monitoring the implementation of the cross …...12 monitoring the implementation of the...

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CROSS-CUTTING JUSTICE STRATEGY

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CROSS-CUTTING JUSTICE STRATEGY4

Open SOciety FOundatiOn FOr albania

MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CROSS-CUTTING JUSTICE STRATEGY

addreSS

Rr. Qemal Stafa, Pallati 120/2, Tirana, Albania

Tel: +355 4 22 34 621/ 22 34 223/ 22 35 856

Fax: +355 4 22 35 855

E-mail: [email protected]

Web-page: www.soros.al

deSign & layOut

Henrik Lezi

wORkING GROUPdrafted byErsida sEfa – rule of law and Human rights program Manager of the Open Society Foundation for albaniaGEnt ibrahimi – the leader of the experts’ group expertS

Strategic Objective no.1 - denar biba

Strategic Objective no.2 - dajena Kumbaro

Strategic Objective no.3 - Julian Haxhiu

Strategic Objective no.4 – rezarta abdiu

Strategic Objective no.5 – elona bano

Strategic Objective no.6 – etilda Saliu gjonaj

Strategic Objective no.7 and 8 – artur Metani

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

MOnitOring tHe iMpleMentatiOn OF tHe crOSS-cutting JuStice

Strategy


acronyms

introduction

Methodology

recommendations

Overall evaluation of the strategy

Vision, priorities, strategic goals and policies

consequences for resources, accountability, monitoring and evaluative analysis

implementation of the cross - cutting justice strategy

implementation according to the strategic objectives

8

10

10

12

16

18

20

20

30

MOnitOring tHe iMpleMentatiOn OF tHe crOSS-cutting JuStice Strategy

CONTENTS

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

data on respect for the right to information about official documents

Strategic Objective no. 1








46

48

84

106

146

178

198

252

272

CONTENTS


ACRONYMS

AAC albanian adoption committeeAHC albanian Helsinki committeeAMS albanian Magistrates’ SchoolCIIP centre on issues of informing the publicCILPS centre for integrated legal practices and ServicesCMD council of Ministers decision(s)CPT committee for the prevention of torture (council of europe)DoPA department of public administrationECtHR european court of Human rightsEIT european institute of tiranaGDP general directorate of prisonsHCJ High council of JusticeIECD institute for the execution of criminal decisionsJuST uSaid project “On strengthening the system of justice in albania”NJC national Judicial conferenceNPO Not-for-Profit OrganisationOAJB Office of Administration of the Judicial BudgetOJ Official JournalOPC Official Publications CentreVAT Value added tax

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

OSFA MONITORING REPORT ONIMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUSTICE

REFORM STRATEGY


INTRODUCTION Reform in the justice system is the main challenge for the development of democracy and the good functioning of the rule of law. This reform is a foundation stone in the process of the country’s European integration, being a direct answer to the recommendations of the European Commission in the framework of the attempts of Albania to join the European family.

The approval of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy is evaluated as a positive achievement, an important step from which the improvement of the justice system can be projected in a visionary manner.

Success in the reform of the justice system cannot be a responsibility and duty only of one part of the chain of the state apparatus. The priority implementation of this Strategy requires serious commitment, pressure and direct contributions, in order, of the judicial power itself, but not only that. It requires dedication and special care from the executive power and the legislative power, as well as all the other state institutions responsible for this reform.

Several of the main challenges required to be fulfilled in the framework of the Justice Strategy are:• strengthening the independence of the judicial system;• increasing the transparency and impartiality of this power in relation to the other powers;• improving professionalism and increasing the trust of citizens in this system;• strengthening the fight against corruption as well as the status of judges and prosecutors

based on a real merit system.

Those challenges are great and complex ones, requiring sustained, long-term and visionary interventions.

Considering those aspirations, the monitoring report prepared by the Open Society Foundation for Albania (Soros) has the aim of a careful, professional and objective monitoring and analysis of the current progress achieved in connection with the implementation in practice of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy. In addition, in order to make a concrete contribution to this process, which is so vital, the Foundation has devoted outstanding attention to the drafting and formulation of concrete and measurable recommendations for every specific element of the action plan.The purpose is to encourage a qualitative improvement of reform in the justice system as a condition guaranteeing the consolidation of the rule of law, as well as a re-vitalisation of the public and professional dialogue about the main challenges of the justice system, converting those important reform processes into transparent and open processes for the professional contribution of all the actors of Albanian society, and especially professionals and experts of the field.

METHODOLOGY The time span of the monitoring covers the period July 2011 (when the Justice Strategy was approved by the Council of Ministers) up to November 2012, almost half of the time of action of this Strategy.

The object of monitoring was the Justice Strategy (narrative part) and its action plan, covering all the strategic objectives, specific objectives and measures planned for addressing them.

It has been in the focus of the Foundation’s monitoring to analyse and examine, in a careful manner, each strategic and specific objective, whether they have managed to meet the problem area for which they were prepared and also to evaluate the organic link between them. Further on, the nature of the

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

actions foreseen to address each specific objective has been analysed, their concreteness and suitability in relation to the specific and strategic objective. In addition, the typology of the actions has been shown, considering their regulatory, capacity-building or qualitative improvement nature.Special attention has been devoted to a quantitative and qualitative evaluation for each measure foreseen in this action plan. This report has not satisfied itself only in showing the respective status of the measure, but has devoted attention to a deeper analysis and the respective professional interpretation of the measure realised, starting from the respective problem areas for which it was drawn up. In this aspect, the appropriateness of the time period, institutional responsibility, financial resources and indicators has been evaluated, how realistic, concrete, full and appropriate those elements are to guarantee the effective fulfilment of the respective measures.

The main sources of information for the collection of official data about the commitments undertaken by the institutions responsible for each of the planned measures can be summarised as: answers sent from the state institutions based on requests for information addressed by the Foundation; direct meetings and interviews with the representatives of the state institutions and other non-state actors, as well as consultation of Internet pages and public materials.

In order to measure the implementation of any given measure, an evaluation scale of three main levels has been used:Implemented: in this category, two subgroups of measures have been included, measures that have been implemented within the time period foreseen in the plan and measures realised beyond that time period;

not Implemented: in this category, two sub-groups of measures have been included: measures that have not been implemented as to which concrete commitments for their implementation may or may not have been undertaken, engagements that do not assure the implementation of the respective measure. Secondly, also included in this category are measures as to which official information is missing and despite all attempts made to secure information about their implementation, utilising all sources of information, they have turned out as not implemented. In those cases when, notwithstanding the absence of information from the responsible institutions, sufficient data have been identified from other sources (international projects, local organisations, published reports) that show the measure has been implemented, its status has been considered “implemented”.

partIally Implemented: those measures have been evaluated in this way whose time period for implementation have passed, but despite partial implementation, those measures still have not finished.

RECOMMENDATIONS Some of the main recommendations for improving the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy and its action plan are:

i. Considering the impact that reform in the justice system has on the development of democracy, the consolidation of the rule of law and in its entirety on Albania’s road toward integration with the European Union, the implementation of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy requires great attention and a more serious commitment, both by the judicial power, the executive and the legislative power, as well as all the state institutions responsible for this reform;

ii. In order to assure sustainable, visionary reform in the justice system, completely in depth and


professional, it is necessary to make a general re-organisation of the strategic and specific objectives. This re-organisation should aim at providing formulations of the strategic and specific objectives that are as accurate, concise and synthetic as possible and should avoid overlapping between them.

iii. The action plan should be oriented more in the direction of measures that aim at qualitative improvement than those of a regulatory nature, at least for the challenges that are long-standing in the justice system and which might find a faster solution through such measures.

iv. Several institutions of the justice system, it is recommended, should have a better representation and a higher presence in the action plan; in the existing document, they are underrepresented, such as in the case of the prosecutor’s office.

v. The narrative part of the Justice Strategy (analysis of the challenges and problematic issues, description of the policies, purposes and priorities) should be reformulated clearly and in a more strategic manner, in order to correspond to the logical unfolding of the action plan into strategic and specific objectives. In addition, in this connection, the description of the constitutional and legal framework within which the institutions of the justice system conduct their activity could be taken out.

vi. Measures of a routine nature, ordinary activities that are a part of the functional duties and legal competences of the responsible state institutions, are not visionary interventions in the framework of reform in the justice system, and as such, they should not be part of this action plan. In addition, the implementation of the other sector or cross-cutting strategies (such as the Strategy for the Fight against Corruption, the education strategy and other like them) should not be planned as objectives or measures of this action plan.

vii. The inter-institutional mechanism created to monitor and evaluate the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy should make periodic public reports about the implementation of this strategy and detailed procedural rules for its functioning.

viii. Great dedication to meeting the commitments that have been undertaken on time in the action plan is essential. Prioritising the strategic objective by the drafters of this action plan, considering the weight they have in the entirety in this reform, should also orient the attention of the implementing institutions.

ix. Finally, we would recommend more realistic, precise and concrete planning, so far as concerns the time periods, institutional responsibility and financial resources foreseen for the accomplishment of the measures. This recommendation takes on added value in relation to the formulations of the monitoring and evaluative mechanisms, which need to be reviewed in order to be as complete and easy to monitor as possible.

1

OB

JEC

TIV

Ei. Overall evaluation of the StrategyThe Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy (below, the Strategy) and its action plan were approved by Council of Ministers Decision no. 519, dated 20.07.2011. The process of implementation of the measures and policies provided in this document has a three-year time extent, covering the years 2011-2013. the results of this monitoring cover the period July 2011 – november 2012, almost half of the time of action of the Strategy.

In general, it can be said that the Strategy is well incorporated into the framework of the Integrated planning System, since it fits closely with the medium-term and long-term orientations of governance defined in the National Strategy for Development and Integration 2007 – 2013, the developments of the process of European integration, the requirements of the Medium-Term Budget Programme, the programme of public investments and that of foreign assistance.

We can also emphasise that the Strategy reflects the basic principles of strategic planning at the level across sectors specified in the Manual “On the preparation of the national, sector and cross-cutting strategies”. Of course, here we are referring to the principles that have to do with the structure of a cross-cutting strategy document, the organisation of the structures responsible for coordinating the process of its implementation and coordination with other strategies of the constituent sectors.

In the introductory part of the Strategy, its fundamental aims are given1, a list of the institutions making up the justice system and the vision of the Government for the justice system. The Strategy then analyses the challenges or main issues of the justice system, starting not from the problem areas but from the constituent institutions of the system. It should be emphasised that the analysis of the challenges and issues facing the justice system is of fundamental importance for drafting the action plan and for the coherence of the strategic document in general. There should be a link and a clear continuity between those two parts of the strategic document, because in essence, the action plan is nothing more than the instrument for addressing the problem areas identified in the first part of the Strategy. From the monitoring performed, three problems show up which, in our judgment, weaken the essential link between those two parts of the strategic document, making the process of implementation of the Strategy, and monitoring it, difficult.

First, we are of the opinion that the description of the constitutional and legal framework within which the institutions of the justice system exercise their activity is not necessary. This is because the users of the Strategy, both those who implement it and those who monitor implementation, part of the executive or judicial power, are persons of the field, with a sufficient knowledge about the sector. We think that this part weighs down the document excessively and makes its use difficult. The Manual “On the preparation of national, sector and cross-cutting strategies” does not require a presentation of this kind in the formulation of cross-cutting strategies.

Secondly, it is to be emphasised that the first part of the document (analysis of the challenges and issues) has been drawn up confusingly. The text has to be studied carefully (and sometimes it is necessary to read between the lines) so as to be able to bring out the issues and to present them in a concise and systematic manner as they have been presented in the Annex of the report. This confusion in the first

1. The aims include perfecting the justice system, increasing access to justice, increasing trust in justice and strengthening the contribution of the justice system to social development and European integration.


part of the document makes several important processes difficult, starting from the drafting and up to the implementation of the action plan.

Third, from the organisational viewpoint of the subject matter, the analysis of the challenges and problem areas made in the narrative part of the Strategy has been organised around the particular institutions of the justice system, such as the courts, the High Council of Justice (HCJ), Office of Administration of the Judicial Budget (OAJB), Magistrates’ School, Ministry of Justice, Prosecutor’s Office and so forth. On the other hand, the action plan has been constructed on the basis of fields or issues (for example, responsibility of the system, issues of access to justice, infrastructure issues and so forth). Again we see an absence of synchronisation which has brought a consequent overlapping of the measures planned for the various strategic objectives, creating unnecessary confusion in the implementation and monitoring of the Strategy as well as infringing on the consistency of the strategic document in general.

1.2 VISION, PRIORITIES, STRATEGIC GOALS AND POLICIESAgainst the challenges and problems shown in Chapter I of the Strategy (as well as the factors or reasons that are judged to be at the core of those problem areas), Chapter II continues by defining the Vision2, the Priorities and the Strategic Purposes of the document, as well as the Policies that will be followed to address them.

In general, this part of the document appears complex and difficult to follow. It is characterised by an inflation of terms, and the distinction between the concepts to which those terms refer is not entirely clear. Thus, in this part of the document, the terms “Priority” and “Strategic purpose” are used, which seem to represent the main orientations of reforms in justice. Further on, the term “Policies” is used, which seems to indicate the main approaches that will be undertaken to reach the Priorities. On their part, the latter are not reflected in the action plan. From a careful reading, it turns out that the terms “Policies” and “Strategic Objectives” refer to almost the same concept as ‘approach’ or ‘main field of action’.

If the confusion with terminology were not enough, in this part of the document, a somewhat confused grouping is also made of Priorities into Policies, and further on, into Strategic Objectives. Thus, in this second chapter, thirteen priorities are listed, which are later grouped into seven policies. The latter are then, it seems, partially taken up again, now called “Strategic objectives” (addressed in eight such objectives). This cacophony of terms and concepts reflects an absence of consistency in the logic of the document and creates problems of content, because it becomes difficult to understand whether the Priorities are addressed as they should be by the Policies and the action plan. For example, “Consolidation of inter-institutional dialogue...”, which is considered a Priority in the narrative part of the Strategy, figures in the action plan only as a sub-theme of strategic objective no. 1. On the other hand, “Strengthening international judicial cooperation...”, which again is considered a Priority, is addressed only at the level of a specific objective (3.6) in the action plan. One consequence of this lack of correspondence is that the vision of reforms in justice is not elaborated completely and in an effective manner by the action plan or at least it may make the process of implementing and monitoring it more difficult.

2. The vision is a repetition of the text in the introduction of the document.

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

Finally, an absence of correspondence in the numbering of the Priorities and the Policies in the narrative part of the Strategy compared to the numbering of the Strategic objectives in the action plan should be pointed out3. It is true that the drafters of the Strategy had the express purpose of grouping the Priorities into several Policies and Strategic objectives, but this process has resulted in considerable confusion, making the work of the implementers and monitors of the Strategy quite difficult. Those unclear matters might have been caused by the difficulties met in coordinating the 14 institutions that are independent or under the Ministry of Justice which took part in preparing the Justice Strategy and by the need for its final test to reflect the contribution of all those institutions and to harmonise their interests.

1.3 CONSEQUENCES FOR RESOURCES, ACCOUNTABILITY,MONITORING AND EVALUATIVE ANALYSISThe implementation of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy relies on financial resources that have been calculated by referring to the medium-term budget of the state allocated in the years 2011-2013 for each of the institutions of the justice system. In addition, projects with foreign financing (ongoing or planed) in the field of justice have also been taken into consideration in the calculation of financial needs.

In conformity with the standard required by the Manual “On the preparation of national, sector and cross-cutting strategies”, the Strategy creates an institutional mechanism for monitoring its implementation and defines the Ministry of Justice as the institution responsible for coordination of the work. Although the functioning of the monitoring mechanism was not the object of the monitoring done by the Soros Foundation, we observe that so far, internal rules do not exist, at least publicly, for the organisation of the work and the functioning of this mechanism. Only two short notifications for the media have been published on the official website of the Ministry of Justice about meetings held in the framework of the monitoring and evaluative mechanism of the Justice Strategy; informational reports or decisions of this structure in connection with the progress of the Strategy are entirely lacking.We stress that more detailed procedural rules and periodic public reporting about the action of the monitoring and evaluative mechanisms are of fundamental importance for increasing transparency and the good functioning of accountability and monitoring implementation of the Justice Strategy.

1.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CROSS-CUTTING JUSTICE STRATEGYIn order to address the eight strategic objectives foreseen in the action plan, 238 measures have been provided. Among them, only 14 measures (6% of the total number) were not monitored by the Soros Foundation, because most (12 measures) start in 2013, and some others (2 measures) are inappropriate for evaluation (see strategic objective no. 8, measures 8.2.3 and 8.3.1).

Of the 224 measures monitored, which have a time period of implementation of from 2011-2013, it is found that: • 31% of the measures were evaluated as implemented (respectively, 69 measures); • 24% of the measures were evaluated as implemented in part (respectively, 54 measures), among

which 61% (33 measures) still have time for being realized, that is, they are long-term measures going up to 2013;

3. Thus, for example, Consolidation of the responsibility of the justice system is numbered 3 in the list of Priorities and 2 in the list of Stra-tegic objectives in the action plan. This absence of correspondence in the numbering applies to almost all the priorities and strategic objec-tives. Concretely, priority 4 corresponds to strategic objective 3, priority 6 corresponds to strategic objective 4, priority 12 corresponds to strategic objective 7, priority 13 corresponds to strategic objective 8, priorities 7 and 8 correspond to strategic objective 5 and priorities 9, 10 and 11 correspond to strategic objective 6.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

MEASURESIMPLEMENTED

MEASURES NOT IMPLEMENTEDLONG-TERM MEASURES UP TO 2013

31% 24%

45%

61%

54%

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUSTICE STRATEGYGRAPHIC 1

MEASURES PARTIALLYIMPLEMENTED

MEASURESIMPLEMENTED

MEASURES PARTIALLYIMPLEMENTED

MEASURESNOT IMPLEMENTED

LONG-TERM MEASURESUP TO 2013

21%18%

28%

13%

35%

75%

31%

54%

40%

29%

57%

50%

25%

44%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

7%

38%

15%

30% 30%

43%

30%

25%

COMPARISON OF THE IMPLEMENTATION ACCORDING TO STRATEGIC OBJECTIVESGRAPHIC 2

31% 31%

• 45% of the measures were evaluated as not implemented (respectively, 101 measures). Among those, 54% or 54 measures have a longer time period of realization, beyond the time of monitoring, which indicates that time still remains for their accomplishment.

From a comparative view of the ability of the strategic objectives to be implemented, it turns out that the highest progress is seen for strategic objective no. 6 with 44% of the measures implemented. This is an objective classed as important, concentrated principally on respecting human rights, such as the rights of prisoners and the rights of children. It is followed by strategic objective no. 2, with 43% of the measures implemented and strategic objective no. 5, with 38% of the measures implemented. Those latter two objectives were evaluated by the drafters as very important, considering the challenge that they attempt to address, respectively in the consolidation of good governance through the fight against corruption and the consolidation of the responsibility of the justice system. It bears emphasising that good progress in the implementation of strategic objective no. 5 can be attributed to progress in the implementation of the Strategy “On the prevention of and fight against corruption and for a more transparent government”. We take the opportunity to point out a pronounced anomaly in this action plan. The implementation of other sector strategies (as in the case above) has unreasonably been provided as specific objectives or measures in it. Among the objectives with the lowest progress there can be singled out strategic objective no. 1, with 7% of the measures implemented, strategic objective no. 4 with 15% of the measures implemented and strategic objective no. 3, with 30% of the measures implemented. These three strategic objectives have been evaluated as very important, considering the priority that they represent, respectively, the consolidation of the independence of the justice system, the consolidation of access to the justice institutions and strengthening the effectiveness of the judicial power.

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

37 MEASURES NOT IMPLEMENTED

23 MEASURES IMPLEMENTED

45 MEASURES PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED

35%

22%

43%

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUSTICE STRATEGY MEASURES PLANNED UP TO 2012GRAPHIC 3

61 REGULATORY MEASURES

134 CAPACITY-BUILDING MEASURES

43 QUALITATIVE IMPROVEMENTS

CLASSIFICATION OF THE MEASURES ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURE

18%

56%

26%

GRAPHIC 4

76 QUALITATIVE INDICATORS

161 QUANTITATIVE INDICATORS

CLASSIFICATION OF THE MONITORING AND EVALUATIVE MECHANISMS

68%

32%

GRAPHIC 5

Of the 224 measures, only 105 have been planned to be realised by the end of 2012, about 47% of the total number of measures. Since the action plan has a three year term, it turns out that a little more than half (53% of the measures) has been provided for implementation in the last year of the plan, that is, 2013. However, it should be stressed that this amount also includes a considerable number of continuing measures, which represent to a great extent measures of a routine nature, ordinary activities that are a part of the functional duties of the responsible state institutions. We are of the opinion that those measures are not part of a reform in the justice system and as such should not have been provided in the action plan.

The level of implementation of the 105 measures planned up to the end of 2012 is: • 35% of the commitments foreseen were implemented; • 22% of the measures are implemented in part and • 43% of the measures foreseen to be realised within this year still remain unimplemented.

The large majority of the measures provided in the action plan of the Justice Strategy are measures of a capacity-building nature (56% of the total number or 134 measures) against 26% of measures of a regulatory nature (61 measures) and 18% that aim at qualitative improvements (43 measures).

The monitoring and evaluative mechanisms have been classified as quantitative and qualitative indicators. Quantitative indicators make up 68% of the indicators (161 indicators) and qualitative indicators make up 32% of the measures (76 indicators).


41%

59%

APPROPRIATENESS OF THE TIME PERIODSGRAPHIC 6

133 REALISTIC TIMEPERIODS MEASURES

91 NON REALISTIC TIMEPERIODS MEASURES

24%

76%

APPROPRIATENESS OF THE INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITYGRAPHIC 7

54 MEASURES INSUFFICIENT INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

170 MEASURES ADEQUATE INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

So far as concerns the evaluation of the appropriates of the time periods provided implementing the measures, it is found that in 59% of the instances (133 out of 224 measures) the time periods have been provided in a realistic, clear and sufficient manner. On the other hand, in 41% of the instances (91 measures), the time periods are not realistic. Amongst the most problematic objectives in this connection are strategic objective no. 7, with 70%, objective no. 2 with 64%, and objective no. 7 with 57% of the time periods provided not realistic. This situation is primarily the result of the fact that regulatory measures are foreseen, calling for the drafting of important legal and subordinate legal acts in a very short time, in the majority of cases, within 2011. Such, for example, are the measures planned in strategic objectives no. 2 and 3, where although some of the acts require a qualified majority in the Assembly, the biggest obstacle to their approval has not been the absence of political consensus but rather poor planning, delayed starting of the drafting process or the need for longer time periods for drafting and consultation about the drafts. In particular cases, an absence of coordination between public agencies is also seen4. A characteristic of strategic objective no. 7 is the planning of time periods that are difficult to measure. This happens because only the deadline is set, when the measure is to have been implemented, leaving the initial time when implementation should start unclear; or where necessary, intermediate time periods are lacking that would correspond to the different phases of implementation of the measure. Strategic objectives no. 5, 6 and 8 have the highest percentages of realistic time periods, respectively, in order, 77%, 85% and 100%.

In connection with an evaluation of the appropriateness of institutional responsibility, it turns out that in 76% of the cases (or 170 measures), it has been defined in an adequate and precise manner, whereas in 24% of the cases (or 54 measures), the institutional responsibility has not been defined as it should or is insufficient. A dominant feature in the entire action plan is the absence of a clear division between the responsible institutions and the partner institutions. This determination is essential, both to create the respective obligations for those institutions as well as to enable precise monitoring of the implementation of those measures. This is especially true for measures of a regulatory nature. In several of them, responsibility has been assigned for law drafting to agencies that ordinarily have only a secondary

4. E.g., the cases of amending the law “On the profession of advocacy in the Republic of Albania” or the amendments to the law “On organ-isation and functioning of the High Court”.

