The Association of Journalists of Albania (AGSH), a member of the SafeJournalists Network, has filed a case with the Constitutional Court challenging several provisions of the Internal Regulation of the Special Court against Corruption and Organized Crime (GJKKO), arguing that they impose disproportionate restrictions on journalists’ work, access to court proceedings and editorial autonomy.

The regulation, adopted by the Council of the Special Court through Decision No. 49 of 17 July 2026, establishes rules concerning access to the court, accreditation of journalists, use of professional equipment, photography, audiovisual recording and broadcasting of court proceedings.

AGSH is asking the Constitutional Court to repeal the contested provisions and suspend their implementation until a final decision is reached.

At the time the regulation was being drafted, domestic and international media organizations, including the SafeJournalists Network, called on the Court to postpone its entry into force and initiate a dialogue between the Court and journalists. This did not happen, and the regulation entered into force on 1 September.

Immediately after it took effect, the regulation was also opposed by the Albanian Bar Association, which decided to launch an indefinite boycott of non-essential court proceedings before the Special Court.

From Security Rules to Restrictions on Journalists

The application before the Constitutional Court does not challenge the right and obligation of the Special Court to introduce security measures to protect judges, prosecutors, witnesses, victims and other participants in judicial proceedings.

Entrance controls, bans on weapons or dangerous objects, witness protection measures and measures responding to concrete security risks are considered legitimate and necessary.

According to the application, the problem lies with provisions that go beyond the Court’s internal organization and security and determine the conditions under which journalists and the public may enter the Court, attend hearings and gather information.

Although the document is formally described as an “Internal Regulation”, it sets out conditions for journalists’ access, the equipment they may use, accreditation procedures, deadlines for submitting requests, as well as rules governing photography, filming and broadcasting.

This is precisely where one of the central arguments of the constitutional case lies: whether an internal administrative act can impose obligations and restrictions on individuals who are not part of the Court’s administration.

Accreditation and Prior Authorizations

One of the main concerns relates to the combined effect of the procedures journalists must follow in order to report on public proceedings.

Under the contested provisions, journalists may be required to undergo an accreditation procedure, submit an advance request for a specific hearing, comply with a 24-hour deadline, undergo administrative verification and obtain specific authorizations for photography, filming or broadcasting.

According to the application submitted to the Constitutional Court, the cumulative effect of several administrative filters risks turning access to a public hearing from a right into an opportunity dependent on the prior approval of the Court administration.

This is particularly relevant for daily news reporting and court proceedings of high public interest, where developments cannot always be anticipated 24 hours in advance.

A journalist without accreditation or without a request submitted within the prescribed deadline may miss a public hearing, while a television crew may be prevented from entering with the equipment necessary for reporting.

Cameras, Recordings and Editorial Autonomy

The Constitutional Court challenge also concerns provisions regulating the use of professional cameras, audiovisual recording, live broadcasting and the subsequent use of material obtained during court proceedings.

AGSH raises particular concerns over wording related to the “editing” of material, its use “out of context” and its use “for commercial purposes”.

According to the arguments presented in the application, editing is a normal and necessary part of journalistic work. A hearing lasting several hours inevitably needs to be condensed into a television report, news bulletin, documentary or analysis.

Treating editing as potentially prohibited conduct, without requiring proof of deliberate manipulation or distortion of the material, creates legal uncertainty and may have a chilling effect on journalists and newsrooms, according to the application.

For this reason, the case concerns not only journalists’ physical access to the Court but also the limits of the extent to which a court administration may interfere with the way media outlets process and publish journalistic material.

Can Media Interest Be Considered a Security Risk?

Another contested element concerns the inclusion of cases of high public interest and hearings attracting significant media presence within the mechanisms used for security classification and risk assessment.

The application argues that a high level of public interest or the presence of a large number of journalists cannot in itself be considered an indicator of risk.

According to this argument, enhanced security measures should be based on concrete information about threats, incidents or specific circumstances, rather than simply on the fact that a court proceeding is being followed by a large number of citizens and journalists.

This is particularly relevant for GJKKO, which handles criminal proceedings related to corruption and organized crime that frequently attract significant public and media attention.

Restrictions on Fundamental Rights and Their Legal Basis

At the heart of the constitutional case is the argument that the Council of the Court cannot, through an administrative regulation, impose substantive restrictions on freedom of expression, media freedom and the principle of public court proceedings.

The application argues that restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms must have a legal basis, pursue a public interest and meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality.

According to the application, the authority to adopt rules concerning the protection and security of the Court does not automatically entail the authority to determine fundamental conditions governing press freedom, editorial autonomy or access to public court proceedings.

“The designation ‘internal regulation’ cannot change the legal nature that derives from its content,” the application argues.

The Regulation Was Not Published in the Official Gazette

Another argument raised before the Constitutional Court concerns the fact that the regulation was not published in the Official Gazette, despite the fact that some of its provisions are intended to have consequences for journalists, members of the public and other parties outside the Court administration.

According to the application, publication on the GJKKO website or display within the Court premises cannot replace official publication when an act is intended to produce legal effects on third parties.

The application therefore raises a fundamental issue: the regulation cannot be considered “internal” when it comes to its publication and scrutiny while, at the same time, being applied as an act with external effects to deny journalists access, authorization, use of equipment, reporting or accreditation.

Why Is Immediate Suspension Being Requested?

In addition to seeking the repeal of the contested provisions, AGSH is asking the Constitutional Court to suspend their implementation until a final decision is reached.

The main argument is that restrictions on journalists’ work may cause consequences that cannot subsequently be remedied.

If a journalist is prevented from attending a hearing, recording a public statement or reporting in real time, a later decision by the Constitutional Court cannot restore that journalistic opportunity.

“The damage is, by its nature, irreversible. A missed hearing, testimony not heard directly, or a public reaction that was not recorded cannot be recreated by the final decision,” the application states.

The application further argues that restrictions or measures imposed on an individual journalist may have a chilling effect that extends beyond the individual case and influences how the wider journalistic community reports from the Court.