RELATIONS WITH THE EU

International Monitoring Operation

06.04.2022 Strategic Communications

The International Monitoring Operation (IMO) is based on Article B of the Annex to the Albanian Constitution and the vetting law. Pursuant to the latter, the IMO shall include, partners, within the framework of the European integration process and Euro-Atlantic cooperation and shall be led by the European Commission. The IMO appoints International Observers following a notification to the Council of Ministers. International Observers are members with at least 15 years of experience as judges or prosecutors in the judiciary in their own countries.
The relationship of the IMO with vetting bodies is regulated in detail in the Annex to the Albanian Constitution and the vetting law.
The International Observers are empowered by the legal framework to oversee the thoroughness of the vetting, which includes their right to express opinions and findings on all aspects of individual vetting procedures and ask questions during public hearings before the vetting bodies.

1.1 Composition of the IMO Management Board

For the EU, the Board comprises currently three representatives mandated by European Commission in addition to the Chair; these members are the Head of Unit responsible for Albania at the Directorate General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations (DG NEAR), the Head of the Rule of Law Section in the Operation Section at the EU Delegation in Tirana, and also the Head of Unit, Interinstitutional and International relations, Directorate General for Justice and Consumers (DG JUST).

For the US Government, the Board currently includes two representatives; these are the Deputy Chief of Mission at the US Embassy in Tirana as representative of the US Department of State; and a member of the Overseas Prosecutorial Development Assistance and Training Office (OPDAT) in Tirana as representative of the US Department of Justice.

Additional representatives from the EU Delegation and the US Embassy in Albania may participate in discussions of the IMO Management Board when relevant, as non-permanent members, notably when the meetings take place in Albania. Participation of other relevant non-permanent members in the meetings of the IMO Management Board (i.e. relevant experts, IMO international observers or other members from the IMO monitoring teams, representatives from line services at the European Commission, etc.) is foreseen on an ad hoc basis.

The European Commission (DG NEAR) ensures the IMO Board permanent secretariat, a responsibility that is assigned to the Desk Office for justice issues in the unit dealing with Albania.

1.2 Appointed International Observers

As from this week, the observers appointed by the International Monitoring Operation to oversee the vetting process are arriving to Albania for their long term assignment. There are nine International Observers and their support staff. The deployment in Tirana of the whole team of observers (eight from the judiciaries of EU member states and one from the U.S. judiciary) was completed in 2017, along with the arrival of the relevant support staff, to perform the tasks as foreseen in the national legislation. The biographical notes of the observers are available here.

2. Relations with the press

2.1 REPLIES TO PRESS QUERIES

22.09.2021

Does IMO support the extension of the vetting process after June 2022 (after the constitutional mandate of vetting first instance institutions expire in June 2022)?

“In line with the monitoring mandate vested upon the IMO by the Constitution of Albania, the IMO considers that it is of paramount importance that all pending vetting cases are finalised in the shortest possible period of time, whilst preserving the consistency and integrity of the process. To achieve this result, a time-limited extension of the constitutional mandate of the members of the Independent Qualification Commission and of the Institution of Public Commissioners is necessary. This would allow the two bodies to finalise all cases in which investigation has started. It falls within the remit of Albanian authorities to define the precise time limits of such extension, in close consultation with the relevant stakeholders, including the Venice Commission.”

20.09.2017 - Deployment in Tirana of IMO long term experts

08.02.2017 - Chair's press points following the constitutive meeting of the IMO Management Board

08.02.2017 - Joint press release announcing the constitution of the IMO Management Board

27.03.2017 - Re-deployment of IMO international observers to Albania

31.03.2017 - Completion of activities by the assessment committee at the Ombudsperson Office

07.04.2017 - The list of potential candidates for the vetting institutions now for consideration by the Assembly of Albania. Review completed by the IMO

02.06.2017 - Handover of recommendation on candidates to lay members of the High Judicial Council, to be appointed amongst ranks of the advocacy

2.2 OP-ED

29.12.2018 - Time for change in the Albanian judiciary: looking back at a year of vetting process - by Genoveva Ruiz Calavera, Director for the Western Balkans at the European Commission and Chair of the International Monitoring Operation (IMO).

24.05.2019 - Justice reform and vetting: for the citizens, with the citizens - by Genoveva Ruiz Calavera, Director for the Western Balkans at the European Commission and Chair of the International Monitoring Operation (IMO).

01.02.2021 - Moving forward together on the EU integration path - by Genoveva Ruiz Calavera, Director for the Western Balkans at the European Commission and Chair of the International Monitoring Operation (IMO).

2.3 INTERVIEWS

16.01.2018 - Interview published for the Albanian "Shekulli" Newspaper

09.08.2019 - Voice of America - Interview to Genoveva Ruiz Calavera, Director for the Western Balkans at the European Commission and Chair of the International Monitoring Operation (IMO)

2.4 IMO Board press statements

1 April 2023

The IMO Board learned with concern from public sources, that the High Prosecutorial Council is considering a draft decision that would have as effect the re-instatement of Mr Besnik Cani in the prosecutorial ranks.