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

17%

83%

APPROPRIATENESS OF THE FINANCIAL RESOURCESGRAPHIC 8

38 MEASURES INADEQUATE AND EVASIVE BUDGET

186 MEASURES ADEQUATE AND CONCRETE BUDGET

contribution in this connection, such as the General Prosecutor’s Office, the High Court, the High Council of Justice and others. In several measures, the responsibility has been assigned to international organisations or projects that assist state institutions, such as UNIFEM or EURALIUS III.

In several other cases, the responsibility has been planned narrowly, designating only the directly responsible institution, which cannot implement the measure without the support/supervision of the Ministry of Justice, or responsibility has been defined at a higher institutional level, without providing the structures that benefit directly from these measures, such as the partner institutions like the courts, the National Chambers of Notaries, Advocacy or Mediators and so forth. Almost all the strategic objectives have a positive evaluation for institutional responsibility, almost the same, in the range 70-80%, with the exception of strategic objective no. 4, which has a lower evaluation of 38%, and objective no. 7, with a higher evaluation of 91% for accurate institutional responsibility.

The financial resources necessary for accomplishment of the measures planned to address the strategic objectives have, in general, been evaluated positively as budgets defined clearly, appropriately and concretely in 83% of the cases or 186 out of the 224 measures monitored. Only in 17% of the cases (38 measures) are the financial resources evasive, inappropriate and not concrete. Here several measures are included as to which there has been no determination about financial resources or when the resources are insufficient, for example, in cases when actions provided are planned to be covered with operating expenses of the institution.

It is essential to provide financial resources for measures that aim at professional capacity-building or infrastructure improvements, because the partial or full accomplishment of the current measure depends on this element. Another general problem is the provision of only operating expenses for measures of a regulatory nature of special importance. This shows poor and unrealistic planning, because for especially important laws, qualified expertise, a broad consultation process and discussions with state institutions and other non-state actors are all needed. It often happens that such activities are supported financially by international projects, because the respective state institutions have not provided funds for this important part of the law drafting process. Cases have come to light where measures were not implemented because of the absence of financial resources even thought they were defined in the Strategy (see the measures provided under specific objectives 7.1 and 7.2, related to infrastructure improvements in the courts and prosecutors’ offices). In cases when the resources of other donors are relied on, there should be more accurate and concrete data, in order for the measures to be manageable.

The determination of the monitoring and evaluative mechanisms (indicators) is one of the elements formulated most weakly in the Justice Strategy. The monitoring mechanisms need more clarity, more demonstrable indicators and more guarantees for the checking and management of the accomplishment of the measures. In


61%

39%

APPROPRIATENESS OF THE MONITORING AND EVALUATIVE MECHANISMSGRAPHIC 9

136 MEASURES SUPERFICIAL AND FORMAL INDICATORS

88 MEASURES MEASURABLE AND CONCRETE INDICATORS

61% of the cases (or 136 measures), the indicators have been formulated in a general, superficial and incomplete way, difficult to measure. In many cases, there are evaluative mechanisms that are the same or similar for different measures. In addition, for several measures where quantitative measures should have been established, qualitative indicators have been designated instead. Furthermore, some of the indicators have been expressed as objectives or measures. Only in 39% (88) of the measures are the indicators concrete, measurable and complete.

ii. implementation according to the Strategic ObjectivesSTraTegiC ObjeCTiVe 1: Consolidation of the independence of the judicial power and the justice system institutions in the structural, functional and financial direction, as well as consolidation of inter-institutional dialogue and cooperation (very important).

7% implemented 18% partially implemented 75% not implemented

This strategic objective constitutes a fundamental and long-term orientation of reforms in the justice system. Of course, the challenges in this aspect (the independence of the justice system) take on various forms at different times. In the span of 2011-2013, the Strategy has been focused in several main directions, such as strengthening the self-governance of the judiciary, strengthening the role of the High Court, increasing the effectiveness of the Constitutional Court and others.

Achieving the strengthening self-governance through strengthening the role of the National Judicial Conference (NJC) and the High Council of Justice (HJC) has rightly been aimed at, as well as through the independent and efficient administration of the judicial budget. The most important achievement in this connection is marked by approval of the law on the National Judicial Conference, which, among other things, regulates the formula and procedure of electing members of the HCJ in such a manner as to guarantee the premises for an appropriate representation of the interests of the judges of all levels of the judicial system and establishes standards of transparency and the principle of competition. The establishment and functioning of the permanent and special commissions of the NJC according to this law remain a challenge, as does the verification in practice of its expected advantages.

It should be stressed that the measure aiming at studying the possibility of members of the HCJ staying in office full-time has elements of unconstitutionality. The full-time service of the members of the HCJ has been the object of constitutional control by the Constitutional Court, which said that the judge members of the HCJ cannot be permanent. Under those conditions, it is hard to understand why such a measure has been provided.

A review of the law “On the Office of Administration of the Judicial Budget” has been reconceived

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

as unnecessary. The same approach has also been followed for the organic law of the Constitutional Court and the Magistrates’ School. On the other hand, whilst it is more than necessary to perform a continuing review of the action plan, it is worth emphasising, however, that such important measures for reform in the justice system which are foreseen and later evaluated as unnecessary show a weakness in the process of planning the measures.

The increase of the influence and authority of the High Court has been rightly conceived of as one of the ways to assure that the objective of the consolidation of the independence of the judicial power is accomplished. The accomplishment of the measures under this chapter has as a primary element the drafting of amendments to the law on the High Court.

On the other hand, it should be underlined that those amendments only partially address the problem areas identified for the High Court in the narrative part of the Strategy (is regulated the issue of staying in office until their replacement and, to a certain extent, the issue of the overload, by increasing the number of judges)5. It remains a challenge to review the current method of appointment and selection of the members of the High Court and, eventually, the conversion of the High Court into a career court, which can be addressed only through constitutional changes.

Finally, it bears underlining that the objective of giving profiles to the courts has been partially realised with the approval of the law on administrative courts. We say ‘partially’, taking into account that this law is still not functional and the fact that progress is lacking for putting a commercial court into function.

Strategic objective 2: Consolidation of the responsibility of the justice system to be uninfluenced, impartial and consistent in ensuring equal legal protection for all parties, as well as being ready to react to the different needs of the community in time and quality (very important)


Strategic objective 2 is elaborated in three specific objectives, which have the intent of being realised through improving the status of judges and prosecutors, clarifying the competences of inspection and also strengthening the role and independence of the prosecutor in the investigation process.In this objective, the progress found is primarily related to the approval of constitutional changes for removing and restricting the immunity regime, amendments that respond to international standards and the real needs of the fight against corruption. However, it remains a legal provision that is expected to bring its results only after implementation in practice. Positive developments are also related to a revision of the decision of the HCJ on disciplinary proceedings against judges, which contains a series of due process guarantees.

Notwithstanding these achievements, major challenges still remain in the aspect of strengthening the status of judges and prosecutors as well as in establishing real guarantees for their career development based on a true merit system. In addition, the application of transparent, entirely professional procedures is necessary for the appointment, transfer and promotion of judges and prosecutors based squarely on an evaluation system relying on professional criteria. Finally, but not last in importance, the financial promotion of judges and prosecutors still remains an unsolved issue, which affects attempts to improve their status.

5. The issue of case overload will be resolved in a final manner only through the respective amendments to the Codes of Criminal and Civil Procedure.


Another positive development is the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the Ministry of Justice and the High Council of Justice for clarification of the competences between the two inspectorates under them. However, it remains to be seen whether this memorandum, signed only a few months ago, will be implemented in practice, as well as what measures will be taken cooperatively between these two institutions for the resolution of a series of problems related to the judicial system.

In connection with strengthening the role and independence of the prosecutor in the process of investigation, only the completion of the legal framework “On the judicial police” has been realised, which again remains a measure of a legal nature that can only be expected to bring effects after implementation in practice. In relation to the other measures provided in the objective, little has been done to strengthen the role and independence of the prosecutor’s office in the justice system, and consequently also the consolidation of the responsibility of that institution to be uninfluenced, impartial and consistent in assuring equal legal defence for all parties.

Of the 14 measures provided in this strategic objective, an overemphasis on interventions of a regulatory nature can be seen (10 in all). Since the three specific objectives consist of such sub-issues as improvements in the professional evaluation of judges, disciplinary proceedings, promoting them and so forth, it seems to us that the emphasis on measures of a regulatory nature is disproportionate, since much can be achieved in those aspects with efforts of an organisational and qualitative nature.

STraTegiC ObjeCTiVe 3: Consolidation of the effectiveness of the judicial power to be effective, efficient and open, as well as ready to act in conformity with the Constitution, international acts and the internal legislation, guided by the principle of the rule of law, as well as the strengthening of international judicial cooperation (very important).


Strategic object 3 is elaborated into eight specific objectives. The most important among them are reducing the overload of the courts, increasing the performance of judges and prosecutors, increasing the speed of international judicial cooperation, implementation of the ICMIS system and improvement of the electronic infrastructure of the courts.

The nature of the measures varies, depending on the specific objective. Thus, the measures foreseen to achieve a reduction of the caseload of the judges are exclusively regulatory, and the indicators of implementation of them are exclusively quantitative. This seems reasonable, since the main problems in this area appear to come from issues of procedural law and delays caused by advocates. However, more organisational measures could have been provided for the reduction of protracted delays in judicial proceedings, especially of the nature of increasing the ability of judges and administrative staff in connection with planning sessions and managing cases.

The most important achievement in this connection is the approval of amendments to the law “On the profession of advocacy”. The amendments are in three main aspects, which are the initial training of candidates for advocate and continuous training, the disciplinary process and insuring the liability of advocates to their clients. The approval of amendments to the Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure, and other laws provided in the action plan, which still require much work and a qualified majority in the Assembly, remains a serious challenge.

1

OB

JEC

TIV

ESo far as concerns measures that aim at increasing the performance of judges and prosecutors, an overemphasis is seen on training activities at the Magistrates’ School. Despite the considerable number of training activities of the School, it is worth mentioning that only a small number have been realised with funds of the state budget. A majority of the trainings continue to be realised with donor funds, in conformity with the thematic programme of training judges and prosecutors approved every three years by the School’s Technical Council. On the other hand, we think that this important objective could be addressed with a large number of other measures of an organisational nature or involving infrastructure and ethics, which are lacking in this part of the action plan. Furthermore, some of the measures related to the Magistrates’ School deal with routine activities of the School (such as the implementation of the rules for selecting candidates, the evaluation of magistrates or the teaching process) or are not relevant to such a document (such as the accomplishment of the procedures of public procurement for electronic equipment, and some others).

In connection with the objective of increasing the speed of international judicial cooperation, the planning of the measures responds to the problem area but has been done without having information about the current situation in this field. In fact, the narrative part of the Strategy does not show the problem areas related to this objective nor does it evaluate current judicial cooperation. That is, if the objective aims at increasing the speed, quality and effectiveness of this cooperation, it should have been shown what the current time is for a procedure related to aspects of judicial cooperation, what the problem is as to translations, what are the states with which this cooperation is going poorly and so forth. Concluding a cooperation agreement with EUROJUST remains a fundamental challenge in this connection.

Good progress has been achieved in the area of investments in technology in the courts and prosecutors’ offices, but especially in the courts. Investments for electronic equipment have been considerable and have been repeated; this is also true of investments in the installation of the ICMIS system, its further development and the making of information available to the broader public.

STraTegiC ObjeCTiVe 4: Consolidation of access to the justice institutions so that they are open for everyone and actively engaged in encouraging alternative forms of dispute resolution (important)


Strategic objective 4 is elaborated into five specific objectives, the most important among which are increasing the effectiveness of legal aid and improving the public relations of the justice institutions.

In general, the implementation of the measures in the framework of efforts to increase the effectiveness of legal aid has been characterised by considerable delay. The main achievement in this direction consists of the approval of five subordinate legal acts in implementation of the law “On legal aid”. Also to be noted is the signature of several memoranda of understanding between the State Commission of Legal Aid (SCLA) and other similar institutions6. However, it can be seen that none of these memoranda define concrete activities that will be undertaken by the parties, but have been drawn up as general commitments by them.

6. With the Commissioner for Protection from Discrimination, the People’s Advocate and the Agency for Free Legal Aid in Kosovo.


Serious challenges remain in connection with the implementation in practice of the system of legal aid. Four years after the law was approved, the SCLA has signed contracts with eight advocates and four not-for-profit organisations for providing legal aid. During 2011, the SCLA did not approve the provision of legal aid in any instance.

In 2012, the SCLA approved the granting of legal aid for five individual instances (two criminal cases and three civil ones), as well as 33 requests brought through the Tirana Legal Aid Society (TLAS) (for registering unregistered children and starting guardianship procedures). Those numbers show that the system of legal aid is far from being effective. We also found that the most essential information is lacking about the existence/location of the SCLA, the categories who are beneficiaries of legal aid and the procedure for applying and for filling out documentation, which have a real effect on limiting access to legal aid. The SCLA still has not started a website where this essential information is published.

Filling out the forms and the respective documentation by citizens who seek legal aid turns out to be difficult, because of the large number of documents (seven certificates) that have to be delivered to the SCLA. This procedure is extremely complicated for the vulnerable groups who are legal aid categories, such as the extremely poor sectors of society with a low educational level, members of the Roma minority or others, who should be given the necessary assistance to fill out the respective documentation or request.

Another economic barrier that restricts the effective access of needy individuals to judicial services or legal aid is high judicial fees. The limitation of access of persons in economic difficulties because of inability to pay judicial fees is currently the object of examination at the Constitutional Court.

An additional disturbing problem is the existence of the parallel system of advocates primarily for criminal cases. The process of their selection by judges/prosecutors from a list sent by the National Chamber of Advocacy puts the latter in an open conflict of interest, which has an effect on low quality in provision of the service.

For improving the relations of the courts with the public, the main measures consist of adapting the structure/personnel charts of the courts as well as training the staff of the courts about the decision “On the relations of the court with the public”. Those rules define the obligation of the chairmen of the courts to establish an Office of Public Relations for the purpose of improving the relations of the courts with the public and the media and overcoming the court’s passive role in respecting obligations for increasing transparency. The order of the Minister of Justice “On designating the structures of the judicial administration” defines the IT specialist in each court as the official representative of the court in relations with the public and the media. This is quite inappropriate. In addition, the internal orders issued so far by the courts for the implementation of the rules show a lack of uniform implementation.

The initiative of establishing an Internet portal for the courts by the Ministry of Justice, inaugurated in July 2012, constitutes an important step in increasing transparency of the judicial system, and it is to be welcomed. However, exclusively on-line information about cases/judicial decisions or other information of interest to the public does not guarantee access to justice for many individuals who cannot use it for various reasons. Greater attention should be paid to respect for and protection of personal data.

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

STraTegiC ObjeCTiVe 5: Consolidation of the trust of the public in the justice system, in parallel with the consolidation of good governance through the fight against corruption and other negative phenomena that impede the country’s development and integration, as well as guaranteeing the functioning of the rule of law (very important)


Strategic objective 5 is elaborated in four specific objectives of which the most important are increasing the effectiveness of coordination between the justice system institutions and building solid registration systems about organised crime and corruption.

As a parenthesis, we consider it worth pointing out that at a formal level, strategic objective 5 has pronounced deficiencies in formulation, combining into one three major issues of the justice system: the trust of the public in the system, its good governance and the functioning of the rule of law. Inevitably, this strategic objective overlaps in part with the first three strategic objectives. In addition, as a result of having a very broad scope of action, the strategic objective is not elaborated logically by the specific objectives planned, and consequently the quantitative evaluation of the implementation of the measures foreseen does not succeed in actually showing the fulfilment of this strategic objective.

In connection with attempts to increase the effectiveness of coordination between the institutions of the justice system, positive steps are seen in the signing of several memoranda of cooperation. One such is the memorandum between the Minister of Justice and the Deputy Chairman of the High Council of Justice on the issue of inspections, as well as that between the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health to establish a medical institute for persons with mental problems who have committed criminal offences. On the other hand, the drafting of a memorandum of cooperation between the Ministry of Justice and the General Prosecutor’s Office still has not been finalised, which will clarify the inspection criteria toward the prosecutor’s office and serve as a basis for planning joint policies in the fight against organised crime and corruption.

It is judged necessary for concrete memoranda of cooperation, as detailed as possible, to be signed between the Ministry of Justice and the National Judicial Conference, between the High Council of Justice and the National Judicial Conference and between the Ministry of Justice and the National Chamber of Advocacy. Those measures only partially address one of the three issues of this strategic objective, and therefore they do not have a fundamental impact on realising the strategic objective as a whole.

The other measures in this chapter, which are related to capacity-building and improving the performance of the Ministry of Justice, constitute only a distant premise for increasing effectiveness and coordination with the other powers’ institutions, they are not relevant in themselves to address the objective.

So far as concerns the objective of building solid regulatory systems for organised crime and corruption, the first steps were taken in April 2012 by a joint order among the Ministry of Justice, the Interior Ministry and the General Prosecutor’s Office on “Establishing a work group to create standardised forms for a consolidated system of data about the criminal offences of corruption and organised crime”.


STraTegiC ObjeCTiVe 6: Consolidation of the democratic state based on the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, improving the enforcement of judicial decisions, the rights of prisoners and pre-trial detainees as well as the rights of children (important).


Strategic objective no. 6 is an all-inclusive objective, covering a number of fields and addressing a series of problem areas related to several fundamental human rights. This objective is elaborated in six specific objectives, among which the most important are improving the execution of judicial decisions and improving the rights of those who are isolated.

A majority of the measures provided in this strategic objective have the aim of capacity-building through making investments for reconstruction or building new institutions, as well as training the administration of the state institutions. A small number of measures are of a regulatory nature or for qualitative service improvements.

Among the main achievements in implementation of this strategic objective are the better functioning of the system of private bailiffs, the establishment and extension of use of a system of electronic case management for the cases of judicial bailiffs (ALBIS), as well as good progress in infrastructure improvements in the prison and remand system. In addition, the improvement of activity of the probation service and its extension into several districts is to be mentioned, which has had a direct effect on increasing the number of convicted persons who are subject to alternative punishment measures instead of imprisonment.

We may emphasise the following as among the most important challenges for this objective: the consolidation and good functioning of the National Chamber of Private Bailiffs, the generation and public reporting of data collected by the ALBIS system about the progress of execution of final judicial decisions as well as the execution of judicial decisions within a reasonable time when the debtor parties are state institutions.

Concerning respect for the rights of convicted persons, we would single out their humane and dignified treatment, especially the provision of appropriate health care, and an increase of the number of activities that aim at their rehabilitation and reintegration into society. In this connection, the consolidation of the probation system and the more effective utilisation of alternatives to imprisonment will also be of assistance.

STraTegiC ObjeCTiVe 7: good functioning of the system through investments in the infrastructure of the courts and the prosecutor’s offices, as well as working conditions (normal)


The activities foreseen by the action plan to fulfil strategic objective 7 consist of planning and making fundamental investments to improve infrastructure in the justice system. There is no doubt that the fulfilment of these measures directly affects the quality of the rendering of justice, the solemnity and impartiality of the justice process and an increase of the trust of the public in the system.

The fact is to be brought out and appreciated that the largest part of the planning and investments is focused on the construction of new courthouses and prosecutors’ offices and less on adapting or re-

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

constructing the existing buildings. The level of budgetary allocations and technical problems, which mainly have to do with finding building sites, remain important challenges in this connection.

However, the achievement of this strategic objective is compromised by lateness in provision of budgets and in implementation of the projects (almost half of the measures planned to be undertaken have exceeded the time periods provided or have not been implemented). Especially disturbing is the situation of future investments in the system of the prosecutors’ offices, because for the years 2013-2015, no budget has been foreseen for financing the construction or reconstruction of several buildings, whilst the buildings themselves have been foreseen in the action plan. It is clear that these delays and limitations of financing do not simply and only affect the objectives and time periods in the action plan, but also the success of strategic objective 7 as a whole and beyond that, reform in justice.

STraTegiC ObjeCTiVe 8: improvement of the law drafting process, including increasing capacities and their professional consolidation, and increasing attention to the acquis communautaire for the purpose of speeding up the process of approximation of legislation (normal).


In essence, the measures provided in the action plan for the fulfilment of strategic objective 8 are grouped into efforts to assure sustainability of specialised staff in law drafting and to strengthen dialogue and inter-institutional cooperation in the law drafting process.The measures that aim at staff sustainability do not respond completely to this purpose, since they have to do with increasing capacities through training but not with an examination and, if necessary, a revision of the legal rules that guarantee that this specialised staff will remain.

So far as the aim of increasing inter-institutional dialogue and cooperation in the law drafting process is concerned, it should be emphasised it is difficult to evaluate progress in this respect because of the absence of information about the situation at the starting point (baseline data). However, the fact that the Ministry of Justice has started to publish particular draft laws on its webpage more frequently compared to prior periods, thus making it possible for the public to become aware of and, eventually, also to give opinions about those draft laws, should be brought out as a positive step. The continuation of this process of consultation, and what is more important, a detailed and standardised regulation of the manner, procedures and concrete time periods for obtaining the opinions of the public or civil society, remains a challenge.

Three specific objectives need further concretisation based on their specific aims. Jointly evaluating them, it can be seen that it is not clear whether increased attention will be paid to the acquis communautaire or how this increase will be realised and how the continuing contact with developments of the acquis communautaire is to take place. Indeed, great attention should be paid to the acquis communautaire, because the challenges of including Albania in European developments make it more than essential to have a deep knowledge of European trends and to use this knowledge with competence and professionalism. In the form presented in this action plan, attention to the acquis communautaire and the process of approximation of legislation has not been elaborated in specific objectives, and there is a lack of compatibility between the strategic objective and the specific ones.


2.2 DATA ON RESPECT FOR THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ABOUT OFFICIAL DOCUMENTSSince the primary source for verifying the implementation of this Strategy was official information, the Foundation sent 31 requests for information to all the responsible institutions identified as such in the action plan. Approximately 74% of the institutions (23) answered the Foundation’s request although in the majority of cases, only after repeated reminders or the holding of direct meetings by the experts of the monitoring group. 26% of the institutions (eight) did not return an answer and did not supply information about the commitments undertaken in the framework of implementation of this action plan.

The average time for a response was approximately 33 days. Only 26% of the institutions (6) managed to answer within 15 days, whereas 61% of the institutions (14) sent an answer after the legal time period of 40 days. Amongst the institutions that answered, in 56% of the cases, the information was complete; in 35% of the cases, the information supplied was partial and in only 9% of the cases was it inappropriate.

In conclusion, we underline that respect for the right to information about official documents, and in general, the access of civil society to state activity, still continues to meet with difficulties, procrastination and unreasonable negligence.

The following is a list of the institutions that answered and did not answer the requests for information.

Institutions that have not answered7 Institutions that answered8

Ministry of Justice9

7. The order of listing of these institutions has been done considering the importance and weight that they have in the implementation of the action plan. 8. The order of listing of these institutions has been done according to the speed of response, starting with the institutions that responded most quickly to those that response with more delay. 9. After the presentation of the report in December 2012, the Ministry of Justice sent a letter with protocol no. 136, dated on 10 January 2013, supplying valuable information about several of the measures foreseen in the Strategy.

IV. Data about respecting the right to information

-mately 74% of the institutions (23) answered the Foundation’s request although in the majority of cases, only after repeated reminders or holding direct meetings with the experts of the monitoring group. 26% of the institutions (eight) did not return an answer and did not supply information about the commitments undertaken in the frame-work of implementation of this action plan.

The average time for a response was approximately 33 days. Only 26% of the institutions (six) managed to answer within 15 days, whereas 61% of the institutions (14) sent an answer after the legal time period of 40 days. Amongst the institutions that answered, in 56% of the cases, the information was completed, in 35% of the cases, the infor-mation supplied was partial and in only 9% of the cases was it inappropriate.

negligence.

The following is a list of the institutions that answered and did not answer the requests for information.

Institutions that have not answered7 Institutions that answered8

7 The order of listing of these institutions has been done considering the importance and weight that they have in the implementation of the action plan. 8 The order of listing of these institutions has been done according to the speed of response, starting with the institutions that responded most quickly to those that response with more delay.

