Experts describe as unconstitutional the government’s decision authorizing the State Police to create an electronic register of people referred for acts of violence during protests, paving the way for them to be barred from leaving the country.
A decision by the Albanian government granting the State Police authority to restrict people suspected of involvement in acts of violence during protests from leaving the country, even without a court ruling, was published in the Official Gazette on Thursday. It has raised concerns about violations of constitutional rights and the bypassing of the judiciary.
Të lidhura
None found
The Council of Ministers’ decision, approved last week at the proposal of the Ministry of the Interior and signed by Prime Minister Edi Rama, provides for the creation of a special electronic register of people referred by the State Police to the prosecution service for criminal offenses against state authority, public order and security, allegedly committed during gatherings.
The register will be administered by the General Directorate of the State Police and will contain personal and procedural data on people identified in the materials referred to the prosecution service.
But the decision goes beyond recording data, authorizing Border Police to administratively deny people listed in the register permission to leave Albania, even when no court-imposed security measure barring them from leaving the country is in place.
Two lawyers interviewed by BIRN describe the mechanism as contrary to the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code. They warn that it creates a form of administrative punishment based on police suspicions before those suspicions have been examined by the justice system.
They say the register risks becoming a “blacklist” of protesters, with consequences ranging from restrictions on freedom of movement to notification of foreign authorities and private entities.
“If implemented, it will have serious consequences for people, very serious ones, because there is no judicial oversight,” lawyer Julian Mërtiri told BIRN.
From being stopped at the border to notifying hotels and foreign states
The decision comes after a wave of mass protests against the government of Prime Minister Edi Rama, accompanied by violent clashes between protesters and police, the use of force and numerous arrests.
Under the text of the act, the new register will include people identified in materials the police have referred to the prosecution service for criminal offenses against state authority, public order and security, where they are suspected of having committed violent acts against life, health, or public and private property during gatherings.
The register will connect with the National Civil Status Register and the police system “ADAM,” creating a profile containing personal and procedural data for each person listed.
The most controversial provision concerns restrictions on leaving Albanian territory.
Point 5 of the decision states that, when individual checks identify information about a person in the register, “even if no security measure prohibiting the person from leaving the country has been imposed, Border Police have the right to administratively refuse their departure.”
The decision also provides for Albanian authorities to notify foreign states about people listed in the register, even when they are allowed to travel.
“In every case, if the person is not denied permission to leave, border authorities shall notify the authorities of the country to which the person is traveling that they have been referred for the offenses mentioned in point 1 of this decision,” the Council of Ministers’ decision states.
Another provision, point 6, requires the General Directorate of the State Police to notify private individuals and legal entities that operate accommodation facilities, including hotels and guesthouses, about people listed in the register and the fact that materials concerning them have been referred to the prosecution service.
This provision broadens the circle of entities that may receive information about criminal suspicions concerning citizens, beyond justice institutions and law enforcement agencies.
Under the decision, the need to retain the data must be reviewed within 30 days of registration. A person’s name is to be removed if the prosecution service officially notifies the police that it will not initiate criminal proceedings or that the case has been dismissed.
Experts challenge the legal basis
To support Border Police’s authority to deny people permission to leave the country without a court ruling, the government cited Article 6 of Law No. 39/2025, “On State Border Control.”
But lawyer and human rights activist Gentian Serjani argues that the government has interpreted this provision in a way that does not accord with the law’s purpose or content.
He says the provision allows border authorities to refuse departure to people seeking to evade criminal prosecution, detention, arrest, or the enforcement of a prison sentence, but not to any citizen against whom the police have referred a criminal suspicion.
“The way the law on state border control has been drafted and cited does not hold up, because the law clearly states that it concerns people who are evading criminal prosecution, are subject to an order for their detention, or are subject to a court decision for their arrest,” Serjani explained.
He questioned whether a citizen can be considered to be evading justice simply because they are traveling abroad for family or professional reasons, when the only action against them is a police referral concerning their participation in a protest.
“This is especially true in cases where people are being prosecuted or have been held in detention for 72 hours without any evidence. This deprives them of a constitutional right without a court ruling and without any concrete individual evidence that they were involved in acts of violence,” Serjani stressed.
According to him, a police referral cannot automatically serve as evidence that a person is trying to evade criminal prosecution, nor as sufficient grounds to restrict their freedom of movement.
The lawyer warned that the decision also creates a conflict between the powers of the police and those of the courts.
For example, if a person arrested during protests appears before a court and is given only the security measure of “obligation to report to the judicial police,” without being barred from leaving the country, Border Police could still refuse to let them leave Albania on the basis of the new register.
“Even in a case where the court has not ordered detention or restricted someone’s freedom, and has imposed only an ‘obligation to report’ measure, preventing them from leaving the country violates the law,” Serjani said.
He added that people affected could challenge a refusal to leave the country in the Administrative Court, but that would force them to begin a new legal proceeding in order to exercise a right that the criminal court had not restricted.
Bypassing the courts and the chilling effect
Lawyer Julian Mërtiri views the new police register as a mechanism that conflicts with the principles of criminal procedure and the division of powers among the police, prosecution service and courts.
He says police have the right to identify and detain people suspected of criminal offenses under the conditions set out by law, and to refer them to the prosecution service, but cannot create a parallel mechanism to restrict their freedom of movement.
“If the police suspect someone of committing a criminal offense, they must act as judicial police to pursue and locate that person, especially if they are caught in the act; if they have not detained them, they must refer the case to the prosecution service. In no other circumstances can the police take such action. I consider the creation of such a register unlawful,” Mërtiri said.
He noted that border authorities already use the TIMS system, which operates under established rules for recording data and checking people entering or leaving Albanian territory.
For this reason, Mërtiri sees the creation of a separate register for protesters as an encroachment on the powers of justice institutions.
“If a case has been referred, the authorities that request and order measures are the prosecution service and the court. So the creation of a parallel register is inconceivable. Restrictions on freedom can be imposed only by court order, whether they are security measures or final sentences. Preventing someone from leaving the country on the basis of a register created by the police themselves is beyond any legal conception of the rule of law,” he said.
Beyond the legal objections, Mërtiri links the decision’s approval to the government’s efforts to curb the wave of protests that has swept the country.
“It was certainly done to frighten citizens and weaken the protests, and from what I can see it has had that effect, although putting it into effect legally would be difficult,” he said.
The lawyer warned that even if the decision is challenged and later annulled by a court, the consequences for people listed in the register could be immediate.
He said travel restrictions, notifications to foreign authorities and proceedings to challenge administrative measures could cause consequences for citizens that cannot easily be undone by a later court ruling.
Although the Council of Ministers’ decision provides for a review of the need to retain the data within 30 days, Mërtiri warned that proceedings before the prosecution service and courts could leave affected people subject to the effects of the register for months.
“In practice, this will go to court and be annulled, but in the meantime people may suffer tangible consequences and it could take them months to get themselves off the list. An individual’s freedom is being violated without a court ruling, which is unacceptable,” Mërtiri concluded. /BIRN