The IMO has a mandate vested by the Constitution of Albania to oversee the entirety of the vetting process. If these sources are correct, based on its constitutional mandate, the IMO is of the opinion that such a decision would cast legal uncertainty and would contradict the final decision by the Special Appeal Chamber dismissing the assesse Besnik Cani during vetting, which is still in force.

The IMO took note of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Besnik Cani against Albania. Notably, the IMO notes that the ECtHR found that the most appropriate form of redress for the violation of the applicant’s right would be to reopen the judicial proceedings, should the applicant request such reopening. Moreover, the IMO notes that the ECtHR expressly refused the request of Mr. Cani to reinstate him immediately in his former office, in view also of the nature of the violation that was found in respect of the applicant’s vetting proceedings.

In this respect, the IMO stresses that all final vetting decisions remain in force until the case is reopened and reviewed by the competent court upon request of the interested party.

It is of paramount importance to ensure that all State institutions and judicial authorities respect the independence and the exclusive jurisdiction of the vetting bodies, as enshrined in the Albanian Constitution, and refrain from taking actions which directly contradict final vetting decisions.

The International Monitoring Operation will continue to monitor the thoroughness of the vetting process, including its full compliance with human rights and principles underlying the system of the European Convention of Human Rights.

3. Overview of the activity of vetting bodies

Overview of the activity of vetting bodies until 14 June 2024

Overview of the activity of vetting bodies until 31 December 2023

Overview of the activity of vetting bodies until 21 December 2021

Overview of the activity of vetting bodies until 21 October 2021

Overview of the activity of vetting bodies until 15 June 2021

4. IMO Recommendations for Appeal

Among other functions within the vetting process, the IOs have the right to submit a written recommendation to the Public Commissioner to file an appeal. This recommendation shall be issued by a commission composed of at least 3 representatives of the International Monitoring Operation, pursuant to article 65 VL and B Constitution Annex. Not all the IMO appeal recommendations are necessarily aiming at the overturning of the IQC decision: some also seek a deeper investigation on specific factual issues not sufficiently clarified in first instance, or the harmonization of the Appeal Camber case-law in contested areas, or the clarification of unclear legal provisions.

The IMO recommendations for appeal may be consulted here: IKP – REKOMANDIME

5. IMO Dissenting Opinions

Among other functions within the vetting process, the IOs have the right to file dissenting opinions regarding decisions of the IQC and of the Appeal Chamber, pursuant to article 55 VL and F Constitution Annex. Below you find the IMO dissenting and concurring opinions filed so far. The translation provided for the decisions of the vetting bodies are not official.

Dissenting Opinion on the case of assessee Mariana Shegani Dedi

IMO DO to SAC decision on case of assessee Mariana Shegani.pdf

Dissenting opinion in the case of assessee Erjon Shqarri regarding Independent Qualification Commission’s Decision n. 757 on 9.04.2024, and Decision.

240507 Prot No 178 IMO dissenting opinion on case of assessee Erjon Shqarri.pdf

Dissenting opinion in the case of Gerd Hoxha regarding the Special Chamber Appeal decision n. 27 of 06.07.2022

240221 Prot No 437-30(21) Transcript of the DO on case of ass'ee G.Hoxha orally expressed after the announcement odf the decision.pdf

Dissenting opinion in the case of Ornela Xhembulla regarding Special Appeal Chamber Decision n. 35 on 27 July 2023

231122 Prot No 208-6 IMO dissenting opinion on case of assessee Ornela Xhembulla.pdf

Concurring opinion in the case of assessee Emiljano Ruli regarding Independent Qualification Commission’s Decision n. 557 on 29.07.2022, and Decision

IMO concurring opinion to the IQC decision in case of assessee Emiljano Ruli.pdf

IQC reasoned decision on assessee Emiljano Ruli.pdf

Opinion in the case of assessee Robert Kote regarding Independent Qualification Commission’s Decision n. 600 on 19.12.2022, and Decision

IMO opinion to the IQC decision in the case of assessee Robert Kote.pdf

IQC reasoned decision on assessee Robert Kote.pdf

Dissenting opinion in the case of assessee Ylli Bashaj regarding Independent Qualification Commission’s Decision n. 671 on 14.06.2023, and Decision

IMO DO to IQC decision on case of assessee Ylli Bashaj.pdf

IQC reasoned decision on assessee Ylli Bashaj.pdf

Dissenting opinion in the case of Shkëlqim Miri regarding AC's Decision n. 29 on 07.10.2021

Dissenting opinion

IQC Decision

Dissenting opinion in the case of Genci Qana regarding Independent Qualification Commission's Decision n. 362 on 31.03.2021

Dissenting opinion

IQC Decision

Concurring opinion in the case of Andi Civici regarding Independent Qualification Commission's Decision n. 243 on 04.03.2020

Concurring opinion

IQC Decision

Dissenting opinion in the case of Anita Jella regarding Independent Qualification Commission's Decision n. 221 on 10.12.2019