Ministry of Justice 9

Ministry of Finance

Council of Ministers

of Immovable Properties

Institute of Legal Medicine

Magistrates’ School

High State Control

Office of Administration of the Judicial Assembly of Albania Budget

Court of the Durrës judicial district

Court of the Korça judicial district

Directorate of the Internal Control Service of the Prisons

Department of Public Administration

Department of Internal Administration and

Anti-Corruption Control (DIAAC)

National Chamber of Advocacy

Interior Ministry

General Directorate of the Probation Service

State Commission of Legal Aid

Court of the Tirana judicial district

High Court

Constitutional Court

General Directorate of Prisons

High Council of Justice

State Committee of Adoptions

National Chamber of Notaries

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CROSS-CUTTING JUSTICE STRATEGY3001STRATEGICObJECTIVE

NO.1

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

Strategic ObJectiVe 1:Consolidation of the independence of the judicial power and the justice system institutions in the structural, functional and financial direction, as well as consolidation of inter-institutional dialogue and cooperation (very important).

1. ANALYSIS OF THE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE The cross-cutting justice strategy, from its “Introduction”, reveals as a priority aim “the further perfection of the justice system”. The action plan of the cross-cutting justice strategy provides as strategic objective no. 1 “consolidation of the independence of the judicial power and the organs of the justice system”, seeing this in three connections: structural, functional and financial.

The systems of international norms1 for the independence of the institutions that administer justice in a country, and the rich constitutional jurisprudence2, have provided in detail that the independence of the judiciary is to be understood as:

• substantive independence, which means the freedom of the courts to render decisions that are not based on the interests of any other branch of power;

• structural independence, which is related to the provision in the Constitution or in a law of the existence of the institution, its manner of formation and its composition;

• organisational independence, which includes the internal administrative structuring of the courts;

• financial independence, which means autonomy in preparation of the budget by the institution itself and the approval by the legislative power, as a separate line in the state budget, of appropriate and sufficient funds in order to realise the purpose and duties of the institution and sovereignty in connection with the administration of the funds accorded, as well as

• personal independence, which requires appointment, career movement and the disciplinary system on the basis of objective criteria and economic and personal guarantees.

From a literal analysis of the formulation of strategic objective no. 1, it seems to have been focussed only towards the elements of structural independence (also including organisational, functional and financial independence3) – important for the existence of the justice institutions, simply and only as such, but which do not fully guarantee the independence of the judicial power, so long as they are not accompanied by measures for securing and strengthening substantive independence.

However, from an analysis of the specific objectives that follow, it can be said that although it is a quasi-cliché, strategic objective no. 1 is a characteristic formulation, all-inclusive as to the challenge that it undertakes, from which it is difficult to escape. On the other hand, it is evaluated that the

1. European Charter “On the Status of Judges” (DAJ/DOC (98) 23); Rec. No. R(94)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe “On the independence, efficacy and role of judges” (13 October 1994); Basic principles on the independence of the judiciary (Resolutions 40/32 dated 29 November 1985 and 40/146 dated 13 December 1985 of the UN General Assembly); the Universal Declaration “On the independence of judges”, adopted in the World Conference of Judges, Montreal (Canada) 5-10 June 1983 and others.2. Constitutional Court decision no. 11/2004, 14/2006, 19/2007, 11/2008, 25/2008, 31/2009, 11/2010 and others.3. See Constitutional Court decisions no. 25/2008, repealing law no. 9399 dated 12.5.2005 “On the organisation and functioning of the National Judicial Conference” as incompatible with the Constitution.


strategic objective should have been more synthetic in its formulation, for example, “Consolidation of the independence of the judicial power and inter-institutional cooperation”. Everything that follows should be a specific objective, because in essence, it is a detailing of the ways/means of achieving the strategic objective, which is the consolidation of the independence.

2. ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVESIt has been provided in the action plan for Strategic objective no. 1 to be accomplished through the practice of seven specific objectives, five of which have been classified as “very important” and two as “important”.

So far as concerns the specific identified objectives themselves, on the whole they are evaluated as having a connection to and a direct effect on strategic objective no. 1, but from a detailed analysis of them (continuing), the conclusion is reached from time to time, in part, some of the specific objectives are superficial, even not concrete. What can easily be seen is the focusing only on objectives that aim at the elite structures, such as the High Council of Justice, the High Court and the Constitutional Court, whilst at the same time, no specific objective is foreseen that would affect structural and other improvement of the status of the courts/judges in the districts and at appeal.

1.1 Facilitation of self-government of the judicial power and increasing its ability to affect the two other powers (very important). This specific objective has been structured into two components with no direct connection between them (“facilitation of self-government” + “increasing its ability to affect the two other powers”). “The model of judicial self-government” adopted by Albanian legislation (against the model of its governance by the executive) means a much broader range of measures that those that have been provided for specific objective 1.1, which links self-governance only with the National Judicial Conference (NJC) and its functions. In fact, self-government, in the meaning of western doctrine4, goes far beyond that structure and probably should also include specific objectives 1.2 and 1.6.

So far as concerns the “ability to affect the other two powers”, it is evaluated that this is an unclear dimension of specific objective 1.1. As shown long ago by Alexis de Tocqueville5, there is no doubt that the judiciary has an effect on the two other powers, but this is mainly as a consequence (reactive) and not as a purpose, in a proactive manner, because the judiciary expresses its will only by decisions, when other subjects put it into motion. Formulated in this way, the element lacks concreteness.

1.2. Strengthening the contribution of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) in the functioning of the judicial power, for justice that is independent, transparent, efficacious and with public trust, as well as to guarantee the exercise and protection of its fundamental rights (very important). In essence, this objective is desirable and necessary, taking into account the role and position of the HCJ in connection with the management of justice in the country. But since this role, and this position, consist only and especially in connection with the (self ) organisation of the judiciary, it is not

4. B. C. Smith, “Models of judicial administration and the independence of the judiciary: a comparison of Romanian self-management and the Czech executive model”, at Public Administration and Development, Volume 28, Issue 2, May 2008.5. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America [Alb. Ed.: Demokracia në Amerikë, Soros Publications, 2002.]

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

understandable why this specific objective (1.2) has been provided by itself, whilst the self-government of the judicial power has been provided in specific objective 1.1. The Constitutional Court has said that “...the High Council of Justice (as a body of constitutional importance, consisting in its majority of judges, who, in the exercise of their function as such, realise the link of this organ with the body of the judges) has been established in order to guarantee the self-governing function of the judiciary”6.

This specific objective would be completely sufficient if it were to have been formulated “Strengthening the contribution of the HCJ to the functioning of the judicial power”, since, if this power functions as it should, then it will obviously render justice that is independent, transparent, efficacious and with the trust of the public, as well as guaranteeing the exercise and protection of its fundamental rights.

1.3 Structural improvement of the High Court to increase its influence, authority and integrity (very important).This is an objective that is evaluated in specific connection with the strategic objective, because the High Court is the highest level of ordinary justice in the country. As such, it is the last filter of that justice, with a constitutional mission to check the implementation of legality and the unification of judicial practice. On the other hand, at least formally, it is unclear why this specific objective has been put in this part of the action plan, when it would have been more appropriate as a specific objective under strategic objective no. 3 (Consolidation of the effectiveness of the judicial power).

1.4 Making a further profiling of the courts in the rendering of justice (important).This objective is clear and concrete and with a strong connection, although not a direct one, to strategic objective no. 1 (perhaps it would have been more appropriate to put it under strategic objective no. 3 “Consolidation of the effectiveness of the judicial power to be effective, efficient and open, as well as ready to act in compliance with the Constitution, international acts and the internal legislation, being guided by the principle of the rule of law, as well as strengthening international judicial cooperation”). For years, western practice has shown that profiling the courts leads to decisions rendered in a reasonable time and reasoned with professionalism. Both of these ongoing consequences are followed by an increase of the trust of citizens in justice, which is an element sine qua non of the independence of this power.

1.5 Increasing the management capacities of the justice system (important).This has the intention (according to the action plan) of the training of the administration and its leaders as well as the inclusion of the judicial administration in the civil service. The Constitutional Court has emphasised that “taking account of the spirit and content of articles 7, 42, 144 and 145 of the Constitution, the Court considers that the role and functioning of the judicial administration cannot be divided from the function of rendering justice and constitutes an important element of the organisational independence of the judicial power. [...]. The auxiliary services in the court are performed by the judicial secretariat, the branches and sectors of the administration of economy, finance, computers, recordation and document retention.... Some of those services of the judicial administration also perform activities of a criminal, civil or administrative procedure nature, which are an indivisible part of a due legal process”7.

6. Constitutional Court decision no. 25/2008.7. Constitutional Court decision no. 20/2009.


In the light of this jurisprudence, it is judged that specific objective no. 1.5 is clear, necessary and with a concrete connection to strategic objective no. 1, but it is not reasonable for it to be provided by itself, since the facilitation of the self-government of the judiciary has been provided as a specific objective. Since this provision has come about as the consequence of a superficial meaning of the term “self-government of the judiciary”, explained above, this objective could quite well be absorbed by specific objective 1.1.

1.6 Independent administration of the judicial budget, improving inter-institutional cooperation and assuring a functional scheme (very important) As above, this is a clear objective that has a direct link to strengthening the independence of the judicial power. According to the Constitutional Court, “notwithstanding that the Constitution has left the approval of the judicial budget to the executive and legislative power, it has raised the manner of administration of that budget to a constitutional standard, recognising it to the judiciary itself. The Court emphasises that independent courts cannot be established without having a judiciary with all the constitutional guarantees that might serve it to have a clear financial independence”8.

1.7 Guaranteeing constitutional standards by increasing the effectiveness of the Constitutional Court (very important)This objective appears as two objectives embodied in one. The constitutional standards are not identified, because (we think) they are considered self-explanatory. It is not easy to understand, either, what the drafters of the action plan wanted to say by “increasing the effectiveness of the Constitutional Court”. However, the latter, logically, turns out to be the principal objective, because constitutional standards will be guaranteed only through increasing (achieving) it. Obviously, guaranteeing those standards will also have its effect on strategic objective no. 1.

3. EVALUATION OF THE ACTIONS FORESEEN TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES The measures planned under this strategic objective are classified into 13 measures of a regulatory nature, nine measures for increasing capacities and six measures of qualitative improvements. The monitoring and evaluating mechanisms are divided into quantitative ones (14) and qualitative ones (13).

It has been thought to achieve the specific objectives intended in the action plan for consolidation of the independence of the judicial power and the organs of the justice system in the structural, functional and financial direction, as well as the consolidation of inter-institutional dialogue and cooperation, through the implementation of a series of measures/actions, detailed there.

In general, the measures identified have to do with improving the existing functions of the institutions with an effect in the particular case, restructuring them or creating new, more effective structures, changes in the legal framework that regulates the respective relations or new legislative initiatives and more general implementation of the current legislation. The nature of those measures varies, but the greatest number is taken up by measures of a regulatory nature, since it is assumed that a good part of

8. Constitutional Court decision no. 11/2010.

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

the specific objectives will be addressed exclusively through drawing up legal acts. Not far behind are measures of a nature of increasing capacities, the accomplishment of which aims at other new structures within the organs of justice, or improvement of a qualitative level of the work of the existing structures.

1.1 Facilitation of self-government of the judicial power and increasing its ability to affect the two other powers (very important). It has been foreseen to realise this specific objective through two measures of a nature of qualitative improvement, which consists of “the effective implementation of the functions of the NJC and its commissions, especially for the election of members of the HCJ” and “the improvement of inter-institutional dialogue and cooperation through the contribution of the NJC”. The planned measures are not sufficient to assure the implementation of the specific objective, which is broader. Those two measures only touch this objective in part, at least considering its formulation. Measure 1.1.2 appears more as a specific objective in itself, which should have been elaborated with concrete actions, than as a measure.

1.2. Strengthening the contribution of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) in the functioning of the judicial power, for justice that is independent, transparent, efficacious and with public trust, as well as to guarantee the exercise and protection of its fundamental rights (very important). It has been foreseen to realise this specific objective through five measures, of which two are of a regulatory nature (“The integration of legal mechanisms for the implementation of the 30% quota for gender inclusion” and “Improvement of the rules of the inspectorate according to European standards”) and three of a nature of increasing capacities (“Analysis of full time membership of the members of the HCJ”, “Recruitment of quality, professional employees, with high integrity, in the staff of the HCJ” and “Expansion of the Documentation Centre for the Practice of the ECtHR”). Those measures, as will be argued in what follows, in total have little or no influence on making the specific objective cited above a reality.

In practice, measure 1.2.1, in the sense of respect for the constitutional formulas in force, cannot be realised (as to this, there is also constitutional jurisprudence); measure 1.2.3 is at the boundaries of the hypothesis; measures 1.2.4 and 1.2.5 are superficial in relation to what is aimed at, whereas measure 1.2.2 is considered as a measure with an effect in principle, but formulated with a large dose of subjectivity. Consequently, concreteness in the sense of being able to measure it is lacking.

1.3 Structural improvement of the High Court to increase its influence, authority and integrity (very important).It has been foreseen to realise this specific objective through eight measures, of which four are of a regulatory nature (“Reflection of specialised courts in the Colleges of the High Court”, “Improvement of the criteria and procedures for the appointment of members and the chairman of the High Court”, “Improvement of the status of judges of the High Court” and “Integration of legal mechanisms for the implementation of the 30% quota for gender inclusion”), two of the nature of increasing capacities (“Analysis of the continuation in office of judges of the High Court until they are replaced” and “Developing more deeply studies and publications in the High Court that assist in its unifying activity”) and two of the nature of qualitative improvement (“Conversion of the High Court into a


career court” and “Improvement of the procedures in the High Court, especially the procedure of preliminary examination and the avoidance of conflicts of interest according to the ECtHR”).

The above measures are, in general, concrete and with a direct connection to the specific objective that they undertake to realise. It is worth singling out measure 1.3.7, however, which (in general) seems presented in a forced way, because it is hard to understand why the implementation of a 30% quota for gender inclusion will be followed by an increase of the authority and integrity of the High Court.

1.4 Making a further profiling of the courts in the rendering of justice (important).This specific objective has been provided to be realised through two measures of the nature of capacity building, which consist of “making the administrative court functional” and “making a commercial court functional”.

The practice of western countries in connection with the organisation of justice recognises several systems, such as, for example, the pyramidal system – with several specialised courts, but which end up with one high court in the country, and the multi-pyramidal system – with several specialised courts, structured without any connection with one another, where within the field we have a court/courts of first instance, of appeal and one high court for every field/specialisation. Of course, the second variant is more effective, but it has a very high cost. In this sense, under the conditions of our country, the above measures are considered concrete, reasonable and in a full relation to the specific objective.

1.5 Increasing the management capacities of the justice system (important).It has been foreseen to realise this specific objective through two measures of a regulatory nature (“Drafting and approval of the law “On the judicial administration” for the progressive inclusion of the administration into the civil service” and “Drafting and approval of the subordinate legal acts of the law ‘On the judicial administration’”) and one measure of a capacity-building nature (“Training the chairmen and chancellors of the courts of the first instance and of appeal, as well as the judicial administration”. The measures may be considered prima facie to have been conceived in a logical relation to the objective and with an effect on it. Measure 1.5.2 merits a re-formulation, because it is difficult to understand what its real purpose is; it seems as if the law “On the judicial administration” is being done only to include the judicial administration in the civil service, whereas it should go much farther than that.

1.6 Independent administration of the judicial budget, improving inter-institutional cooperation and assuring a functional scheme (very important) It has been foreseen to realise this specific objective through one measure of a regulatory nature (“Drafting and approval of a new law on the OAJB”), one measure of a capacity-building nature (“Drawing up annual draft budgets in cooperation with other justice actors”) and one measure with the nature of qualitative improvement (“Effective implementation of the legislation on the independent administration of the funds of the courts, as well as the auditing of public funds”). In addition to measure 1.6.1, which is a concrete measure and one necessary to achieve specific objective 1.6, the two other measures are continuing duties and part of the work routine of the respective institutions that administer the judicial budget. Measure 1.6.3 is much more of an objective than a measure.

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

1.7 Guaranteeing constitutional standards by increasing the effectiveness of the Constitutional Court (very important)It has been foreseen to realise this specific objective through five measures, of which four have a regulatory nature (“Drafting and approval of an amending law ‘On the organisation and functioning of the Constitutional Court’”, “Improvement of the criteria and procedures for the appointment of the members and chairman of the Constitutional Court”, “Improvement of the status of the constitutional judges”, “Integration of legal mechanisms for the implementation of the 30% quota for gender inclusion”) and one is of the nature of qualitative improvement (“Improvement of the procedures of a constitutional adjudication, especially preliminary examination”).

The above measures (excluding the one numbered 1.7.5) are in general concrete and with an acceptable effect on specific objective 1.7.

4. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT AS TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EACH ACTION / MEASURE

SpeciFic ObJectiVe 1: FacilitatiOn OF SelF-gOVernMent OF tHe Judicial pOwer and increaSing itS ability tO aFFect tHe twO OtHer pOwerS

1.1.1Effective implementation of the functions of the National Judicial Conference (NJC) and its commissions, especially for the election of members of the HCJ9.Responsible institution: ministry of Justice, High Court, High Council of Justice, associations of Judges Deadline for implementation: 2011–2013Status: Implemented in part

Since 2008, when the Constitutional Court by decision 25/2008 repealed law no. 9399 dated 12.5.2005 “On the organisation and functioning of the National Judicial Conference” as incompatible with the Constitution, this important structure of the judicial power functioned in the framework of a legal vacuum, with the respective consequences. Only a little while ago was this constitutional institution finally given a legislative aspect, through law no. 77/2012, “On the organisation and functioning of the National Judicial Conference”10, approved by a broad consensus in Parliament11. Even before the entry of the organic law into force, although without separate appropriate regulation, the NJC had exercised its primary function of electing representatives of the judiciary to the High Council of Justice. However, since the NJC also has other functions, this measure was considered only partially implemented.

Law No.77/2012, “On the organisation and functioning of the National Judicial Conference”, entered into force just shortly before the preparation of this report. The formula of the selection of the members of the High Council of Justice who will be elected by the National Judicial Conference12 guarantees the premises for a representation of the interests of the judges of all levels of the judicial system, assuring their protection from any inappropriate influence. On the other hand, the new law provides a detailed procedure of the selection of the members of the High Council of Justice, a procedure that aims at establishing standards of transparency, the principle of competition, a quality composition of this

9. An asterisk means that the measure is a long-term one, going beyond the period of monitoring. 10. Date of the act: 26.7.2012, date of approval 26.7.2012, Official Journal No.106, page 5920.11. The law “On the organisation and functioning of the National Judicial Conference” was approved with 128 votes in favour and none against. 12. The new formula established by law no. 77/2012 is five judges of the courts of first instance, three judges of the courts of appeal and one judge of the High Court.


institution as well as its functioning with full membership at all times. There is no official information13 about the formation of the permanent and special commissions according to this law, about the drafting and approval of the internal regulations of the NJC or any declaration or recommendation of any kind in the name of this institution.

In itself, the measure is appropriate and relevant for the objectives intended. It remains to be seen how progress will go with its implementation up to the final time period of 2013.

The institutional responsibility for the implementation of this measure has, in principle, been correctly identified, but in real terms, up to the time of writing this report we do not have a “specific contribution” (evaluative indicator) of the NJC from the High Court, the HCJ or Associations of the Judges, which could not be given responsibility for this objectively so long as a law for its organisation and functioning was missing. For the same reason, it would not be fair to assign this responsibility entirely to an executive structure, such as the Ministry of Justice.

So far as concerns the time period, it is appropriate, because it is 2011-2013, and therefore it remains to be hoped that the NJC will quickly assume the role recognised for it by the Constitution and by the law.

1.1.2. Improvement of inter-institutional dialogue and cooperation through the contribution of the NJC Responsible institution: national Judicial ConferenceDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: not implemented

Since, because of the circumstances mentioned above, the NJC still has not constituted its functional organs provided by the organic law, there can be no question of the existence of a dialogue so far between the NJC and other institutions. The measure is considered appropriate and relevant to the objective intended.

In connection with the identification of the institution responsible for the non-implementation, please refer to the previous evaluationThe time period (continuing from 2011-2013) is appropriate, as are the resources and monitoring mechanism.

Specific objective 2: Strengthening the contribution of the HCJ in the functioning of the judicial power, for justice that is independent, transparent and efficacious and with the trust of the public, as well as to guarantee the exercise and protection of its fundamental rights.

1.2.1 Analysis of full-time membership of the members of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) Responsible institution: ministry of Justice, High Court, High Council of JusticeDeadline for implementation: First six months of 2012Status: not implemented

Considering information received officially14, it does not turn out that, as of today, any material, analytic

13. Miran Kopani, High Court, director of the Directorate of Studies, Publications and IT. Material sent by e-mail dated 17.9.2012.Valbona Vata, HCJ, chief inspector, letter, protocol no. 1218/1 dated 26.9.2012. Valbona Vata, HCJ, chief inspector, interview, 10.9.2012.14. Miran Kopani, High Court, director of the Directorate of Studies, Publications and IT. Material sent by e-mail dated 17.9.2012.Valbona Vata, HCJ, chief inspector, letter, protocol no. 1218/1 dated 26.9.2012. Valbona Vata, HCJ, chief inspector, interview, 10.9.2012.

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

report or study has been prepared about the effects of full time membership of the members of the HCJ15.

Full-time membership of the members of the HCJ was the object of a constitutional control by the Constitutional Court, which, by decision no. 14/2006, said that “the law under examination confuses the institution of the High Council of Justice, which according to the Constitution, is permanent in its function, with membership that does not act full-time in a continuous manner.

Article 147/1 of the Constitution, regulating the functioning and composition of the High Council of Justice, defines clearly that this Council consists (in its majority) of judges elected by the National Judicial Conference. As to the latter, it specifies not only the number, but also their quality as judges, as it also does when it defines participation because of function (“ex officio”) of the President of the Republic, the Chairman of the High Court and the Minister of Justice, who are not and cannot be permanent.

“In the case when a majority of the members of the High Council of Justice might not be judges, the Constitution would have simply appointed members, as in the case of the members of the HCJ elected by the Assembly. [...] This legal regulation is in conflict with the content of article 147 of the Constitution and its spirit, according to which the members of the High Council of Justice elected by the National Judicial Conference are not only formally but also in reality judges in office (in action). In this connection, Albanian practice, supported also by the content of several other constitutional norms, has considered judges as state functionaries charged with the duty of rendering justice”.Consequently, even under the hypothesis that full-time membership would prevail in its positive elements as against the current model, it would require an amendment of article 147 of the Constitution.

The reasoning of the decision of the Constitutional Court in question is also in itself an analysis of this issue, at the end of which the Court reaches the conclusion that, according to article 143 of the Constitution, “Being a judge is not compatible with any other state, political or private activity”. From the content of this norm, it is clear that the first and primary duty is being a judge in the sense that judges give decisions and render justice in a continuous manner. In connection with this duty, the Constitution has made an exception so far as concerns their non-permanent activity in the High Council of Justice, in which they represent the judicial body that has elected them to this constitutional organ”.

The analysis in question, as an action/measure, could have been made by each of the institutions identified as responsible, with the High Court, although with reservations, more interested in the issue compared to the two other institutions.

The time period is appropriate and the resources, both human and financial, are sufficient to realise such a measure. The monitoring mechanism is clear and leaves understood the approach of the drafters of the action plan for a future legal initiative for full-time membership of the members of the HCJ.

15. Considering information from the Ministry of Justice, sent by official letter to the Soros Foundation dated 10.01.2013, prot. no. 136, it turns out that the General Directorate of Codification at this Ministry has prepared a thorough analysis on possible full-time membership of HCJ members. Because the measure requires that the analysis should be a joint product, accepted by all the responsible institutions, its status remains unchanged.


1.2.2 Recruitment of employees who are professionally of quality, with high integrity, in the staff of the HCJResponsible institution: High Council of Justice (HCJ)Deadline for implementation: 2011 – 2013 (continuing)Status: Implemented in part

Because of the way in which the measure has been formulated, whether or not it has been implemented cannot be accurately concluded. Although work descriptions were requested for the employees of the HCJ staff, this information is not included in the materials that were sent. It is accepted that the current members of the staff are professional individuals and that they have integrity16.

