyond domestic politics. Albania must satisfy the benchmark requirements outlined in the IBAR framework to continue advancing toward EU membership. Several member states, including Germany, have adopted an increasingly cautious approach toward Albania’s accession prospects.
The German Foreign Ministry recently stated that “the effective prosecution of corruption, even in high-profile cases, is an essential prerequisite” for Albania’s EU integration.
That principle must apply consistently. The controversy surrounding Balluku’s immunity raised legitimate concerns regarding equality before the law. Yet the EU should be equally attentive to cases involving prolonged detention, procedural irregularities, and weak judicial oversight. Focusing on only one side of the problem risks obscuring the deeper structural imbalance affecting Albania’s legal system.
The Commission’s decision to withhold a positive IBAR assessment may nevertheless create an opportunity for meaningful reform. Albania could strengthen its accession case by introducing statutory limits on pretrial detention in line with Council of Europe Recommendation Rec(2006)13. Authorities should also guarantee detainees full access to legal counsel and establish stronger oversight mechanisms for SPAK’s prosecutorial decisions.
At present, no independent institution meaningfully reviews SPAK’s use of evidence or prosecutorial conduct. Combined with inconsistent legal standards, this absence of accountability risks undermining both public trust and Albania’s EU ambitions.
The EU now faces an uncomfortable but necessary challenge. Albania’s judicial reforms were designed to eliminate corruption and strengthen the rule of law. Yet without stronger safeguards, they risk producing a system where institutional power itself becomes vulnerable to abuse.
The delayed IBAR assessment should therefore serve not only as a warning, but as an opportunity: a chance for Albania to correct the structural imbalances threatening both its democratic institutions and its European future.
Luka Petrović
Political Analyst