The measure being analysed has the nature of capacity building and a priori is related to the specific objective. On the other hand, by the way it is formulated it is closer to being an objective in itself than a concrete measure. “High integrity” is a term with a strong subjective component, difficult to measure. The definition of a two-year time period makes it similar to an action, whereas it is not understandable why this tendency should not continue even after the year 2013.

The responsible institution in this case is the HCJ, and the evaluative mechanism is “Improvement of the performance of the administrative process”. This indicator is difficult to translate into tangible products, because it is the product of continuing efforts. The perception of citizens and the continuous criticisms about the Albanian judiciary from our international partners show as well, in one way or another, that the performance of the HCJ during these years has left much to be desired.

It is worth focusing particularly on the budget for realising this measure. “Operating expenses” are foreseen in the action plan, and in principle the qualification is probably correct, but on the other hand, it is assessed that the recruitment of employees who are professionally of quality and the preservation and strengthening of their integrity will continue in the future to be more of an objective and less of a reality of the public institutions, so long as the pay in those institutions remains at current levels.

1.2.3 Integration of legal mechanisms for the implementation of the 30% quota in gender inclusionResponsible institution: High Council of Justice; UNIFEMDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Not implemented

It is explained in article 4 (“Definitions”) of law no. 9970 dated 24.7.2008 “On gender equality in society” that “equal gender representation” is the representation of each gender with no less than 30 per cent in an institution, in a management level, in an appointed organ or in a political party.There is no information about the issuance of legal mechanisms for the implementation of this quota17 or the factual situation of the administrative staff of the HCJ18. Nor is the concept found in the internal regulations of the administration of the HCJ either or in the Regulations “On the organisation and functioning of the inspectorate of the HCJ”. So far as concerns the HCJ itself, in formal terms, women are mathematically represented at the minimum percentage of 30%; they occupy 20% of the number

16. Valbona Vata, HCJ, chief inspector, letter, protocol no. 1218/1, dated 26.9.2012. Valbona Vata, HCJ, chief inspector, interview, 10.9.2012.17. Id. 18. The authors of this report judge that it should be mentioned, even in a footnote, that during the period when the report was being finalised, we were notified by Mr. Rezart Xhelo, UNWOMEN (formerly UNIFEM), specialist of policies, in an e-mail of 31.10.2012, that “... currently, the Ministry of Justice is in the process of reviewing the draft law “On the organisation and functioning of the HCJ”, which will comprehensively address the implementation of a series of measures that have to do with the integration of the legal mechanisms for implementation of the 30% quota for gender inclusion”.

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

of members of the HCJ (three out of 15). However, this is not a realistic approach, because Ms. Shpresa Beçaj is in that function ex officio as Chairman of the High Court and not because of election.

This measure, important in itself, and having a regulatory nature, does not turn out to have been formulated clearly. It is not understandable what exactly was desired to be said by “integration of the legal mechanisms”: a) inclusion in existing legal mechanisms or b) new legal mechanisms. Still more, this measure does not turn out to have any direct link with the specific objective “Strengthening the contribution of the HCj in the functioning of the judicial power...”. It is not understandable why the implementation of such a quota will have an effect on strengthening this contribution.

The responsible institution for the implementation of this measure is the Ministry of Justice, because, as explained by the representatives of UNWOMEN (formerly UNIFEM)19, the latter is simply “one of the bodies that will assist and cooperate with the responsible state institutions for the implementation of a series of measures that have to do with the integration of the legal mechanisms for the implementation of the 30% quota for gender inclusion”. That is, the institutional responsibility has not been defined accurately. All the more, UNIFEM is an international body that cannot be responsible for the implementation of this strategic document. The static time period (2011) is considered appropriate for a measure of this nature, whilst the evaluative mechanism is very clear, although unrealised. The budget, in the line item “operating expenses”, is appropriate.

1.2.4 Improvement of the regulations of the inspectorate according to European standardsResponsible institution: High Council of Justice (HCJ); EURALIUS IIIDeadline for implementation: First six months of 2012Status: Not implemented

The Rules “On the organisation and functioning of the inspectorate of the HCJ” were approved by HCJ decision no. 195/5/2 dated 5.7.2006 and amended by HCJ decision no. 207/1 dated 7.2.2007. According to representatives of the HCJ20, “The current rules are in conformity with the best European standards”.The measure is of a regulatory nature. Theoretically, its relation to the specific objective is accepted.

The responsible institution is the HCJ itself, the time period is appropriate and the measure does not require any financial expense, because it can be realised by the internal structures of the institution; the indicator is clear and appropriate.

1.2.5 Expanding the Documentation Centre on the Practice of the ECtHR *Responsible institution: High Council of Justice (HCJ)Deadline for implementation: 2013Status: Not implemented

By decision no. 252 of the HCJ dated 22.9.2009, “the Rules of the organisation and function of the Documentation Centre of the High Council of Justice” were approved, providing for a Documentation Centre to be established as a technical sector of the HCJ under the direction of and depending on the Directorate of Law, Human Resources and Scientific Research. It turns out that it will also be

19. Rezart Xhelo, UNWOMEN (formerly UNIFEM), specialist of policies, e-mail of 31.10.2012.20. Id. note 15.


this current structure that will also document the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)21. That is, in real terms, the activity will be performed, but without there being a special expansion of the Documentation Centre.

In the absence of specific information about the implementation of this measure, as were as from monitoring the Internet page of the Documentation Centre, we do not see that this measure has been realised; the practice of the ECtHR is still not part of this Centre.

The measure has an organisational nature. It is clear and theoretically might have a positive effect on the implementation of the specific objective, because this fund of the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court, in Albania, might serve the judges to raise their professional level and to see decisions reasoned in a quality manner.

The responsible institution is the HCJ itself; the time period is appropriate, the measure does not require any financial expense, because it can be realised by the internal structures of the institution. The indicator, however, is not appropriate, because it is not easy for “better access to jurisprudence” to be identified.

SpeciFic ObJectiVe 3: Structural improvement of the High court to increase its influence, authority and integrity.

1.3.1 Analysis of the continuation in office of judges of the High Court until they are replaced Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, High Court, EURALIUS III, UNIFEM and other interested subjectsDeadline for implementation: First six months of 2012Status: Implemented

The High Court has prepared a report about the changes that should be made to the current organic law of this institution, addressed to the Ministry of Justice, in which, among other things, the need is examined for judges of the High Court to continue in office until they are replaced. There is no fuller and deeper and analysis realised specifically for this purpose.

Although the responsible institutions did not supply any document or information about the issue, in the draft law “On some changes and additions to Law No. 8588 dated 15.3.2000 “On the organisation and functioning of the High Court of the Republic of Albania”, sent from the Council of Ministers to the Assembly22, it has been provided that “A judge whose mandate has been completed or has ended according to letter “c” of article 139 of the Constitution continues to exercise his duty until the appointment of the successor judge”. In this context, it is presumed that in one way or another, there has been an analysis of judges of the High Court continuing in duty until they are replaced, and therefore the measure should be considered, a priori, as having been implemented.

The measure has an organisational nature and is considered important and relevant for the specific objective. In the experience of the High Court, the situation has often been verified when a long time

21. Id.22. http://www.parlament.al/web/PROJEKTLIGJ_PËR_DISA_NDRYSHIME_DHE_SHTESA_NË_LIGJIN_NR_8588_DATË_15_03_2000_PËR_ORGANIZI_14510_1.php

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

passes from the moment when the mandate of a judge of the High Court ends until he is replaced, bringing as a consequence the failure to create judicial panels with the necessary number of five judges; in that framework, this has caused delay in the examination of cases.

The responsible institutions in this case have been defined rather broadly, dividing responsibility in an indeterminate way between institutions/subjects, although they are interested. EURALIUS III and UNIFEM cannot be considered as responsible institutions; they are international assistance projects for the benefit of state institutions. This is also true of the Constitutional Court and the High Court, which would have to be considered as partner institutions for the implementation of those measures having to do with a review of their basic laws. This comment about institutional responsibility also applies to all the measures provided under specific objective 1.3.

The time period is appropriate and the recommendations have been synthesised in a draft law which is awaiting approval in the Assembly. The budget, under the line “operating expenses”, is considered appropriate.

1.3.2 Reflection of the specialised courts in the Colleges of the High Court * Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, High Court, EURALIUS III, UNIFEM and other interested subjectsDeadline for implementation: 2013Status: Not implemented

This measure was partially realised de jure with law no. 49/2012 “On the organisation and functioning of the administrative courts and the adjudication of administration disputes”23, but since article 70 of this law provides that “the functioning of the administrative courts starts after the entry into force of the legal regulations in law no. 8588 dated 15.3.2000 “On the organisation and functioning of the High Court” for the creation of the administrative college of that court” and that, although there is a draft law with the title “On some amendments and additions to law no. 8588 dated 15.3.2000 “On the organisation and functioning of the High Court of the Republic of Albania”, sent from the Council of Ministers to the Assembly24, in practice this amendment has not yet been turned into law yet, for political reasons, and consequently, the measure cannot be considered implemented de facto.

This measure has an organisational nature, is important and has a direct link to the specific objective that it aims at realising. The creation of specialised bodies (specifically: the creation of an administrative college) will, it is judged, have an effect on the rendering of justice within a reasonable time. It has been provided in the draft law “On some amendments and additions to law no. 8588 dated 15.3.2000 ‘On the organisation and functioning of the High Court of the Republic of Albania’”. The new draft also provides for an increase of the number of members of the High Court from 17 to 19 members, precisely because of the creation of the administrative college, something that might help in reducing the length of time of trial of cases in that court.

The High Court cannot be the responsible institution for a measure that is specifically directed to an institution that does not have the constitutional possibility for a legislative initiative – in this case, it has to be the Ministry of Justice (the executive). The time period is appropriate and it is judged that within

23. Law no. 49/2012, date of the act 3.5.2012, date of approval 3.5.2012, Official Journal No. 53, page 2701. 24. Op. cit. note 19.


it, the measure can and should be realised. The indicator is appropriate, but it remains to be evaluated concretely in the future. The budget, in the line item “operating expenses”, is considered appropriate.

1.3.3 Conversion of the High Court into a career court Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, High Court, EURALIUS III, UNIFEM and other interested subjectsDeadline for implementation: 2013Status: Not implemented

This measure, which can be realised only through constitutional and legal changes, turns out not to have been implemented. A draft law “On some amendments and additions to law no. 8588 dated 15.3.2000 “On the organisation and functioning of the High Court of the Republic of Albania”, deposited in the Assembly, brings nothing new in this connection.

The measure, of a regulatory nature, is considered of great importance in the phase the country and the justice system in particular are currently passing through. The current regulation of the manner of appointment and election of the members of the High Court has been criticised by public opinion and international opinion, with the reasoning that it produces justice that is politicised. EURALIUS III, in its “Preliminary report on the need for changes in the law “On the organisation and functioning of the High Court”, says that the amending law “should support the conversion of the High Court into a career court by defining transparent criteria for the appointment of judges with experience, giving priority to experience in the judiciary and through making concrete the requirements provided in the Constitution”25.

The institution realistically responsible for the measure is the Ministry of Justice, since the High Court does not have the legislative initiative and the measure is exclusively of that nature. In the future, it would be good to separate the time period into intermediate periods, because the measure also requires a series of actions in order to be realised. We note that in the action plan, this measure has not been accompanied by any monitoring or evaluative mechanism. The budget, in the line item “operating expenses”, is appropriate.

1.3.4 Improvement of the criteria and procedures for the appointment of the members and chairman of the High CourtResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice, High Court, EURALIUS III, UNIFEM and other interested subjectsDeadline for implementation: 2013 Status: Not implemented

The measure, which can be realised only through legal amendments (and potentially, constitutional amendments) turns out not to have been implemented.

The draft law “On some amendments and additions to law no. 8588 dated 15.3.2000 “On the

25. http://www.euralius.eu/images/downloads/recommendations/comments/komente%20mbi%20reformen%20ne%20Lawin%20per%20organizimin%20dhe%20funksionimin%20e%20gjykates%20se%20larte%20albanian%20version%20.pdf

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

organisation and functioning of the High Court of the Republic of Albania”, which has been deposited in the Assembly, provides for amendments only in connection with the criteria and procedures of appointment of the members, but not of the chairman of the Court.

The High Court has submitted an alternative draft law to the Ministry of Justice “On the organisation and functioning of the High Court of the Republic of Albania”26. From a comparison of the two drafts, it can be seen that the draft of the executive is more detailed so far as concerns the criteria and procedures for the appointment of the members of this Court and that it also regulates the process of appointment in the direction of transparency (something that is not found in the version proposed by the Court itself ). In its “Preliminary report on the need for changes in the law “On the organisation and functioning of the High Court”27, EURALIUS III gives suggestions in connection with all the above, but in a general way and, to a certain extent, superficially.

This measure of an organisational nature is considered to have an important and direct effect in connection with the specific objective. It is judged that the current criterion “outstanding jurist” provided in law no. 8588 dated 15.3.2000 “On the organisation and functioning of the High Court of the Republic of Albania” has left excessive discretionary space for the election of candidacies for the High Court. The definition of other new criteria will increase the possibilities for bringing persons who are professional and of high quality and would add to the transparency of the process.

After becoming familiar with the draft law “On some amendments and additions to law no. 8588 dated 15.3.2000, “On the organisation and functioning of the High Court of the Republic of Albania” sent from the Council of Minister to the Assembly, one can see that the draft law addresses only problems related to the professional quality and number of members of that court, whilst the solutions proposed are problematic and somewhat unclear. Thus, on the basis of the draft law, candidates for member of the High Court who come from the judiciary must have five years’ experience as appeals judges, that is, it makes it impossible for a candidate to be a judge of the first instance, however many years of work he may have had there, whereas it hypothetically permits space for a specialist of the administration of a ministry with 15 years’ experience as a jurist.

However, for the first time, the draft law provides a series of conditions and criteria that an individual should fulfil in order to be elected a member of the High Court, The draft does not provide the respective percentages for bringing persons from within the judicial system and those outside it (advocates, the academic world and so forth) nor is there a quota in the framework of encouraging gender equality.

Although it is provided there that “a judge whose mandate has been completed or has ended according to letter “c” of article 139 of the Constitution continues to exercise his duty until the appointment of the successor judge”, considering what has happened with several members of the Constitutional Court whose mandate has ended, it is judged that it would have been good for a maximum outside time period for staying in office to have been defined.

Although the responsibility for this measure appears to be dispersed, the real responsible institution is the Ministry of Justice, since the measure is of a regulatory nature (legislative). Since the measure has been formulated more as a specific objective than as a concrete action, the time period is inappropriate. It is related more to the improvement of a specific situation than with undertaking concrete steps. The

26. Miran Kopani, High Court, director of the Directorate of Studies, Publications and IT. Material sent by e-mail, 17.9.2012.27. Valbona Vata, HCJ, chief inspector, letter protocol no. 1218/1 dated 26.9.2012. Valbona Vata, HCJ, chief inspector, interview, 10.9.2012.


evaluative mechanism is not entirely precise, because the true effect to be expected from this measure is that judges will be more professional and with more integrity, an effect that will be followed by a higher quality of service to the citizen. The budget, in the line item “operating expenses”, is considered appropriate.

1.3.5 Improvement of the status of judges of the High Court*Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, High Court, EURALIUS III, UNIFEM and other interested subjectsDeadline for implementation: 2013 Status: Not implemented

The elements of the status of a judge are in principle provided by acts high in the normative hierarchy and to a lesser degree in laws28. In practice, there has been no law approved up to the time when this monitoring report was prepared that presented changes in the respective legislation on the judiciary. However, that the time period of the measure is unfinished deserves to be emphasised.

The draft law “On some amendments and additions to law no. 8588 dated 15.3.2000 “On the organisation and functioning of the High Court of the Republic of Albania”, filed in the Assembly, does not offer any amendment/improvement in connection with the status of the members of the High Court. On the other hand, the alternative draft law “On the organisation and functioning of the High Court of the Republic of Albania” proposed by the court itself in the work group for amending the law in question offers qualitative regulations so far as concerns the appointment of a member of the High Court as a judge of appeal at the end of his mandate as well as the pay.

According to the European Charter on the Status of Judges (DAJ/DOC (98) 23), the elements of the status of the judiciary are identified with the level of the normative act that regulates the relations in the hierarchy of acts, the existence of a body consisting in its majority of judges that decides on the appointment, transferring, staying in office, movement in duty and disciplinary measures against them, pay and other necessary means to fulfil their duties. In this context, that measure is considered very important and with a direct effect on the specific objective aimed at.

Although the responsibility appears disbursed, the real responsible institution is the Ministry of Justice, since the measure is of a regulatory nature (legislative). The time period is appropriate, but an evaluative mechanism is lacking.

Improving the status of the judges of the High Court also merits being further specified concerning the budget necessary to implement the measure. Currently, so far as the honorific elements of their representation are concerned, this status appears to be at satisfactory levels, whereas from the point of view of increasing the professional qualities (international activities, publications and so forth) and personal integrity, it is evaluated that this should go beyond pay and some benefits of the nature of “operating expenses”.

1.3.6 Improvement of the procedures of adjudication in the High Court, especially preliminary

28. Id. note 1.

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

examination and the avoidance of conflicts of interest according to the ECtHR Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, High Court, EURALIUS III, UNIFEM, other interested subjectsDeadline for implementation: First six months of 2012 Status: Not implemented

The procedures of adjudication in the High Court are provided by its organic law and by the Codes of Criminal and Civil Procedure. From the information received from the High Court, there does not turn out to be any legislative initiative for changes in connection with the above. There is no other information from the Ministry of Justice29. According to the draft annual report of the Ministry of Integration (dated 1.9.2012), as to amendments to the procedural codes to reduce the volume of cases in the High Court, they “are ready and will pass together with the other respective amendments to the mentioned codes”30.

So far as concerns the “avoidance of conflicts of interest”, the draft law “On some amendments and additions to law no. 8588 dated 15.3.2000 “On the organisation and functioning of the High Court of the Republic of Albania”, filed in the Assembly, provides as an additional criterion for the election of an individual who meets the legal conditions that he “not have a conflict of interest or a tie of nepotism with judges of the courts of ordinary jurisdiction”. The measure refers to the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, but neither in the narrative part of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy nor even less in the action plan are examples mentioned of the criteria and specific decisions of this court.

From the practice, cases are known when the ECtHR has found violations of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights by Albanian courts in connection with judges who have not succeeded in being or seeming to be impartial, but this has happened more because of the wrong application of the existing legislation than as a consequence of the absence of legal regulations. In this context, it is evaluated that this special regulation is not clear. Even more, evidencing a conflict of interest only in the meaning of a tie of nepotism with judges of the courts of ordinary jurisdiction, with the consequence of not being able to be elected a judge of the High Court, is not proportional, because it can be avoided case by case by the judge chosen.

In the “Preliminary report on the need for changes in the law “On the organisation and functioning of the High Court”, EURALIUS III says31: “The High Court has a considerable working caseload. [...]. According to European experience, the main solution for the reduction of the workload of the High Court is based on reducing the number of cases that this court accepts. The only real solution would be a change of the codes of procedure to convert the High Court into an extraordinary court with jurisdiction limited to important cases”.

In this context, the measure in question, of a regulatory nature, is considered very important and with a direct effect on the specific objective aimed at.

The institution really responsible is the Ministry of Justice, since the measure is of a regulatory

29. According to information secured from the Ministry of Justice after the launch of this report in December 2012, through a letter send with prot. no. 136 dated 10 January 2013, it turns out that the improvement of trial procedures in the High Court will be secured through the respective amendments to the Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure. Since those amendments have not been completed yet by the Ministry of Justice, and all the more, have not been approved by the Council of Ministers and the Assembly, it cannot be considered that those improvements have been made. In addition, relating to “avoiding conflicts of interest”, the Ministry of Justice informs us that this will be realized through amendments to the organic law of the High Court, which still remains suspended in the Assembly. Since those amendments have not received legal force, the measure is considered unimplemented.30. www.mie.gov.al 31. Id. note 22.


(legislative) nature, but at the same time, also the High Court, as one of the subjects that should be included in the process of the implementation of this measure. The time period is appropriate and, similarly, the evaluative mechanism. Failing to realise the measure has come about for factors independent of the responsible institution. The budget, in the line item “operating expenses”, is considered appropriate.

1.3.7 Integration of legal mechanisms for the implementation of the 30% quota for gender inclusionResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice, High Court, EURALIUS III, UNIFEM and other interested subjectsDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Partially implemented

Article 4 (“Definitions”) of law no. 9970 dated 24.7.2008 “On gender equality in society” explains that “equal gender representation” is the representation of each gender with no less than 30 per cent in an institution, in a management level, an appointed organ or a political party.

There is no information about the issuance of legal mechanisms for the implementation of this quota (it is not provided in the organic law of the High Court or the regulations of the institution).

However, the measure is considered partially implemented de facto, because according to information sent from the representative of this institution, the minimum quota of 30% inclusion of women turns out to have been respected in total for the institution, but not so far as pertains to the body of judges of the High Court.

According to UNWOMEN, “for the implementation of these objectives, the Ministry of Justice has undertaken a legal initiative to draft and approve the law “On the High Court”. This initiative, which addresses objective 1.3, is currently in the process of discussion and approval in the Assembly in plenary session. From the content of this initiative, it turns out that the Ministry of Justice has not taken the integration of the gender quota of 30% into consideration, although it had been provided in the action plan of the justice strategy for this objective32.

This measure, important in itself, of a capacity building nature, has not been formulated clearly. It is not understandable what exactly was desired to be said by “integration of the legal mechanisms”: • Inclusion in existing legal mechanisms, or • New legal mechanisms.

Even more, this measure does not turn out to have a direct link to the specific objective of increasing the influence, authority and integrity [of the Court]. It is not understandable why the implementation of such a quota will have an effect on increasing those elements.

In this case, the responsible institutions have been identified correctly, because the measure has both a regulatory nature as well as that of qualitative improvement. The time period is inappropriate, but also not understandable, because this is a continuing measure. The monitoring mechanism is clear. The budget, under the line item “operating expenses”, is considered appropriate.

32. Id. note 17.

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

1.3.8 Developing more deeply studies and publications in the High Court that assist in its unifying activityResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice, High Court, EURALIUS III, UNIFEM and other interested subjectsDeadline for implementation: 2013Status: Partially implemented

The measure turns out to have been partially implemented. The High Court has not provided in its budget for publications of any nature. There is no public study known in connection with the competence of the High Court to unify decisions33. Of course, there are analyses, opinions or comparative materials prepared on a continuing basis by the study structures at this Court in the framework of their routine work34.

The measure has a capacity-building nature and in fact is more similar to an objective than to a concrete, identifiable action. In theory, it is a measure to which a time period cannot be given, because “deepening” studies is a cliché expression, which should have an unlimited time period. If it is implemented, it could have an important effect on increasing the quality of the reasoning of decisions, and consequently, also of the specific objective to increase the influence, authority and integrity of the High Court.

The responsible institution has been identified in a general manner, whereas objectively, it should be only the High Court, of course, assisted by the international partner organisations such as EURALIUS III (or in some cases also UNIFEM – for particular specific areas). The time period is inappropriate, whereas the monitoring mechanism for “issuance of new publications” leads to the insufficient financial resources of the institution.

SpeciFic ObJectiVe 4: Making a further profiling of the courts in the rendering of justice

1.4.1 Making the administrative courts functional Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, High Council of Justice (HCJ), Office of Administration of the Judicial Budget (OAJB)Deadline for implementation: Depends on the approval of the lawStatus: Not implemented

Although law no. 49/2012 “On the organisation and functioning of the administrative courts and the adjudication of administrative disputes”35 was approved by the Assembly of Albania on 3.5.2012, its article 70, point 3, provides that: “The functioning of the administrative courts begins after:a. the entry into force of legal regulations to law no. 8588 dated 15.3.2000 “On the organisation and functioning of the High Court” for the creation of the administrative college of that court andb. the creation of the infrastructure necessary for the normal exercise of their activity”.

Whilst point “a” has remained blocked for political reasons, in connection with point “b” above,

33. Miran Kopani, High Court, director of the Directorate of Studies, Publications and IT, interview, 26.09.2012.34. Id. note 25.35. Date of the act, 3.5.2012, date of approval 3.5.2012, Official Journal No. 53, page 2701.


according to Minister Halimi on the official on-line page of the Ministry of Justice, “work to construct the administrative court is going very well, and the construction company will finish it before the time period set in the contract, that is, at the end of the month of November, whereas it had been provided that it would finish at the end of December”36.

There is no information about the above in the materials sent from the Office of Administration of the Judicial Budget (OAJB)37.

From information obtained from the Ministry of Justice38, it turns out that presidential decree no. 7818/2012 has been approved on the proposal of the Minister of Justice, setting the number of judges for every administrative court. Following this the HCJ approved rules for the organisation of the written test, determining the test dates for selecting the judges who will work in those courts39. The Ministry of Justice has created the infrastructure necessary for the exercise of the activity of those courts. However, notwithstanding all the measures undertaken, the putting into function of the administrative courts remains a hostage of the High Court law, and therefore the status of this measure is considered to be ‘unimplemented’.

It is a generally known fact that for the political reason of not finding mutual majority-opposition language in the Assembly, the amendments submitted to the Assembly by the Council of Ministers for the organic law of the High Court have been blocked in the Laws Commission.

Putting the administrative court into function is a measure of a capacity–building nature, with a full and direct effect on the respective specific objective.

In this case, the responsible institutions have been identified correctly, although the failure to realise the measure has not come about because of deficiencies in their work. Although it is lacking, the time period is realistic, and the indicator is precise. The budget provided by the action plan is “operating expenses”. This definition would be acceptable simply and only for the preparation of the law “On the organisation and functioning of the administrative courts and the adjudication of administrative disputes”. A measure of this nature merits quite another specification of the budget, full and detailed, necessary to give life to a new institution with these characteristics and this important function.

1.4.2 Making a commercial court functionalResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice, High Council of Justice (HCJ), Office of Administration of the Judicial Budget (OAJB)Deadline for implementation: Depends on the approval of the lawStatus: Not implemented

There is no information about the implementation of this measure from the responsible institutions. Before becoming a competence of the HCJ or the OAJB, such a measure requires the drafting of the legislative framework, which is lacking even as a first draft.

36. http://www.justice.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=neës&lid=8002 37. Luljeta Laze, OAJB, director, letter “Information about the implementation of the Action Plan for Recommendation 7 of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania”, prot. no. 924/1, 31.07.2012.38. Letter of the Ministry of Justice with prot. no. 136 dated 10 January 2013, sent after the presentation of this report in December 2012. 39. Decision no. 299/1 dated 20 November 2012, “On the procedures of selection of candidates for judge in the administrative court of first instance and of appeal”.

1

OB

JEC

TIV

EMaking a commercial court functional is a measure of a capacity-building nature, with a complete and direct effect on the respective specific objective.

According to the action plan, the responsible institutions are the Ministry of Justice, the HCJ and the OAJB, but since the measure is of a legislative nature, the real responsibility is with the Ministry of Justice. The time period is realistic, since the implementation of this measure depends on another measure, which is the preparation of the respective legal framework. The indicator is accurate. The budget provided by the action plan is “operating expenses”. As has also been observed for measure 1.4.1, this definition would be acceptable for the mere drawing up the law “On the organisation and functioning of a commercial court”, but a measure of this nature merits quite another specification, full and detailed, of the budget necessary to make a new institution function with these characteristics and of this importance.

SpeciFic ObJectiVe 5: increasing the management capacities of the justice system

1.5.1 Training of the chairmen and chancellors of f irst instance and appeal courts, as well as the judicial administrationResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice, Magistrates’ School, USAID, EURALIUS III Deadline for implementation: 2011 – 2013Status: Not implemented

From information sent officially from the Magistrates’ School40, up to the moment when this monitoring report was drafted there does not appear to have been any training/seminar on the theme of court administration (or similar topics). In the many continuing trainings organised by the Magistrates’ School, it also does not turn out that chancellors or employees of the administrative staff of the courts have taken part.

According to the Draft Annual Report of the Ministry of Integration (dated 1.9.2012)41, by order no. 9024 dated 30.12.2011 the Minister of Justice approved a training programme for the period 2012-2014 for training the judicial administration42. Based on information from the Ministry of Justice, only the train-the-trainers phase has been completed, meaning that the training of the chairmen and chancellors of the courts of first instance and appeal and of the judicial administration has not yet started, and therefore, the measure has been evaluated as not implemented.

This measure, of an organisational nature (raising capacities), is considered important and with a direct link to the objective aimed at.

The responsible assisting institutions have been correctly defined, the time period (2011-2013 and continuing) as well. The indicator is clear. The budget, prima facie, as “expenses planned by USAID and EURALIUS III” seems appropriate.

40. Ela Qokaj, chancellor of the Magistrates’ School, accompanying letter, protocol no. 875 dated 10.9.2012. 41. Op. cit. note 24.42. The project was not made aware of such a document because of the absence of information from the Ministry of Justice or publication of this programme on the official Internet page of the Ministry.


1.5.2 Drafting and approval of the law “On the judicial administration” for the progressive inclusion of the administration into the civil service Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, EURALIUS III Deadline for implementation: Second six months of 2011Status: Not implemented

A draft law dated 16.07.2008 “On the judicial administration” can be found on the on-line web page of the Council of Ministers43. According to the supporting statement for this draft law, also found on the web page44, it fulfils the requirement of the European Partnership in connection with the status of the administration, providing it with the same guarantees that are in the law on the Status of the Civil Servant for civil servants of the public administration. Concretely, the same procedures are defined and unified for appointment, career development, leaving work, disciplinary measures, evaluation of work results that will have an effect on increasing the performance of the administration and the avoidance of arbitrariness in removal from work, also creating an appeal mechanism to the Minister of Justice for employees of the administration.

And what is most important in improving the status of the judicial administration is providing them with the same financial treatment as that of the employees of the civil service.

According to the annual progress report of the Ministry of Integration, “The contribution of Albania May-August 2012” (dated 1.9.2012)45, the work group assigned with drafting the law “On the judicial administration” produced a preliminary analysis and is working on changes, taking into consideration issues identified by EURALIUS III, as well as the progress of the new draft law “On the civil servant”. The work group reached the preliminary conclusion that the law on the status of the judicial administration should be drafted, as well, with the backdrop of the law “On the civil servant”. In the last days of preparation of this report, we have been informed by the media, and later by notifications published on the Internet page of the Ministry of Justice46, of a conference organised between the latter and EURALIUS III to launch a new draft law “On the judicial administration”47.

The measure, desirable in itself, has been formulated in a manner that is difficult to understand, because the principal action is not understood: is it drafting a law “On the judicial administration” (which will also realise the progressive inclusion of the judicial administration in the civil service) or the progressive inclusion of the judicial administration in the civil service (which will be realised through the above draft law)? On the other hand, according to the draft annual report of the Ministry of Integration (cited above), it turns out that the inclusion of the judicial administration in the civil service will not be done in the law “On the judicial administration”, but through the law “On the civil service”48.

It is worth mentioning that the Department of Public Administration (DoPA) has not been involved in the process of drafting this law49, notwithstanding that it is the main organ responsible for the public

43. http://www.km.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=8853 44. http://www.justice.gov.al/UserFiles/File/relacion%20administrata.pdf .45. Op. cit. note 24.46. http://www.justice.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=neës&lid=8039&gj=gj1 47. An evaluation of this draft law has not been possible because of the absence of publication of it on the Internet page of the Ministry of Justice or of EURALIUS III. 48. Based on later information sent from the Ministry of justice, the draft of this law was approved by the Council of Ministers on 4 December 2012, a period not covered by this report. Regardless, not yet having been approved in the Assembly, the draft law does not have legal force, and therefore the measure is judged not to have been implemented.49. Denada Kakeli, DoPA, coordinator for projects, e-mail of 10.10.2012.

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

administration.

The responsible institution in this case has been defined correctly (the Ministry of Justice). The time period is not realistic. The monitoring mechanism is logical. The budget, in the line item “operating expenses”, is considered appropriate.

1.5.3 Drafting and approval of subordinate legal acts for the law “On the judicial administration”Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, EURALIUS III Deadline for implementation: First six months after approval of the lawStatus: Not implemented

The measure has not been implemented, as it depends on another measure, also not implemented. A measure of a regulatory nature, it is presumed a priori necessary for the best possible implementation of the law that it will elaborate.

The responsible institution in this case was been correctly defined (the Ministry of Justice). The time period is realistic. The monitoring mechanism is logical. The budget, in the line “operating expenses”, is appropriate.

SpeciFic ObJectiVe 6: independent administration of the judicial budget, improving inter-institutional cooperation and assuring a functional scheme

1.6.1 Drafting and approval of a new law for the OAJB Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Not implemented

The measure has not been implemented, despite the expiration of the time period defined in the action plan.

According to the Report “On the implementation of an action plan in connection with the Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania” (June – July 2012)50, it is learned that a work group was created for drafting a law “On the creation of the Office of Administration of the Judicial Budget” and its work has been completed. This work group concluded that the problematic issues identified can be addressed through the financial and auditing legislation that is currently in force51.

The Office of Administration of the Judicial Budget has an extraordinary role in the framework of the self-government of the judicial power as equal to the two other historic powers, because of the role that finances have in their essence for the manner of exercise of the power in itself. Furthermore, with the new law “On the organisation and functioning of the National Judicial Conference”, this office has also been assigned the duty of performing the necessary administrative and technical services for the functioning of the latter.

50. http://mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=204251. Report on the implementation of the action plan for fulfilling the 12 Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania, October 2012, accessed on the Internet page of the Ministry of Integration http://www.mie.gov.al/


Base on the above, the measure is considered important, clear and necessary to achieve the specific objective.

The responsible institution in this case has been correctly defined (the Ministry of Justice). The time period is not realistic. The monitoring mechanism is logical.

1.6.2 Preparation of draft annual budgets in cooperation with the other justice actorsResponsible institution: Office of Administration of the Judicial Budget (OAJB) and interested subjectsDeadline for implementation: 2011 - 2013Status: Implemented

This is a routine, annual measure, which is implemented by the OAJB and is the core of its very existence, in the framework of the application of its organic law no. 8363 dated 1.7.1998 “On the creation of the office of administration of the judicial budget”. For this reason, this measure should not have been included in the action plan.

From information obtained officially from the OAJB52, this measure turns out to have been implemented. In connection with the phrase “in connection with the other justice actors”, according to the existing law they are identified as representatives of the judiciary and representatives of the Ministry of Justice (the executive). Of course, the drawing up and implementation of the budget of the courts is subject to the rules and legal procedures for drawing up and implementing the Albanian state budget. The measure is considered important, concrete and relevant to the objective aimed at. The responsible institution in this case has been correctly defined (the OAJB). The time period is quite meaningless, since the measure is a routine activity. The monitoring mechanism is accurate. The budget, in the line item “operating expenses”, is considered appropriate.

1.6.3 Effective implementation of the legislation on the independent administration of the funds of the courts as well as for the audit of public fundsResponsible institution: Not defined in the action planDeadline for implementation: 2011 – 2013 (continuing)Status: Partially implemented

Because of its nature, this is a measure that is very difficult to monitor. The authors of this report asked High State Council (HSC) for its report “On the audit conducted in the Office of Administration of the Judicial Budget, Tirana”, a report that covers the period of activity by the OAJB from 1.4.2008 to 31.12.2010.

According to that report, one violation was identified of CMD No. 1 dated 10.1.2007 “On the approval of the rules of public procurement”, as well as the absence of a tender in the file. However, the authors of this report do not consider it proper to speak about the status of this measure based only on that.

The measure has been formulated in such a way as to resemble an objective within the specific

52. Luljeta Laze, OAJB, director, letter with protocol no. 924/1 dated 31.7.2012.

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

objective. It is also meaningless to give a specific term (2011-2013) for realising it. We think that the failure to define the institutions responsible for implementing the measure should be mentioned. (This is perhaps because all the institutions involved in the administration of the funds of the courts should apply the relevant legislation effectively).

The evaluative mechanism of the measure is reasonable, although problematic to measure. The budget, in the line item “operating expenses”, is considered appropriate, but because of the formulation of the measure, it is somewhat difficult to understand its logic.

SpeciFic ObJectiVe 7: guaranteeing constitutional standards through increasing the effectiveness of the Constitutional Court

1.7.1 Drafting and approval of the amending law “On the organisation and functioning of the Constitutional Court”Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, Constitutional Court, EURALIUS IIIDeadline for implementation: First six months of 2011 Status: Not implemented

This measure has not been implemented. According to information received from the Constitutional Court53, “the Ministry of Justice has started a process for amendments to law no. 8577 dated 10.2.2000 ‘On the organisation and functioning of the Constitutional Court’, but there is no information about its progress”.

In the inability to know the reasoning of those who are proposing changes in the existing law on the Constitutional Court, it is evaluated that perhaps the new amending input for the above law might be able to address some weak points of the process of adjudication, decision-making and implementation of the decisions of the Constitutional Court, as shown by decisions of the ECtHR in Strasbourg.

However, from the report on the implementation of the action plan for fulfilling the 12 Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania (June – July 2012)54, it is learned that a work group has been set up to analyse law no. 8577 dated 10.2.2000 “On the organisation and functioning of the Constitutional Court”. According to that report, “the amendments to this law did not manage to address the main problems of the functioning of this court. This work group has ceased to exist”. Under these conditions, this measure should be removed from the action plan.

The responsible institution in this case has been correctly defined (the Ministry of Justice). The time period is not realistic. The monitoring mechanism is logical. Formally, the budget, in the line item “operating expenses”, is considered appropriate.

1.7.2 Improvement of the criteria and procedures for the appointment of the members and chairman of the Constitutional CourtResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice, Constitutional Court, EURALIUS IIIDeadline for implementation: 2013Status: Not implemented

53. Noela Ruco, Constitutional Court, director in the Directorate of Research, Studies and Publications, e-mail of 19.09.2012.54. http://mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2042


This measure, which can be realised only through legal changes (and potentially even constitutional ones) turns out not to have been implemented.

The Constitutional Court regulates its activity based on the Constitution (articles 124-13455), organic law no. 8577 dated 10.2.2000 “On the organisation and functioning of the Constitutional Court” as well as its internal rules. The procedures for the appointment of the members and president of the Constitutional Court are also provided in those normative acts. The procedures have recently become a part of the analyses of constitutional decision-making, but going even farther. Because of the deficiency in the current regulation of the provisions that define those procedures, as is known, several of the members of that Court whose mandate has ended are continuing in office. Even more, the sole criterion of election of a “jurist with high qualification and work experience of no less than 15 years in the profession” has not been shown to be a good filter for the selection of the members of the Court.

Based on this micro-analysis, it is evaluated that this measure of a regulatory nature is essential and has a direct connection with the specific objective. But considering that it is no longer considered necessary to amend the organic law of the Constitutional Court, this measure can be realised only through changes in the internal rules of the institution, amendments that in no case should exceed the provisions of the organic law and which, as such, would have a very limited effect, making it difficult to address and reach the purpose of this measure.

The real institution responsible is the Ministry of Justice, since the measure is of a regulatory (legislative) nature. The time period is appropriate; the monitoring mechanism is rational. The budget, in the line item “operating expenses”, is considered appropriate.

1.7.3 Improvement of the status of constitutional judgesResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice, Constitutional Court, EURALIUS IIIDeadline for implementation: 2013Status: Not implemented

The elements of the status of a constitutional judge are provided by the Constitution and by the organic law of the Constitutional Court. In practice, there is no constitutional amendment or law approved up to the time when this monitoring report was written that has offered changes in connection with the status of those judges. However, it is worth noting that the time period of the measure has not ended.

Unlike the status of a judge of ordinary jurisdiction, the status of a constitutional judge is provided directly by the Constitution, because of the sui generis nature of this constitutional institution. The above argumentation about the decision taken not to change the organic law of the Constitutional Court is also applicable to this measure. Consequently, this measure cannot be realised and as such it should be removed from the Strategy’s action plan.

Any kind of measure (of a regulatory nature) that aims at improving the status of those judges is considered desirable and relevant to the specific objective.

55. With several competences also provided by other provisions of the Constitution.

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

The real institution responsible is the Ministry of Justice, since the measure is of a regulatory (legislative) nature. The time period is appropriate. The evaluative mechanism is not clear.

As is also true in the case above of the status of judges of the High Court (measure 1.3.5), the budget necessary for implementing the measure being analysed should be further defined. Currently, so far as concerns the honorific elements of their representation, this status appears at satisfactory levels, whereas from the point of view of raising professional qualities (international activities, publications and so forth) and personal integrity, it is judged that it should go farther than pay and some privileges of the nature of “operating expenses”.

1.7.4 Improvement of the procedures for constitutional adjudication, especially the procedures for preliminary examinationResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice, Constitutional Court, EURALIUS IIIDeadline for implementation: First six months of 2012Status: Not implemented

Procedures for a constitutional adjudication are also provided in the normative acts that regulate the activity of the Constitutional Court. From the information received from the Constitutional Court56, there has been no change to the existing normative framework.

Being unable to learn the reasoning of those who have proposed amendments to the existing organic law of the Constitutional Court, it remains for us to guess that the new changes of that law will be able to deal with some weaknesses in the trial procedure, the decision-making and the implementation of the decisions of the Constitutional Court brought out by decisions of the ECtHR in Strasbourg.

Under the conditions when amendments to this law are no longer considered necessary, it remains for the procedures of a constitutional adjudication to be amended only through changes in the internal rules of the Constitutional Court. These changes, however, cannot go beyond what is provided in the organic law, and as such, they would be quite limited in the impact that they might have.

The actual institution responsible is the Ministry of Justice, since the measure is of a regulatory (legislative) nature. The time period is appropriate. The evaluative mechanism is inaccurate. Formally, the budget, in the line item “operating expenses”, is appropriate.

1.7.5 Integration of the legal mechanisms for the implementation of the 30% quota for gender inclusionResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice, Constitutional Court, EURALIUS IIIDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Not implemented

Article 4 (“Definitions”) of law no. 9970 dated 24.7.2008 “On gender equality in society” explains that “equal gender representation” is the representation of each gender with no less than 30 per cent in an institution, in a management level, an appointed organ or a political party.

56. Id. note 44.


There is no information57 about the issuance or implementation of legal mechanisms for the implementation of this quota by the Constitutional Court (it is not provided in the organic law of the Constitutional Court or in the rules of the institution).

This measure, important in itself, of a capacity raising nature, turns out not to have been formulated clearly. It is not understandable what exactly was intended to be said by “integration of the legal mechanisms”:

• inclusion in existing legal mechanisms, or • new legal mechanisms.

Furthermore, this measure does not have a direct link to the specific objective of increasing the effectiveness of the Constitutional Court. It cannot be understood why and how implementation of such a quota will have an effect on increasing effectiveness.

The actual institution responsible is the Ministry of Justice, since the measure is of a regulatory (legislative) nature. The time period is not realistic. The evaluative mechanism is a logical consequence of the measure. Formally, the budget, in the line item “operating expenses”, is appropriate.

57. Id.

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

COMPLETELY IMPLENTED

PARTIALLY IMPLENTED

NOT BEEN IMPLENTED

7%

18%

75%

IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE No.1GRAFIC 1

5. CONCLUSIONS ON THE PROGRESS ACHIEVED

According to the action plan, strategic objective no. 1 is addressed through seven specific objectives, which on their part will be realised in practice through 28 actions/measures. It is the expectation of the Strategy that achieving this strategic objective will influence the improvement of the quality of justice system services, in order to fulfil the needs of users and of the community with quality, speed and effectiveness.

In practice, so far as concerns the status of the actions/measures, out of the 28 defined:• 75% of them have not been implemented (21 measures), among which nine measures have a

longer time for implementation, beyond the time of monitoring, which shows that there is still time for realising them. Among the measures that were “not implemented”, implementation has started for six of them.

• 18% measures were partially implemented (five), among which four measures are long-term (until 201358).

• Only 7% measures were completely implemented (two), one of which was of a routine nature.

What unites the measures that were not implemented (in an absolute majority of cases) is their nature as regulatory measures, that is, such as is understood to need the drafting/realisation of a legal or subordinate legal act or a study. The realisation of measures of the nature is a question of fact. As to them, there can be no debate concerning the depth of the achievement; they are either realised (made material in fact in the form of a written document) or not.

Of the measures of that nature, only the one providing for the “Effective implementation of the functions of the NJC and its commissions, especially for the election of members of the HCJ” has been evaluated as partially implemented, because of the fact that law no. 77/2012 “On the organisation and functioning of the National Judicial Conference” was approved, although it is not yet functional. However, the NJC has exercised its function of electing judges to the HCJ.

Other similar measures, such as:

58. Measure 6.1.3 should probably be considered partially implemented, but because of its specific formulation, it was judged impossible for the authors of this report to monitor it.


• Making the administrative court functional; • Making a commercial court functional;• Drafting and approving the law “On the judicial administration” for the progressive inclusive of the

administration into the civil service;• Drafting and approving subordinate legal acts for the law “On the judicial administration”;• Drafting and approving a new law for the Oajb;• Drafting approving an amending law “On the organisation and functioning of the Constitutional

Court”

simply have not been implemented, because the laws and subordinate legal acts provided either have been approved but have not entered into force, both for subjective reasons as well as objective ones59, or have not yet been approved at all. For some of them60, it cannot be managed even to identify a format of a draft, that is, it is simply an idea presented in the action plan.

A goodly part of the measures – practically all of those related to the High Court and the Constitutional Court – are not consistent and could be replaced by a single measure (respectively, two): the drafting of a law on the organisation and functioning of the High Court or the Constitutional Court (or an amendment of the existing law), because in fact, all the measures are nothing more than concepts/ideas that would be formalised legally by the normative acts in question.

Another reason for the failure to realise some measures is that they are dependent on another measure, also not implemented (for example, the case of the measure of the drafting of subordinate legal acts for the law “On the judicial administration”, whilst the law itself has not been approved) or on other events.

In several cases, the measures have been formulated as objectives, such as, for example, “Effective implementation of the legislation on the independent administering of the funds of the courts, as well as auditing the public funds”. These are objectives rather than measures (actions).

In the case of the measure “Analysis of full time membership of the members of the HCJ”, there are also unconstitutional elements. The implementation of this measure, not simply formally but also with the intent to find arguments in favour of this form of membership, is very likely not possible without a radical change in a number of constitutional provisions. Its radical nature would even put into question the state-formation principles of the Republic.

Even in the only two cases when the measure is considered implemented, this is not connected to its essence. To illustrate this, measure 1.6.2 “Drawing up annual draft budgets in cooperation with other justice actors”, which is a routine, annual measure, is the essence of the existence of the OAJB itself in implementation of its organic law. Normally, this measure should not have been included in an action plan.

The action plan also includes measures that are more like slogans and which, analysed in the context of strategic objective no. 1 and the respective specific objectives, are not clear in the

59. Law no. 49/2012 “On the organisation and functioning of administrative courts and the adjudication of administrative disputes”, although approved on 3.5.2012, has entered into force, but it is not functioning because it is the hostage of a political battle in the Assembly (subjective factor) and the respective infrastructure has not been completed (objective factor).60. As in the case of the measure “Making a commercial court function”.

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

effect that they would produce. Examples are those of nos. 1.2.3, 1.3.7 and 1.7.5, which aim at the integration of legal mechanisms for implementation of a 30% quota of gender inclusion. It is not understandable why the integration of this mechanism in the HCJ, High Court and Constitutional Court would increase the independence and transparency of justice or the integrity and (even stranger) the effectiveness of those courts.

As to many of the measures that have been characterised as not implemented (nine out of 21), it should be noted that they are still within the time period foreseen in the action plan.

So far as institutional responsibility is concerned, it is not clearly brought out which is the responsible institution (or institutions) and which is the partner (or partners). In the case of measures 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.4.2 and all the measures under objective 1.3, the responsible institution should be re-evaluated, because it has been defined inaccurately. In general, in 20 measures the institutional responsibilities is defined appropriately, but in 8 measures it needs to be improved.

Concerning the projected time periods, in several cases (for example, measures 1.3.1 and 1.6.2) they are inappropriate, in the sense of not being necessary, because the respective measures are on-going, routine activities of the respective institutions. The time periods for implementation of the measures within specific objectives 1.3 and 1.7, although depending in real terms for their implementation on a single normative act (respectively, the law for amendments and additions to the organic law of the High Court and that of the Constitutional Court), differ in the action plan from one measure to the other. On the whole, it turns out that in 11 cases the time periods are not realistic for realising the measure in the service of the objective and in 17 cases the time periods are defined accurately.

The evaluative mechanisms (indicators) in general have been identified accurately in 19 measures, as the logical and objective consequences of the implementation of the measures. However, in several cases (to be precise, in 9 measures), the indicator is in itself an indication of not knowing the procedures intended to be improved (measure 1.7.4) or difficult to measure (1.6.3). Measures 1.2.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4 and 1.7.3 also have imprecise indicators; on the other hand, the indicator in measure 1.3.8 is missing.

The resources for implementing the specific objectives are “operating expenses” in an absolute majority of the measures (27 out of 28). In general, formally, it is evaluated that “operating expenses” are defined correctly for realising the respective measures, except in the cases of:

a. making the administrative court and commercial court functions, and b. recruiting employees for the HCJ who are professionally qualified and of integrity and improving the status of members of the High Court and the Constitutional Court, as to which further specifications and calculations should be made.

In connection with measure 1.3.8 “Developing more deeply studies and publications in the High Court that assist in its unifying activity”, the resource to which one is directed is the internal budget of the institution, which is insufficient for this purpose. As a conclusion, in 22 measures the resources are identified appropriately, whereas in six measures they are insufficient.


6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

The strategic objective would have been more synthetic if it were to have been formulated as “Consolidation of independence of the judicial power and inter-institutional cooperation”. Everything coming afterwards would have been a specific objective, because, in essence, it is a detailing of the ways/means in which the strategic objective, which is the consolidation of independence, is to be achieved.

The action plan should be reviewed in order to remove cliché terminology, which in itself is materialised in specific objectives that are difficult to implement, such as “Facilitation of self-government of the judicial power and increasing its ability to affect the other two powers”, which is questionable from the viewpoint of the constitutional principles61.

But in connection with the above, it would be more reasonable to unify specific objectives 1.1 and 1.2, because the first objective completely exhausts the second. There cannot be self-government of the judiciary (in our legislative framework) without the inclusion of the HCJ.

Objective 1.1 deserves to be re-formulated, because it is not understandable how the “facilitation of self-government of the judiciary” will follow from “increasing its ability to affect the two other powers”, or even more, what is meant by “the two other powers”.

Specific objective 1.2 is too long in its formulation; it would be sufficient simply to say “Strengthening the contribution of the HCj in the functioning of the judicial power, for justice that is independent, transparent, efficacious and with the trust of the public”.

It would be more appropriate to put specific objectives 1.3 “Structural improvement of the High Court to increase its influence, authority and integrity” and 1.4 “Making a further profiling of the courts in the rendering of justice” into strategic objective no. 3 “Consolidation of the effectiveness of the judicial power to be effective, efficient and open, as well as ready to act in compliance with the Constitution, international acts and the internal legislation, being guided by the principle of the rule of law, as well as strengthening international judicial cooperation”.

The time periods should be reviewed, because specific objectives 1.3 and 1.7 have different time periods in the action plan although in real terms both of them depend for their implementation on a single normative act, respectively, the law on amendments and additions to the organic law on the High Court and that on the Constitutional Court.

Measure 2.1.1 “Analysis for the full time membership of the members of the HCJ” seems to be the remnant of an old idea, which was rejected through a decision of the Constitutional Court. Putting this measure into the action plan shows that the constitutional jurisprudence has not been taken into account. Otherwise, accomplishing this measure would require a new formulation (an amendment) of article 147 of the Constitution, which provides for the composition of the HCJ. In this case, such a measure (“amendment of article 147 of the Constitution” would have to be added to the action plan.The measures numbered 2.1.3, 3.1.7 and 7.1.5, which intend the integration of legal mechanisms for

61. How can an increase of its ability to affect the other two powers influence the independence of the judicial power? The manner of expression here should have been more careful, in order to avoid misunderstandings.

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

the implementation of the 30% quota for gender inclusion, are unnecessary (and unclear, as they were inserted in connection with the respective specific objectives). For the actual establishment of this quota, it is sufficient merely to implement correctly law no. 9970 dated 24.7.2008 “On gender equality in society”.

Combining strategic objective no. 1 with strategic objective no. 3 should be considered.

It is judged that an accurate definition of the responsible institution (institutions) and their distinction from the partner institution (institutions) would be a more rational and efficacious approach.

Now that the end of the year 2012 is approaching, a new calculation of the time periods of the measures should be made in the framework of reviewing the action plan, since some of periods have expired whilst the respective measures have not been implemented.

Beyond these technical observations, it is judged that it would have a positive effect in obtaining specialised opinions, even in a critical spirit, if the Ministry of Justice were to publish draft laws and their supporting statements in the on line page of the Ministry, as the institution that is the driving force for developments of a legislative nature.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

LawS and SubordInate LegaL aCtS:The Constitution of the Republic of Albania.

Law No. 77/2012 “On the organisation and functioning of the National Judicial Conference”.

Law No. 9970 dated 24.7.2008 “On gender equality in society”.

Law No. 49/2012 “On the organisation and functioning of the administrative courts and the adjudication of administrative disputes”.

Law No. 8588 dated 15.3.2000 “On the organisation and functioning of the High Court”.

Law No. 8577 dated 10.2.2000 “On the organisation and functioning of the Constitutional Court”.

Internal Rules of the Constitutional Court.

InternatIonaL aCtS:European Charter on the Status of the Judges (DAJ/DOC (98) 23).

Rec. No. R(94)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe “On the independence, efficacy and role of judges” (13 October 1994).

Basic principles on the independence of the judiciary (Resolutions 40/32 dated 29 November 1985 and 40/146 dated 13 December 1985 of the UN General Assembly).

Universal Declaration “On the independence of judges”, adopted in the World Conference of Judges, Montreal (Canada), 5-10 June 1983.

bookS:B. C. Smith, “Models of judicial administration and the independence of the judiciary: a comparison of Romanian self-management and the Czech executive mode”, at Public Administration and Development, Volume 28, Issue 2, May 2008.

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America [Albanian translation: Demokracia në Amerikë, Soros Publications, 2002].

Official letters/documents from the responsible institutions:Valbona Vata, High Council of Justice (HCJ), chief inspector, letter, protocol no. 1218/1, dated 26.9.2012.

Luljeta Laze, Office of Administration of the Judicial Budget (OAJB), director, letter on “Information

1

OB

JEC

TIV

E

about the implementation of the action plan for recommendation 7 of the European Commission for Albania”, protocol no. 924/1, 31.7.2012.

Ela Qokaj, Magistrates’ School, chancellor, accompanying letter, protocol no. 875, dated 10.9.2012.

MeetIngS/eLeCtronIC CoMMunICatIonS:Miran Kopani, High Court, director of the Directorate of Studies, Publications and IT. Material sent by e-mail, dated 17.9.2012, interview, 26.9.2012.

Valbona Vata, HJC, chief inspector, interview, 10.09.2012.

Rezart Xhelo, UNWOMEN (formerly UNIFEM), specialist on policies, e-mail dated 31.10.2012.

Denada Kakeli, Department of Public Administration (DoPA), coordinator for projects, e-mail dated 10.10.2012.

Noela Ruco, Constitutional Court, director of the Directorate of Research, Studies and Publications, e-mail dated 19.9.2012.

on-LIne Internet pageS:http://www.parlament.al/web/PROJEKTLIGJ_P_R_DISA_NDRYSHIME_DHE_SHTESA_N_LAWN_NR_8588_DAT_15_03_2000_P_R_ORGANIZI_14510_1.php

http://www.euralius.eu/images/downloads/recommendations/comments/komente%20mbi%20reformen%20ne%20Lawin%20per%20organizimin%20dhe%20funksionimin%20e%20gjykates%20se%20larte%20albanian%20version%20.pdf.

http://www.justice.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=8002.

http://www.km.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=8853.

http://www.justice.gov.al/UserFiles/File/relacion%20administrata.pdf .

http://mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2042

http://mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2042


NO.2

OB

JEC

TIV

E

2

OB

JEC

TIV

E

Strategic ObJectiVe 2Consolidation of the responsibility of the justice system to be uninfluenced, impartial and consistent in ensuring equal legal protection for all parties, as well as being ready to react to the different needs of the community in time and quality (very important)

1. ANALYSIS OF THE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVEFrom the narrative part of the Strategy, it does not come out clearly what the detailed problem area is that relates directly to the current situation of the “responsibility” of the justice system. More concretely, it is not clear what defects/gaps are addressed by this objective. The result is primarily that the problem areas have been dealt with in an institutional framework, for example, when the High Council of Justice, the courts or prosecutor’s office is analysed and so forth. If the Strategic Objective is “consolidation of the responsibility....”, the objective should have been preceded by a synthetic analysis, sufficiently detailed, of the current condition of the “responsibility of the system”, accompanied by qualitative and quantitative indicators, so as to be able to measure, year after year, whether the responsibility of the system has been consolidated.

This objective has not been formulated with the appropriate clarity, and in particular the part “as well as being ready to react to the different needs of the community in time and quality” unnecessarily burdens its primary purpose, which is consolidation of the responsibility of the justice system. It is also unclear whether the term “responsibility” includes the concept of “responsiveness” or of “accountability62”.

If the meaning also includes responsiveness, then this objective should also have covered the way that judges and prosecutors exercise their constitutional and legal functions. If the meaning is restricted to accountability, the approach might be appropriate for its consolidation to be addressed by measures that assure that a judge answers to and is checked for his or her actions and decisions before a clearly designated organ or individual, respecting the principles of the independence of the judicial power. From this point of view, it is not very appropriate for a specific objective such as that of “Improving the status of judges and prosecutors...” to be included in this strategic objective. The status of judges and prosecutors would have been an appropriate specific objective in order to achieve the strategic objective of independence or effectiveness of the judiciary, but not its responsibility.

In drawing up strategic objective 2, the drafters should have limited themselves to the expression “Consolidation of the responsibility of the justice system”, emphasising in this way one of the three pillars of the system (the other two being independence and effectiveness).

62. At its core, responsibility means that a person or group of persons answers for their actions and decisions before a clearly designated organ or individual. See G. Griffith, Judicial Accountability, Background Paper No 1/98 NSW Parliamentary Research Service, p. 14; P. Day and R. Klein, Accountabilities: Five Public Services, Tavistock 1987, p. 5.


2. ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES Since the Strategic Objective has not been formulated clearly, and in the absence of a clear analysis of the defects/gaps with specific qualitative and quantitative indicators defined ahead of time, it is difficult to determine whether the specific objectives address the strategic objective in an accurate way, so that they bring measurable changes. Taking into account that responsibility is achieved not only by disciplinary measures or a professional evaluation, but also with ethics, this Strategic Objective lacks at least one specific objective (together with the respective measures), which would be “Consolidation of the ethical systems for judges and prosecutors”.

In the following, each specific objective is analysed in detail.

2.1. Improving the status of judges and prosecutors and ef f icacious implementation of the legislation related to: pay; immunity; appointment/promotion; disciplinary proceedings; professional evaluation; gender equality (very important). Specific objective 2.1 has been characterised as very important, aiming at addressing one of the biggest challenges of the justice system, strengthening the status of judges and prosecutors, which constitutes a fundamental precondition for consolidating the responsibility and independence of the justice system.

This objective consists of two main parts: improving the status of judges and prosecutors and the efficacious implementation of the legislation related to several elements that are a fundamental part of their status, such as immunity, appointment, promotion, disciplinary proceedings, professional evaluation and pay. This second segment has been formulated more as a concrete action. The objective has a logical link with, and a direct impact on, fulfilment of the strategic objective.

2.2 Clarification of the competences of the inspectorates of the Ministry of Justice and the High Council of Justice (very important).Specific objective 2.2 has been formulated clearly. It aims at solving one of the main problem areas mentioned in almost every Progress Report of the European Commission for Albania in recent years: a clarification of competences between the two inspectorates in the exercise of their legal functions, committing themselves to avoiding overlapping and unifying inspection practices to the extent possible.

The connection between this specific objective and the strategic one is not very obvious; a more direct connection seems to be with strategic objective no. 1. However, it can be presumed that every clarification of competences related to inspection as a part of the accountability mechanisms and control of the judicial system is important for consolidating the responsibility of the system.

2.3 Strengthening the role and independence of the prosecutor in the process of investigation (important)Specific objective 2.3 has a connection to the strategic objective, because strengthening independence also contributes to the consolidation of responsibility. It has been formulated clearly, concisely and accurately.

OB

JEC

TIV

E

2

OB

JEC

TIV

E

3. EVALUATION OF THE ACTIONS PROVIDED TO ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVESThe total number of measures in implementation of the strategic objective is 14, of which 10 measure are regulatory, three measures are for capacity-building and one measure for qualitative improvement. It contains twelve quantitative indicators and two qualitative indicators.The confusion and lack of clarity that characterise the manner of formulation of this strategic objective are also seen in the measures that have been provided to address the specific objectives. Those measures are not sufficiently concrete so that their connection to the respective specific objective can be understood. This strategic objective links the issue of responsibility with those of the independence of the judiciary and its effectiveness, although they are doubtless different sides of the same coin, complementary to one another.

There are cases when different issues are included within the same measure, as is seen, for example, in measure 2.1.1, dealt with below, or when the same problem area is dealt with in similar measures separate from one another, such as, for example, part of measure 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 on financial motivation and review of wages; or measures 2.1.5 and 2.1.8, which are related to regulatory aspects of the integration of the 30% quota in justice system legislation.

2.1. Improving the status of judges and prosecutors and efficacious implementation of the legislation related to: pay; immunity; appointment/ promotion; disciplinary proceedings; professional evaluation; gender equality (very important). It is aimed to realise the specific objective through five regulatory measures, two capacity-building measures and one measure for qualitative improvement. In order to clarify the relation of the objective to the concrete measures that address it, the objective should have been divided into two parts or two separate sub-objectives: one that is related to the implementation of the legislation and legal improvements on the status of a judge and prosecutor and the other related to accountability or responsibility such as disciplinary proceedings and professional evaluation.

It is also noticed that the regulatory measures related to the review of fulfilment of the legal framework on immunity are treated to the same degree as the financial motivation of the judges. Those are different issues, and therefore each of them should be made a measure by itself. In addition, a measure such as the preparation of a package on the standards of gender equality and violence in the family and the training of the respective structures do not seem to be connected to specific objective 2.1.

2.2 Clarification of the competences of the inspectorates of the Ministry of Justice and the High Council of Justice (very important).This specific objective is intended to be realised through two regulatory measures, one of which is a memorandum for institutional cooperation and the other, an amendment to the law “On the organisation and functioning of the High Council of Justice”. The two regulatory measures provided to realise this specific objective address in an appropriate manner the clarification of competences between the inspectorates. What is not clear, principally because of the absence of information, is what change is to be made in the law “On the organisation and functioning of the High Council of Justice” that will further clarify the issue of the inter-institutional competences, and which cannot be resolved by a Memorandum of Cooperation between the Ministry of Justice and the High Council of Justice.


2.3 Strengthening the role and independence of the prosecutor in the process of investigation (important)Specific objective 2.3 is intended to be realised through three regulatory measures and one capacity-building measure. The memorandum of cooperation is planned to improve the procedures of coordination of the inspectorates of the Ministry of Justice and the General Prosecutor’s Office, as a valid precondition for implementation of the recommendations of the executive to the General Prosecutor’s Office in the fight against criminality. Subordinate legal acts in implementation of the law “On the judicial police” also aim at filling out the legal framework in implementation of novelties in the direction of increasing the autonomy of the prosecutor’s office in the process of preliminary investigation and the performance of proactive investigations.

4. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EVERY ACTION/MEASURE

Specific objective 1: Improving the status of judges and prosecutors and efficacious implementation of the legislation related to: pay; immunity; appointment/promotion; disciplinary proceedings; professional evaluation; gender equality

2.1.1. Review/filling in of the legal framework on immunity and the financial motivation of the judges of the judicial district and of appeal Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, High Council of Justice, General Prosecutor’s Office, Ministry of FinanceDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Partially implemented This is a measure of a regulatory nature. It should have been divided into two separate measures: one on immunity and the other on financial motivation.

The regime of immunities in its current form responds to the recommendations of the international partners of Albania and the real needs of the fight against corruption, since it makes it possible to perform every preliminary investigation in secrecy and without it being necessary first to ask for the lifting of immunity.

The constitutional changes were approved on 18.9.201263, whilst it was intended in the action plan of the strategy for this objective to be realised within 2011. Proposals for limiting the immunities of judges, prosecutors and other public functionaries with immunity date from 2008, when the Democratic Party and the Socialist Party presented a draft law for changes in the Constitution in connection with the immunity regime. The proposed changes were never submitted to the Assembly formally, because the two parties agreed to re-start negotiations on the project after the general elections of 2009. However, the troubled political climate that followed the 2009 elections hindered all progress in the direction of that change.

63. The law dated 18.9.2012, no. 88/2012, “On some amendments to law no. 8417 dated 21.10.1998 “The Constitution of the Republic of Albania”, amended, made those changes. Article 137/2 of the Constitution provides that “judges enjoy immunity for opinions expressed and decisions taken in the exercise of their judicial functions. A judge may not be arrested or have his liberty taken away in any manner nor may a personal search or a search of his residence be conducted against him, without the authorisation of the High Council of Justice, except if he is caught during or immediately after the commission of a crime. In this case, the General Prosecutor immediately makes it known to the High Council of Justice, which may decide for the measure to be lifted”.

OB

JEC

TIV

E

2

OB

JEC

TIV

E

On this basis, the Project against Corruption in Albania (PACA) and the Mission EURALIUS III held two roundtables with the respective actors on 18 October 2010 and 5 April 2011. At the end of the roundtables, PACA and EURALIUS proposed changes to the Constitution of the Republic of Albania that, in essence, would:

• Reduce the inability of deputies to be touched (and, in this way, members of the government) by criminal prosecution, restricting the protection only to arrest and search (with a clause about being captured in flagrancy in the case of commission of any crime);

• Repeal immunity of the People’s Advocate, the Chairman of High State Control and the members of the Central Election Commission;

• Reduce the ability of judges not to be touched by criminal prosecution, restricting the protection only to arrest and search (with a clause about being captured in flagrancy in the case of commission of any crime).

In September 2012, the Assembly held a hearing with interested actors where two versions proposed by the two main parties were discussed. The parties reached consensus, and on 18.9.2012 the constitutional amendments were approved. So far as concerns financial motivation, the Ministry of Justice is analysing the legal framework in force, for the purpose of changing the pay scale for judges of first instance and of appeal in conformity with the models of EU countries. But there still is no concrete legal proposal. What is important is for the pay of the judges to be raised to an appropriate level, which meets the needs of the judges for an appropriate standard of living and reflects appropriately the responsibility that these professionals have64.

According to information from the General Prosecutor’s Office65 related to its proposals for the medium-term budget of the prosecutor’s office for the years 2013-2020, supporting the orientations of EURALIUS III, where the minimum of pay for a prosecutor of the prosecutor’s office of the judicial district should be at the level of 1,522 euro per month, an average increase of pay is provided for prosecutors of all levels and officers of the judicial police for 2013 in the amount of 25% and for the years 2013-2020 in the amount of 20%. Currently, the monthly pay of a prosecutor varies between 650-750 euro. According to the General Prosecutor’s Office, there is no decision from the Ministry of Finance about this proposal.

For the pay of judges, the 2006 proposals primarily from experts of the Mission EURALIUS I have been set out. The technical document of EURALIUS I on “Creation of a medium-term programme for increasing the pay of judges for the purpose of reducing the level of corruption”66 provides that the minimum pay necessary to be achieved in Albania for judges of first instance, depending on the purposes of judicial policy of the Government in the near future, should choose between several levels that are implemented in different European countries, such as, for example 818 €/month (case of Latvia, pay of judges in 2005), 836 €/month (case of Slovakia, pay of judges in 2003), 1060 €/month (case of Lithuania, pay of judges in 2003), 1436 €/month (Hungary) and 2400 – 2779 €/month (Greece and Italy). EURALIUS I recommended the creation of a medium-term/long-term programme for raising the pay of judges to a value near the average of the pay of judges in European countries.

64. See Kyiv Recommendations on Judicial Independence in Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus and Central Asia, http://www.osce.org/odihr/71178 65. Edlira Jorgaqi, General Prosecutor’s Office, Directorate of Foreign Relations, e-mail of 22.10. 2012 “Report on drawing up a draft medium-term budget of the General Prosecutor’s Office for the years 2013-2020”.66. Recommendation of the Mission EURALIUS I “Creation of a medium-term programme for increasing the pay of judges for the purpose of lowering the scale of corruption”, addressed to the Minister of Justice of that time, Mr. Aldo Bumçi, 5 April 2006.


The responsible institutions have been appropriately provided, although PACA and EURALIUS III should have been planned as partner institutions. The time period of implementation within 2011 was not provided accurately. The financial resources are only operating expenses, whereas every legal review related to the financial motivation of judges should have been accompanied by a specific amount that would correspond to the change in pay.

In the section for monitoring and evaluative mechanisms or indicators, “the entry into force of the law and the subordinate legal acts” is foreseen. This indicator is insufficient, because for financial motivation, the elements of such motivation should have been defined: for example, the compensations or percentage of increase of pay in a progressive manner or based on the workload of judges of particular courts.

2.1.2 Review of the legal framework for the issue of the organic structures and the wage system of the budgetary institutions Responsible institution: Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Justice, General Prosecutor’s Office Deadline for implementation: 2011Status: Implemented

This is a measure of a regulatory nature. It has been formulated in a general manner for all the budgetary institutions, making unclear its connection to the specific objective. This measure is also unclear because it refers to all the budgetary institutions, whereas this measure seems to be related to the above measure about financial motivation. Reviewing the pay of a judge and financial motivation are related issues, and it is hard to understand why they are treated separately in the Justice Strategy.

Based on information sent from the Ministry of Justice, the measure has been realised by the approval of CMD no. 545 dated 11 August 201167.Concerning the provision of institutional responsibility, time periods, financial resources and indicators, the comment is the same as for the above measure on the pay of judges and prosecutors.

2.1.3 Review of the decision of the High Council of Justice “On disciplinary proceedings” Responsible institutions: High Council of Justice, Mission EURALIUS III, judges’ associationsDeadline for implementation: September 2011Status: Implemented (beyond the defined time period)

This measure has a regulatory nature and is directly linked to the specific objective, which among other things speaks of the efficacious implementation of the legislation related to disciplinary proceedings. The Regulations “On a disciplinary proceeding against judges” were amended by High Council of Justice decision no. 282/9 dated 16.12.2011. The amendments add article 2/a, relating to a number of due process guarantees.

More concretely, a judge against whom a disciplinary proceeding has started is presumed innocent; he is clearly informed in a detailed manner about the facts of which he is accused, the violations and

67. CMD no. 545 dated 11.8.2011 “On the approval of the structure and pay levels of civil servants/empluees, the deputy minister and cabinet employees in the Prime Ministry, the apparatus of the line ministries, the administration of the President, the Assembly, the Central Election Commission, the General Prosecutor’s Office and independent institutions under the Council of Ministers/the Prime Minister, the institutionis under the line ministers and the administration of the prefect”.

OB

JEC

TIV

E

2

OB

JEC

TIV

E

the sanctions and the inspector who is designated. He has the right to make claims and requests; to be made aware of all the documentation of the disciplinary proceeding; and to have the assistance of an advocate. In addition, it is prohibited to apply new, more severe rules in a proceeding that has previously started.

The responsible institutions and indicators are appropriate. The resources that accompany the measures are adequate. The measure has been realised late, beyond the time period provided.

2.1.4 Implementation of the rules “On the system of evaluation of the work and professional and moral abilities of the prosecutors” Responsible institution: General Prosecutor’s Office Deadline for implementation: 2011Status: Not implemented

Based on information collected68, it turns out that specific rules about a system for evaluation the work and professional and moral abilities of prosecutors do not exist. This measure is related to the specific objective, because among other things it speaks to the efficacious implementation of the legislation on the professional evaluation of the prosecutors. The General Prosecutor has approved Order no. 135 dated 2.7.2012 “On the evaluation of a prosecutor”, which was also approved in principle by the Council of the Prosecutor’s Office.

Three pilot projects have been carried out in the prosecutor’s offices of Kruja, Fier and Pogradec for the evaluation of prosecutors, and this process will later be extended to all the district prosecutor’s offices. The pilot projects ended in September 2012. The prosecutors are evaluated according to the draft act of preliminary evaluation of a prosecutor69. This draft act is prepared by the director of the prosecutor’s office and is proposed to the General Prosecutor, evaluating the prosecutor as to every criterion of professional and moral evaluation. A final act of evaluation for the prosecutor is then drafted70, which is completed by the prosecutor of the Directorate of Inspection and Human Resources of the General Prosecutor’s Office and examined by the Council of the Prosecutor’s Office.

The measure should be reformulated in conformity with the applicable legal act, which is Order no. 135 of the General Prosecutor dated 2.7.2012.

The responsible institution provided for implementation of the order is accurate, whereas the indicator has not been defined at all. The resources shown are operating expenses and have been correctly provided. The time period is not realistic, because the implementation of this legal act for the evaluation of all the prosecutors cannot end within the year 2011, at a time when the act itself was approved after a year’s delay.

2.1.5 Integration of the legal mechanisms for implementation of the 30% quota for gender inclusion in the recruitment procedures, career development and transfer, as well as implementation of the 30% quota of gender equality at decision-making levels

68. Information received during a meeting with Edlira Jorgaqi, Director of Foreign Relations, General Prosecutor’s Office, 21.9.201269. Model attached to Order no. 135 of the General Prosecutor dated 2.7.2012.70. Model attached to Order no. 135 of the General Prosecutor dated 2.7.2012.


Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, High Court, General Prosecutor’s Office, UNIFEMDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Partially implemented

This is a measure of a regulatory nature so far as concerns the integration of the legal mechanisms for implementation of the 30% quota. The situation explained below is a factual one, but not supported on any special legal basis.

The courts: In connection with the implementation in practice of this quota, based on information sent by the High Council of Justice71, the lists of judges of the districts, of appeal and of serious crimes, updated in August 2012, show this division into males and females:

• Chairmen of the courts: eight females and 22 males;• District courts: 118 females and 149 males• Courts of Serious Crime: six females and nine males• Courts of appeal: 19 females and 47 males

From these data, the number of judges who are female is higher than the quota of 30% foreseen by this measure.

Prosecutor’s offices. During 2010, the ratio between male and female prosecutors was 88 females and 226 males; for 2011, it was 90 females and 226 males; and for 2012, 90 females and 234 males72.

In this case as well, the number of prosecutors who are female is higher than the quota of 30%.

High Council of Justice. Based on information sent from the High Council of Justice, three members are female and 10 are males, in this case the ratio is 23% less than the quota of 30%.

We do not have information about transfers of female judges compared to makes during the monitoring period.

In connection with this regulatory measure, the Ministry of Labour, Social Issues and Equal Opportunities, in cooperation with UNDP73, has made an attempt to review Albanian legislation from the gender viewpoint, for the purpose of assuring conformity with the CEDAW Convention, the legislation of the EU and its harmonisation with the law on gender equality. Before starting the process of official consultations among the ministries of the proposed amendments, the Ministry of Labour and the group of drafting experts held four consultative meetings74 in June 2012. The Ministry of Justice also had representatives taking part. The package was officially delivered to the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Integration in 2010.

Although it is seen in practice that the participation of women in the judiciary and prosecutor’s offices often exceeds the 30% quota, this quota still has not been integrated into specific laws on the

71. Elvis Cefa, High Council of Justice, Deputy Chairman, Letter “Answering the request of the Soros Foundation about the implementation of the Justice Strategy action plan”, prot. no. 1218/1, dated 26.9.2012.72. Directorate of Human Resources in the General Prosecutor’s Office, Letter dated on 21.09.2012.73. Ermira Shkurti, UNDP, e-mail of 23.10.2012 related to the status of the gender package in the judiciary.74. Ermira Shkurti, UNDP, e-mail of 23.10.2012. Consultations were held with representatives of the Assembly and deputies, the Ministry of Justice, the High Court, the Foreign Ministry, NPOs that deal with issues of gender equality and experts of the field.

OB

JEC

TIV

E

2

OB

JEC

TIV

E

prosecutor’ office, the organisation and functioning of the judicial power, the law on the High Council of Justice or the law on the High Court.

According to the Strategy, the indicators of this measure have been taken from recommendations and concrete results, as well as their implementation in the drafting process for amendments to the specific laws. As indicators, the quota of 30% should also have been provided for participation of women in the judiciary and prosecutor’s offices at decision-making levels.

The resources provided are sufficient, with part being funds from donors. The responsible institutions should also include the Ministry of Labour, Social Issues and Equal Opportunities as the line ministry that deals with gender issues. The time period has not been realistically planned.

2.1.6 General thematic inspections on the basis of the legal framework in force by the inspectorate in the courts and prosecutor’s offices of the judicial districts and appeal Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice and High Council of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013, continuingStatus: Implemented

This measure is in fact a routine activity and as such should not have been included in the action plan. However, for the sake of completeness of monitoring, we give the evaluations below. The measure is of a capacity-building nature.

During 2001, three thematic inspections were conducted, jointly by the High Council of Justice and the Ministry of Justice, respectively for:

a. Showing the reasons for extinguishing the security measures of “prison arrest” [because of trial delays] for defendants in the criminal case for the Gërdec incident75; b. Inspection in connection with the trial of civil cases whose object is changing nationality in the Courts of First Instance and the Courts of Appeal76; andc. Inspection of discipline in the work of judges77.

In the first inspection, the conclusion was reached that the main reasons for postponements of judicial sessions were a) failure of the lawyer to appear, in 40.47% of the cases; b) failure of a witness to appear or when other witnesses are requested, in 28.57% of the cases; c) failure of a judge to appear, in 10.31% of the cases; d) a lawyer leaving the session or because of his requests, in 8.73% of the cases; e) postponement because of the end of official hours or for the announcement of an intermediate decision, in 5.55% of the cases; f ) because of expertise or experts, in 3.96% of the cases; g) failure of a prosecutor to appear, in 0.79% of the cases; and gj) failure to obtain a letter rogatory, in 0.79% of the cases78.

In the inspection report, a series of recommendations for changes in the Code of Criminal Procedure were made so that the courts would have the right to impose concrete measures on parties who cause trial delays; the taking of measures for the good organisation of the judicial process by the judicial

75. Elvis Cefa, High Council of Justice, Deputy Chairman, Letter “Answering the request of the Soros Foundation about the implementation of the Justice Strategy action plan”, prot. no. 1218/1, dated 26.9.2012. Report of the Technical Inspection based on HCJ decision no. 274.12 dated 16.2.2011.76. Id.77. Id. Report of Technical Inspection based on HCJ decision no. 276/7 dated 6.5.2011.78. Id. note 15. Report of Technical Inspection based on HCJ decision no 274/12 dated 16.2.2011, p. 75.


panel; and the internal organisation of work in the court by its chairman79.

In the second inspection, it was found that during the period 2006-2010, a total of 2,759 cases with the object “change of nationality” were registered in the courts of first instance. Decisions of the courts are shown in the report that were changed in the higher course and where passivity by the employees of the civil status offices was found in the trial of conflicts of that kind. Several recommendations were made related to showing evidence for purposes of evaluation of the professional abilities of the judges, the decisions that were changed in the higher courts, the taking of measures by the chairman of the first instance courts for rigorously respecting High Council of Justice decision no. 238/1/a dated 24.12.2008 “On the procedure of allocating judicial cases by lot” and the need for unification of judicial practices by the Joint Colleges of the High Court.

For the third inspection, after the unjustified absence of several judges from duty was found, it was recommended that a work group be created to make the practice of granting leave uniform and improving the infrastructure of the courts, enabling audio-visual recording.

The responsible institutions, the resources and the indicators have been provided appropriately. The time period was also been accurately determined; it is a continuing one, because this measure constitutes a routine activity of the HCJ.

2.1.7. Conclusion of the evaluation of judges and prosecutors of the first level and of appeal Responsible institution: High Council of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013, continuingStatus: Partially implemented

The measure is of a capacity-building nature and has been clearly formulated. The measure is related to the specific objective, because among other things, it speaks to the efficacious implementation of the legislation of the professional evaluation and promotion of judges and prosecutors.

We were informed by the High Council of Justice that the evaluation process passes through three phases 80:

• compilation of statistical data from the courts; • collection of documentation and complication of a preliminary draft act of evaluation by the

Inspectors, and • approval of the final draft act of evaluation at the plenary meeting of the High Council of Justice.

For all judges who have been candidates for vacancies in the courts of appeal, serious crimes or management functions in the courts, the first two evaluation phases have been completed and within this year, the third phase of evaluation will be completed. The evaluation is a continuing process which, on the basis of the regulations of law no. 9877/2008 “On the organisation of the judicial power in the Republic of Albania”, will be done at least once every three years. Currently, four years have

79. Id. note 15. Report of Technical Inspection based on HCJ decision no 274/12 dated 16.2.2011, pp. 85-86.80. The process of evaluation of the judges is regulated by law no. 9877 dated 18.2.2008 “On the organisation of the judicial power in the Republic of Albania”. Article 13 of the law provides that at least once every three years, the HCJ makes an evaluation of the professional abilities of a judge in conformity with a decision approved by it about the evaluation criteria.

OB

JEC

TIV

E

2

OB

JEC

TIV

E

passed from the date of approval of the above law and the High Council of Justice has not managed to complete this process for the entire judicial body. From official collected information, we have found that a permanent list of the ordering of the judges still does not exist.

So far as the evaluation of prosecutors is concerned, this process has not ended. Pilot projects have been undertaken and completed in three district prosecutor’s offices, Kruja, Pogradec and Fier. In its article 27/ç, the law on the prosecutor’s office provides for a Register of Prosecutors81. According to this article, a register of prosecutors at the courts of first instance, the courts of appeal and the General Prosecutor’s Office is created in the Directorate of Inspection and Human Resources in the General Prosecutor’s Office, containing at least: a) general personal data about every prosecutor; b) data about their academic education; c) the date of appointment; ç) participation in qualifications and trainings; d) disciplinary measures, if any; dh) their evaluations as a prosecutor; e) data about their career; ë) data in the field of publications.

The General Prosecutor’s Office should also have been named as a responsible institution, besides the HCJ, as the responsible institution for the evaluation of prosecutors. The resources have been provided correctly, whereas the indicator about the judges should have been formulated as the preparation, publication and continuous updating of the permanent list of evaluation of judges and for prosecutors, the preparation, publication and continuous updating of the register of prosecutors.

So far as concerns the time period, at least for the evaluation of judges, it should be said that it is not accurate, because according to law, their evaluation should have been completed in 2012.

2.1.8. Preparation of a package for standards of gender equality and violence in the family and training of the respective structures Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, UNIFEMDeadline for implementation: 2012-2013Status: Partially implemented

See the section above about measure 2.1.5 on the status of the regulatory measure. On the other hand, it is hard to understand why the package about violence in the family and the respective training should be included under this specific objective.

Specific objective 2.2: Clarification of the competences of the inspectorates of the Ministry of Justice and the High council of Justice

2.2.1. Review of the draft law “On some additions and amendments to law no.8811 dated 17.5.2001 “On the organisation and functioning of the High Council of Justice”Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice and High Council of JusticeDeadline for implementation: Second six months of 2011Status: Not implemented

81. Law no. 8737 dated 12.2.2001 (changed by Constitutional Court decision no. 25 dated 13.02.2002 and amended by law no. 9102 dated 10.07.2003 and law no. 10051 dated 29.12.2008), http://www.justice.gov.al/UserFiles/File/Legjislacioni_Brendshem_Web/LIGJ_Per_organizimin_dhe_funksionimin_e_prokurorise.pdf


The measure is of a regulatory nature. The Mission EURALIUS III has prepared a preliminary report82 “On the need for amendments to law no. 8811 of 17 May 2001 “On the organisation and functioning of the High Council of Justice”, amended. A working group has been created for this purpose with representatives of the High Council of Justice and the Ministry of Justice, to prepare amendments to this law.

The preliminary report of the Mission EURALIUS III includes several possibilities for changes in the organisational structure of the High Council of Justice. The HCJ representatives in this working group have agreed with the proposals of EURALIUS III for the purpose of increasing its efficiency and transparency. In addition, they have considered the proposal of EURALIUS III for the creation of internal committees and the new position of General Secretary of the High Council of Justice, which will facilitate the activity related to the organisation and functioning of the Council itself. The opinions of all the members of this working group are awaited.

The draft law is expected to be ready during 201383. In reports prepared by the Ministry of Integration for implementation of the 12 priorities of the European Commission, it is emphasised that the work group will soon distribute a draft version of the proposed changes in this law. In addition, it is emphasised that several aspects to be dealt with by the draft law in question have already been addressed through other legal acts already approved, such as:

• The law “On the organisation and functioning of the National Judicial Conference”, which resolves the issue of conflicts of interest of members of the HCJ and the prohibition of their promotion whilst exercising duty as member of the HCJ;

• new criteria for the transfer of judges approved by the HCJ, and • a memorandum of cooperation entered into between the HCJ and the Ministry of Justice in

September 2012, which coordinates the activity of those two institutions and avoids overlapping in judicial inspections.

The responsible institutions, the resources and the indicator have been correctly provided, but the time period is not realistic. A more appropriate drafting of the measure should have been the approval and not the review of the respective draft law.

2.2.2. Signing of a memorandum of understanding between the Ministry of Justice and the High Council of Justice for the division of inspection competences Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice and High Council of JusticeDeadline for implementation: First six months of 2011Status: Implemented (beyond the time period defined)

This is a measure of a regulatory nature. The Memorandum of Understanding between the General Directorate of Justice Issues in the Ministry of Justice and the Inspectorate of the High Council of Justice “On harmonising the procedures of judicial inspection and the avoidance of overlapping of competences” was signed on 5.12.2011.

This Memorandum had the purpose of harmonising the procedures and practice of judicial inspection

82. Report of EURALIUS III on activities performed for the period 15 December 2011 - 15 June 2012, p. 30.83. Progress Report 2012, Contribution of Albania - INPUT II, May-August October 2012, accessed on the website www.mie.gov.al

OB

JEC

TIV

E

2

OB

JEC

TIV

E

in the two institutions84. The Memorandum had a time period for implementation of six months, because it was entered into at the technical level, and now it has been replaced by a Memorandum without a term dated 13.09.2012 between the Minister of Justice and the Deputy Chairman of the High Council of Justice “On avoiding overlapping of the competences of judicial inspection”. The Memorandum has the same purpose as the prior one, defining the forms of inter-institutional cooperation mainly having to do with coordination in giving information, standardisation of the processes of registering complaints, of verifying/inspecting complaints, of general and thematic inspections as well as of joint inspection85. At the beginning of the year, the parties deliver to one another the annual inspection programme for the purpose of avoiding possible overlapping86.

On 29 August 2012, a final report was also drawn up of the temporary memorandum prepared jointly by the Ministry of Justice and the Inspectorate of the High Council of Justice87. At the end of the period of implementation of the provisions of the six-month memorandum, it was recommended:

1. the signing of a final memorandum between the heads of the Ministry of Justice and the High Council of Justice. This recommendation has been accomplished;2. the publication and distribution of a Manual of Inspections. This joint Manual about work methods and rules, which aims at standardising the procedures of inspection88 and the verification of complaints89, has now been drafted;3. for increasing the quality of inspections, their effectiveness and the responsibility of the judicial power, it is also recommended that measures be taken toward the formal structure of inspection reports/ For this purpose, a structure of unified inspection reports should be approved by the heads of the two institutions. Currently, the structures have not yet been approved by the heads of the institutions, but the structure of the report as such has been included in the Manual. Finally, 4. it was also recommended that the format of the structure of registration of statistical information be improved on permanent bases. The system of online complaints is active on the respective websites of the two institutions.

The Memorandum of Cooperation in force and its predecessor – the technical memorandum – have addressed well the objective of clarifying the competences, effectively achieving the avoidance of overlapping and the standardisation of the work practices of the two inspectorates. The responsible institutions, the resources and the indicators have been provided correctly, but the time period is not realistically planned.

Specific objective 2.3: Strengthening the role and independence of the prosecutor in the process of investigation

84. Article 1 of the Memorandum.85. See article 2 of the Memorandum of Cooperation, http://www.kld.al/sites/all/documents/pdf/memorandum-kld-md.pdf 86. See article 3 of the Memorandum.87. Elvis Cefa, High Council of Justice, Deputy Chairman, Letter “Answering the request of the Soros Foundation about the implementation of the Justice Strategy action plan”, prot. no. 1218/1, dated 26.9.2012. Final Report on the Implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding ‘On harmonising the procedures of judicial inspection and avoiding the overlapping of competences’ dated 29.8.2012. The report includes these sections: inspection manual, structure of inspection reports, exchange of periodic statistics about complaints, and at the end, some recommendations are presented.88. Id., p 3. 89. Manual on the procedures of verification of complaints and inspection of the courts of first instance and the courts of appeal, drawn up by the Ministry of Justice, the HCJ and the Mission EURALIUS III, Tirana, December 2011-June 2012.


2.3.1 Signing a memorandum of cooperation between the Ministry of Justice/General Prosecutor’s Office Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice/General Prosecutor’s Office Deadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: Not implemented90

This is a measure of a regulatory nature. A draft memorandum has been prepared91 which has been discussed several times between the two institutions, but still has not been completed. However, it should be noted that the measure still has a time period remaining for implementation.

The responsible institutions, the resources and the indicators have been correctly provided, but the time period has not been planned in a realistic way.

2.3.2 Subordinate legal acts for the law “On the judicial police” Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice/General Prosecutor’s Office, Interior MinistryDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Implemented

This is a measure of a regulatory nature. During the monitoring period, these acts were approved:Order no. 165 of the General Prosecutor dated 19.9.2011 “On determining the criteria for granting a pay increase for work difficulties for officers of the judicial police”. This order makes the criteria precise for an increase in pay when the officer has been designated or transferred temporarily to a section with difficult conditions because of logistics or danger related to the activity; or when the activity requires specialised competences or ones that are out of the ordinary, the volume of work is extraordinarily great or the cases are especially complex, because of the number and importance of the crimes, the number of defendants, the international implications and the volume of evidence.

Instruction no. 1 of the General Prosecutor dated 19.9.2011 “On determining the criteria for compensation received for professional merits of police officers”. This act instructs the heads of the prosecutor’s offices to evaluate the professional merits of the officers of the judicial police based on several defined criteria, such as knowledge and mastery of specialised competences, in connection with special technologies and technical disciplines; productivity that is higher than average or commitment to work overtime; good management of complex cases; results achieved in coordinating large investigative groups and cooperation with groups at the national and international level, and the quality of the procedural acts issued by them;

Joint instruction no. 2 of the General Prosecutor and the Interior Minister dated 07.11.2011 “On the performance and conclusion of investigations directly denounced to the prosecutor’s office or started on initiative”. This instruction defines a number of rules related to the cases when an investigation is completed by the judicial police; the delegation of investigation to a service of the Judicial Police; the creation of joint investigative groups; the making aware of the Prosecutor with the service of the Judicial Police; and so forth.

Joint instruction of the General Prosecutor, Interior Minister, Minister of Finance, Minister of Defence and Minister of the Environment, Forests and Water Administration “On the procedures of competition

90. Realisation of this measure is in progress, because the time of realisation is provided up to 2013.91. Based on a meeting on 21.9.2012 with the director of the Directorate of Studies in the General Prosecutor’s Office.

OB

JEC

TIV

E

2

OB

JEC

TIV

E

for designation to a section of employees of the judicial police”92. This instruction is important because it makes precise, in a detailed manner, the rules related to the review of the personnel chart and free places, the documentation that should be delivered by candidates and the procedures of competition and evaluation of employees of the judicial police.

Joint instruction no. 3 of the General Prosecutor and the Interior Minister dated 15.12.2011 “On a disciplinary procedure for employees of the judicial police”. The instruction provides rules that are applied during a disciplinary proceeding, including among other things the principles of legality, objectivity, an oral trial and an adversary process in conformity with a due legal process. In addition, it explains the cases when disciplinary violations compete with one another and the criteria that are taken into account to resolve the disciplinary measure. The provision for registration of a disciplinary proceeding and the making precise of all the steps of the procedures related to a disciplinary proceeding, starting from the organs that initiate the proceeding, the order to commence it, becoming aware of the documentation of the proceeding and examining the disciplinary proceeding by the disciplinary commission and finally the taking of a decision by the commission.

The agreement “On continuous training of the agents and officers of the judicial police” between the General Prosecutor’s Office, the Interior Ministry and the Magistrates’ School93. This agreement is important because its core is the evaluation of the continuous professional improvement of the officers and agents of the judicial police as a necessity in the fight against criminality and in improving the process of investigating criminal offences. Thus, the officers and agents of the judicial police are subjected to continuous training by the Magistrates’ School and the Centre of Police Formation and their participation in those trainings is mandatory.

All the above acts play an important role in strengthening the contribution of the officers of the judicial police and the way they exercise their investigative functions. Those instructions aim at improving the professional capacities of the organs of investigation and criminal prosecution, assisting in this way in increasing their autonomy and the consolidation of their responsibility.

The third instruction has a direct link to the specific objective, because it clarifies the cases when the judicial police complete procedural actions, which pass to and become known to the prosecutor. The other acts are important because they strengthen the investigative activity of the officers of the judicial police, starting from recruitment, compensation and supplements to pay and continuing with accountability through the provisions for a disciplinary proceeding. Five of the six legal acts were signed in 2011.

The responsible institutions and the resources and indicators have been correctly provided.

2.3.3. Internal subordinate legal acts of the General Prosecutor’s Office Responsible institution: General Prosecutor’s Office Deadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: Implemented

92. Joint instruction no. 2 of the General Prosecutor dated 14.5.2012, no. 58/7 of the Interior Minister dated 13.6.2012, no. 121/9 of the Minister of Finance dated 10.9.2012, no. 6 of the Minister of Defence dated 25.6.2012, no. 5247 of the Minister of the Environment, Forests and Water Administration dated 27.6.2012 “On the procedures of competition for designation to a section of employees of the judicial police”.93. Agreement “On continuing training of the agents and officers of the judicial police” between the General Prosecutor’s Office no. 2303/7 dated 15.12.2011, the Interior Minister no. 3197/6 dated 20.2.2011 and the Magistrates’ School no. 330/1 dated 13.3.2011.


This is a measure of a regulatory nature. The legal acts approved in the period of monitoring are those mentioned above for measure 2.3.2. The way the measure has been formulated makes it difficult to evaluate whether the specific objective has been reached, because the internal acts are entirely undefined and apart from a number provided in the narrative part of the strategy (seven subordinate legal acts), there is no data related to the object of those acts.

That is, if we refer simply to the number of acts approved, three of the above are acts of the General Prosecutor, but they are primarily related to the activity of officers of the judicial police. The only act that has a direct relationship to the specific objective is Order no. 135 of the General Prosecutor dated 2.7.2012 “On the evaluation of a prosecutor”, which has the intent of creating an evaluation procedure for prosecutors similar to that for judges.

The institutions and resources have been correctly provided, but the indicator is only partially accurate, because there should have been more evaluators of a qualitative nature for the respective measure. The time periods foreseen are realistic.

2.3.4 Strengthening of the Council of the ProsecutorsResponsible institution: General Prosecutor’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: Not implemented This is a measure of a capacity-building nature. It has been formulated as a specific objective. During a meeting at the General Prosecutor’s Office, it was confirmed the Council of the Prosecutors functions normally and meets constantly to decide on issues according to its competences, implying that it is not necessary to plan this measure. It was also confirmed that this measure was not proposed by the General Prosecutor’s Office.

The responsible institutions, resources and time periods have been provided appropriately. The indicator established for this measure has been formulated as “a better contribution of the Council” and is very general. Looking at it in connection with the specific objective for which it has been planned, its purpose is to guarantee a more vital role of the Council of Prosecutors as an advisory organ for the General Prosecutor, but at the same time, also greater independence of the prosecutor’s office in the process of investigating criminal cases.

OB

JEC

TIV

E

2

OB

JEC

TIV

E

43%

28%

29%

IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE No. 2GRAFIC 1


PARTIALLY IMPLENTED

NOT BEEN IMPLENTED

5. CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE PROGRESS ACHIEVED

From monitoring the process of implementation of the 14 measures defined for the implementation of strategic objective no. 2 of the Action Plan, the results are the following:

• 43% measures have been evaluated as implemented (six), among which one was implemented beyond the time period provided;

• 29% measures have been evaluated as not implemented (four), among which two have a time period of implementation beyond the time of monitoring, so there is still time to realise them.

• 28% measures have been evaluated as partially implemented (four), with two of them still having a time period for implementation, up to 2013.

Concerning the time periods for implementation, in nine cases they were not planned accurately and realistically whereas for five other measures they have been defined correctly.

The determination of institutional responsibility has generally been done in an appropriate and accurate way. That is, in 11 of the 14 measures, the responsible institutions have been defined correctly and only for three measures is there a need to include other institutions. In addition, other partner institutions that should take part and assist in the process of implementation of these measures, such as the Magistrates’ School, the PACA project, the Mission EURALIUS III and others have not been included.

As to the determination of resources/expenses, in general, the resources foreseen for these measures are operating expenses. In 12 cases the resources have been planned adequately, and clearly. On the other hand, in two cases funds from donors are also foreseen, specifically, funds from UNIFEM for the measures related to the gender quota. For the two measures that have to do with the financial motivation and pay of judges, the financial resources provided are only operating ones, whereas every legal review related to the financial motivation of judges should have been accompanied by a specific amount corresponding to the change of the pay system. It is a constitutional obligation for every new law to be accompanied by the financial cost, and therefore it is to be recommended that this amount be provided in the Action Plan of the Strategy.


Concerning the monitoring and evaluative mechanisms, for seven measures, the monitoring mechanisms have been drawn up in a general and formal way. The absence of specific and concrete indicators impedes the adequate monitoring and evaluation of implementation of the particular measures. In several cases, the indicator is formulated as the entry into force of a law and subordinate legal acts. Whilst this in itself is an important indicator, it is essential that some indicators be more specific. For example, when the measure speaks of financial motivation, the indicator should be concrete and detailed, such as, for example, X percentage of an increase in pay. In one case, the indicator has no relation at all to the measure (see 2.1.4), and in another case, that of the gender quota, it is not expressed by the percentage aimed at, but the formulation remains general. For seven other measures, the indicators have been determined in an appropriate manner.

In conclusion, there still remains much work to be done to fulfil this strategic objective, based on the above data and the low level of implementation of the measures provided in it. Another factor that convinces us of this conclusion has to do with an analysis of the time periods provided for the implementation of these measures, where only six of the 14 measures planned still have a time period for being realised, up to 2013, whilst the majority should have been realised within this year.

In a more detailed manner, minor progress is seen for specific objective 2.1, related primarily to the approval of constitutional amendments concerning the taking away and limitation of immunities, which respond to international standards and the real needs of the fight against corruption. However, this is expected to bring its results only after implementation in practice.

Positive developments are related to the review of the HCJ’s decision for disciplinary proceedings against judges, which contains a series of guarantees for due process. Notwithstanding those achievements, major challenges are still evident in the direction of strengthening the status of judges and prosecutors as well as establishing real guarantees for their career development based on a true meritocracy system. In addition, the application of transparent and entirely professional procedures is necessary for appointment, transfer and promotion of judges and prosecutors, based squarely on an evaluation system relying on independent and impartial professional criteria. Finally, but no less important, the financial promotion of judges and prosecutors still remains an unsolved issue that affects all attempts to improve their status.

For specific objective 2.2, a positive development is the signature of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Justice and the High Council of Justice on the division of competences between the two inspectorates under them. However, the application in practice of this memorandum, signed just a few months ago, remains to be seen, as well as the measures that will be taken in cooperation between these two institutions for the resolution of a series of problems related to the judicial system.

So far as concerns specific objective 2.3 for strengthening the role and independence of the prosecutor in the process of investigation, only the completion of the legal framework “On the judicial police” has been realised, which again remains a measure of a legal nature, expected to bring its effects after implementation in practice. In relation to the other measures provided in this objective, little has been done to strengthen the role and independence of the prosecutor’s office in the justice system, and consequently also in the consolidation of the responsibility of this organ to be uninfluenced, impartial and consistent in assuring equal legal defence for all parties.

OB

JEC

TIV

E

2

OB

JEC

TIV

E

6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTSThe formulation of strategic objective no. 2 should be simplified, in a direct manner: “Consolidation of responsibility of the justice system”.

Specific objective 2.1 should be divided into two parts or two separate objectives: one objective should focus on legal improvements for strengthening and respecting the status of the judge and prosecutor, and the other should focus hard on increasing the accountability or responsibility of judges and prosecutors, such as disciplinary proceedings and professional evaluation.

Quantitative indicators, expressed as percentages of how much the pay of judges and prosecutor are to increase during the period of action of the Strategy, should be defined in specific objective 2.1. In addition, the measure about financial motivation and review of the legislation on pay should be folded into a single measure.

Several important measures should be added to this objective, such as:• Preparation of a study that analyses all the privileges enjoyed by judges because of their duty. • Preparation of a study/analysis related to the implementation in practice of the guarantees for

career promotion of the judges and disciplinary proceedings against them. • Since it is so important that due legal process in a disciplinary proceeding against a judge be a

guarantee that is realised in practice, this measure should have been accompanied by a qualitative indicator, each of which could be one of the elements of due process provided in article 2/a of the decision. This measure should also have contained an implementation element formulated in such a way as, for example, “Review and implementation....” for a time period provided as “continuing”.

As has also been mentioned above, a separate specific objective that should be added to this strategic objective and which has a significant impact on improving the responsibility of the justice system is the consolidation of systems of ethics for judges and prosecutors.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

LawS and SubordInate LegaL aCtS:Law no. 9877 dated 18.2.2008 “On the organisation of the judicial power in the Republic of Albania”.

Law no. 8737 dated 12.2.2001 (changed by Constitutional Court decision no. 25, dated 13.02.2002, amended by law no. 9102 dated 10.07.2003 and law no. 10051 dated 29.12.2008) “On the organisation and functioning of the Prosecutor’s Office”.

Law no. 8811 dated 17.5.2001 (amended by law no. 9448 dated 5.12.2005) “On the organisation and functioning of the High Council of Justice”.

Memorandum of Cooperation between the General Directorate of Justice Issues of the Ministry of Justice and the Inspectorate of the High Council of Justice “On harmonising the procedures for judicial inspection and avoiding the overlapping of competences”, dated 5.12.2011.

Memorandum of Cooperation between the Minister of Justice and the Deputy Chairman of the High Council of Justice “On avoiding overlapping of competences in judicial inspection” dated 13.09.2012.

Order no. 135 of the General Prosecutor dated 2.7.2012 “On the evaluation of a prosecutor”.

Order no. 165 of the General Prosecutor dated 19.9.2011 “On determining the criteria of granting a pay supplement for difficulty at work for officers of the judicial police”.

Order no. 1 of the General Prosecutor dated 19.9.2011 “On determining the criteria for compensation for professional merits of officers of the judicial police”.

Joint instruction no. 2 of the General Prosecutor and the Interior Minister dated 07.11.2011 “On the performance and conclusion of investigations directly denounced to the prosecutor’s office or started on initiative”.

Joint instruction no. 2 of the General Prosecutor dated 14.5.2012, the Interior Minister no. 58/7 dated 13.6.2012, the Minister of Finance no. 121/9 dated 10.9.2012, the Minister of Defence no. 6 dated 25.6.2012, the Minister of the Environment, Forests and Water Administration no. 5247 dated 27.6.2012 “On the procedures of competition for designation to a section of employees of the judicial police”.

Joint order no. 3 of the General Prosecutor and the Interior Minister dated 15.12.2011 “On disciplinary procedures for employees of the judicial police”.

Agreement “On continuing training of officers and agents of the judicial police” between the General Prosecutor’s Office, no. 2303/7 dated 15.12.2011, the Interior Ministry no. 3197/6 dated 20.2.2011 and the Magistrates’ School, no. 330/1 dated 13.3.2011.

HJC Decision No. 274/2 dated 16/2/2011 “On the organisation and functioning of the commission for examining candidates for judge”.

OB

JEC

TIV

E

2

OB

JEC

TIV

E

Documents/official letters from the responsible institutions:Manual on the procedures of verifying complaints and inspection of the courts of first instance and the courts of appeal, drawn up by the Ministry of Justice, the High Council of Justice and EURALIUS III, Tirana, December 2011-June 2012.

Mariana Semini, Magistrates’ School, Director, Letter prot. no. 827, 2.8.2012, “Answer to letter no. 282/2012, 13.7.2012”.

Elvis Cefa, High Council of Justice, Deputy Chairman, Letter “Answer to the request of the Soros Foundation on the implementation of the Action Plan of the Justice Strategy”, prot. no. 1218/1, dated 26.9.2012.

MeetIngS/e-MaILS:Edlira Jorgaqi, General Prosecutor’s Office, Director of Foreign Relations, e-mail of 22.10.2012 “Report on drawing up the draft medium-term budget of the General Prosecutor’s Office for the years 2013-2020”.

Directorate of Inspection and Human Resources, General Prosecutor’s Office, e-mail of 21.09.2012.

Valbona Vata, High Council of Justice, chief inspector, e-mails of 30.09.2012 and 3.10.2012.

Ermira Shkurti, UNDP, Programme officer, e-mail of 23.10.2012.

Meeting at the General Prosecutor’s Office, 21.9.2012, with the Director of Foreign Relations and an employee of the Directorate of Inspection and Human Resources.

reportS:Reports of the Missions EURALIUS I-III

Report on Thematic Inspection, based on decision no. 274.12 of the HCJ dated 16.2.2011.

Report on Thematic Inspection, based on decision no. 274.1 of the HCJ dated 16.2.2011.

Report on Thematic Inspection, based on HCJ decision no. 276/7 dated 6.5.2011.

Progress Report 2012, Contribution of Albania - INPUT II, May-August 2012, www.mie.gov.al

Final Report on Implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding “On harmonising the procedures of judicial inspection and avoiding the overlapping of competences”, dated 29.8.2012.

G. Griffith, Judicial Accountability, Background Paper No. 1/98 NSW Parliamentary Research Service.

InternatIonaL aCtSKyiv Recommendations on Judicial Independence in Eastern Europe, South Caucasus and Asia, accessed at http://www.osce.org/odihr/71178


NO.3

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

3

OB

JEC

TIV

E

Strategic ObJectiVe 3Consolidation of the effectiveness of the judicial power to be effective, efficient and open, as well as ready to act in conformity with the Constitution, international acts and the internal legislation, guided by the principle of the rule of law, as well as the strengthening of international judicial cooperation (very important).

1. ANALYSIS OF THE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVEThis objective has not been formulated clearly to reflect the problem area as to which it was drawn up. It is complementary to the first two strategic objectives: consolidation of independence (Strategic objective 1) and consolidation of the responsibility of the justice system (Strategic objective 2). The three objectives together should have contained actions to be done to consolidate the independence, responsibility and effectiveness of the judicial power as pillars of reform in justice.

In this sense, the division of effectiveness from independence and responsibility has not been made clear nor has it been explained what is meant by effectiveness or what is intended to be realised as a part of the effectiveness of the judicial system. These deficiencies in the conceptualisation of the strategic objective are a consequence of deficiencies in the drafting of the introductory part of the Strategy. Their result is that the specific objectives and concrete measures provided for its implementation have not been conceptualised in the appropriate manner.

This has caused this objective to overlap both with strategic objective 1 (independence of the judicial power) as well as strategic objectives 4 (access to justice) and 7 (improvement of infrastructure and working conditions). As a consequence of the overlapping among the strategic objectives, it has not been achieved for all the principles of the strategy94 to be reflected in the best possible manner or for appropriate measures to be provided in order to realise each of them. In addition, we think that a better formulation of strategic objective 3 would have avoided such expressions as “ready to act in conformity with the Constitution...”, which in our opinion do not belong in a document like this.

2. ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES Eight specific objectives have been provided for the implementation of the third strategic objective. As emphasised above, the unclear division between the strategic objectives makes the specific objectives provided for strategic objective 3 also not to be appropriate or sufficient to realise the content of the objective. The specific objectives provided for strategic objective 3 are primarily of a general nature.

94. The principles of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy are: independence, impartiality, responsibility to the Constitution and law, access to justice, transparency and quality of service in relation to effective cost.


3.1. reduction of the overload of the courts and delays in judicial cases (very important)This specific objective is natural and to be expected for this strategic objective. A reduction of the overload of the courts and delays in judicial proceedings has an indisputable effect on the consolidation of the effectiveness of the judicial power. However, from the introduction to the Strategy, it does not come out clearly whether the problem in the judicial system is an overload of the judges because of a large number of cases distributed per judge or an overload of the courts as a large number of cases not distributed (backlogs) or both. A better formulation of the introduction would also bring a better formulation of this objective, so as to create the foundation for the appropriate measures/actions.

3.2. Increasing the performance of judges and prosecutors, as well as orienting the judicial system toward the best european practices for providing quality services to the citizens (very important)This objective has an organic link to the strategic objective and affects its fulfilment. The objective has a general nature and permits the provision of measures of various kinds for its implementation.

3.3. Improvement of the process of selecting candidates for magistrate and their formation and evaluation (important)The specific objective of improving the process of selecting candidates for magistrate, being one of the elements of the appointment of judges, should have been provided as a specific objective for the realisation of the independence of the judicial system (strategic objective 1). On the other hand, two measures under this objective (measures 3.2.2. and 3.4.) have also been provided for the realisation of specific objective 3.2.

3.4. Involvement of judges and prosecutors in the field of publications and strengthening scientific research work (important)This objective is related naturally to the strategic objective, but it has been formulated as a concrete action. This causes a lack of conformity between the specific objective and the measures foreseen for its realisation, because the measures defined for this objective have a content much more varied than the objective, not managing to realise its content. Objective 3.4 does not contain any measure that will assure the involvement of judges and prosecutors in scientific publications.

3.5. Improvement of specialised expertise in judicial proceedings (important)This objective is related naturally to the strategic objective, has been formulated sufficiently clearly and creates the basis for formulation of the appropriate measures.

3.6. Increasing the speed, quality and effectiveness of international judicial cooperation (very important)This objective is related naturally to the strategic objective, has been formulated sufficiently clearly and creates the basis for formulation of the appropriate measures.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

3

OB

JEC

TIV

E

3.7. Implementation of the ICMIS system in the legal framework (very important)This objective has been formulated as a concrete action, but the formulation is not clear. “Implementation” is a word that is normally used for an institute, a process or obligation that has already been regulated by law or subordinate legal act and should be put into application. Those deficiencies in the formulation also cause deficiencies in the measures provided for the realisation of this specific objective. The measures defined for it are much more varied than the objective, exceeding its content. Objective 3.7 contains measures not only dealing with the legal framework, but also with establishing the capacities of the ICMIS system.

3.8. Improvement of the electronic infrastructure of the courts and prosecutors’ offices (very important)This specific objective, which has been well formulated, should be part of the strategic objective of improving the infrastructure and working conditions (strategic objective7), whereas several of the measure provided for realising it are important for this strategic objective but should have been collected under a specific objective with the purpose of increasing effectiveness in the system of prosecution.

3. EVALUATION OF THE ACTIONS PROVIDED TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES In all, 50 concrete measures have been planned for the realisation of strategic objective 3. The majority of those measures have the aim of increasing capacities (31 such measures), whereas 13 measures are of a regulatory nature and only six measures aim at the qualitative improvement of existing practices. The monitoring and evaluative mechanisms are primarily oriented quantitatively, of which there are 32, as against 18 qualitative indicators.

As has been stressed above, the imprecise formulation of the specific objective also causes an overlapping between those objectives and the measures defined for realising them. In addition, it is a specific feature of strategic objective 3 that it has measures repeated several times, whilst many of the measures provided have extremely short formulations that not only do not indicate what is intended to be achieved by the measure, but also make it difficult to understand the concrete action that will be performed (“management of instances” or “evaluation” or “surveillance system”).

3.1. reduction of the overload of the courts and delays in judicial cases (very important)Seven concrete measures have been foreseen for the realisation of this specific objective. Those measures are all of a regulatory nature and vary from drafting new subordinate legal acts to amending the basic codes. All the planned measures are related to the specific objective and aim at its realisation. However, the objective lacks other measures, for example, capacity building or qualitative improvement of existing practices, which are essential for realising this objective. Measures related to improving the system of notifications, recording judicial sessions, furnishing the courts with systems for planning judicial sessions (and the use of courtrooms), training judges in the use of such systems, and so forth might have been such measures.


3.2. Increasing the performance of judges and prosecutors, as well as orienting the judicial system toward the best european practices for providing quality services to the citizens (very important)Nine measures have been foreseen for achieving objective 3.2: six capacity-building measures (training of different kinds), two measures for qualitative improvements (improving curricula) and one regulatory measure (review of a law). One of the measures provided for this objective (implementation of rules for selecting candidates for magistrate and their formation and evaluation) has been formulated identically with specific objective 3.3.

The six measures provided for this objective are related to the activity of the Albanian Magistrates’ School (AMS), as are all the measures provided for the following objective. It is true that the activity of the AMS, as the institution responsible for the initial training and, above all, the continuous training of judges, is fundamental for increasing the performance of the judges. However, several of the measures foreseen do not find a natural place in the Strategy, because they deal with routine activities of the AMS (such as implementation of the selection rules) or are not relevant for such a document (realisation of public procurement procedures for electronic equipment and so forth).

In addition, we think that other measures essential for the Strategy should have been grouped differently, singling out, on the one hand, measures that have to do with increasing the performance of the judges (which pertain not only to the AMS, but to several actors in the system) and on the other hand, measures related to increasing the capacities of the Magistrates’ School itself.

3.3. Improvement of the process of selecting candidates for magistrate and their formation and evaluation (important)The measures foreseen for the realisation of special objective 3.3 are characterised by the intent to bring qualitative improvements (three such measures, which refer to activities of a routine nature) and only one measure aims at increasing capacities. The measures are not formulated clearly. Three of them have been formulated extremely briefly (selection of candidates, teaching process, evaluation) and seem to refer to daily, routine activities of the Magistrates’ School. The fourth measure, although not formulated very clearly, aims at capacity building in the direction of respecting gender quotas in selecting magistrates95.

3.4 Involvement of judges and prosecutors in the f ield of publications and strengthening scientif ic research work (important)This objective brings together three measures of a capacity-building nature. Measures such as publication of the journal “Jeta juridike” (“Legal life”), which is a scientific journal, or the journal “Magjistrati” (“The Magistrate”) encourage judges and prosecutors, or candidates for magistrate, to be involved in the field of publications, because they are forums where judges can publish their scientific works. The part of the specific objective that is related to strengthening scientific research work is not addressed by the measures mentioned in the Strategy. From a general assessment, the measures are not sufficiently concrete, except for the measure “Publication of four issues of the journal ‘Legal life’ ”.

95. See also the notes on specific objective 3.2.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

3

OB

JEC

TIV

E

3.5. Improvement of specialised expertise in judicial proceedings (important)The objective contains one measure of a regulatory nature and one measure for qualitative improvement. The objective is addressed by only two measures, of which the first is related to improving medical-legal service through automating several processes, such as digitalisation of the autopsy room and the archives, and the other is for drafting a decision on the tariffs of experts and translators. We think that these measures address the specific objective only in part. Expertise in judicial proceedings is of various kinds, and without bringing out the current problem areas and without setting a baseline of their current status, every specific objective and measure is, in reality, incapable of measurement.

3.6. Increasing the speed, quality and effectiveness of international judicial cooperation (very important)This objective is addressed by six measures which address aspects related to the specific objective. Most measures foreseen for this objective involve capacity building, respectively four measures, as against two measures of a regulatory nature. Thus, measures are shown in the strategy such as the conclusion of several international agreements in the field of international judicial cooperation; the improvement of translations; training to unify letters requesting criminal and civil legal assistance and the creation of an electronic data base for judicial cooperation.

However, the narrative part of the Strategy should have contained a paragraph showing the problem areas related to this objective and an assessment of current judicial cooperation. That is, if the objective aims at increasing the speed, quality and effectiveness of cooperation, it should have been shown in the Strategy what the current length of a proceeding is for aspects of judicial cooperation; what the problem areas are related to translations; which are the states with which Albania has agreements and which are the states where it does not; judicial cooperation and the needs from practice should be described; how data are currently kept and processed, and so on. If the process is slow and inefficient, then the reasons for delay should be brought out; they might result from the absence of a legal framework or insufficient human resources or something else.

3.7. Implementation of the ICMIS system in the legal framework (very important)Although formulated as a concrete action of a regulatory nature, this objective contains three different measures, of which one has the aim of qualitative improvement of the ICMIS system. In this connection, it should be pointed out that the development and improvement of the ICMIS system has been foreseen as a measure for objectives 3.7 and 3.8, with two formulations that different very little from one another.

3.8. Improvement of the electronic infrastructure of the courts and prosecutors’ offices (very important)As we have stressed above, this objective would have been better placed in the strategic objective about improving infrastructure and working conditions (strategic objective 7). It contains 12 measures that aim at capacity-building. It would have been more appropriate for the measures that have to do with the case management system in the prosecutor’s office to have been provided under a separate objective, in a manner similar to objective 3.7 for the ICMIS system, as well as for the respective training activities for the administrative and IT staff of the courts and prosecutors’ offices to have been divided between those two objectives. This would also have resulted in a clearer determination


of the institutional responsibilities. On the other hand, the objective itself and the remaining part of the measures, which deal only with infrastructure improvements, should have been in strategic objective 7.

Several of the measures foreseen are characterised by short and unclear formulations, which make their implementation difficult to monitor since the intent of the measure or concrete action that is to be performed does not clearly emerge. Such, for example, are case management – phase I, surveillance systems and so forth.

In addition, several of the measures have been provided twice within this objective. For example, the case management system in the prosecutors’ offices is included in measure 3.8.1.a and measure 3.8.9. Similarly, the training of IT experts in the courts and the training of the judicial administration have been provided as measures twice.

The same instances of overlapping are also seen for the time periods. As an example, the installation of the VoIP telephone system in the prosecutors’ offices can be used, which has been provided twice as a measure, once with a time period of the year 2011 and the second time with a time period of the year 2013, without it being clarified whether it is a question of two different phases of the same process or what is to be realised in each phase.

4. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF THE IM-PLEMENTATION OF EVERY ACTION/MEASURE

Specific objective 3.1: Reduction of the overload of the courts and delays in judicial cases

3.1.1. Amendment of the law “On the profession of advocate in the Republic of Albania”Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, EURALIUS IIIDeadline for implementation: Second six months of 2011Status: Implemented (beyond the time limit foreseen)

This is a measure of a regulatory nature. Work began on amendments to law no. 9109 dated 17.7.2003 “On the profession of advocate in the Republic of Albania” in May 201196, in cooperation between the Ministry of Justice, the National Chamber of Advocacy and EURALIUS III97. In this framework, three round tables were held, two of which were organised by the Ministry of Justice and EURALIUS III and one by the National Chamber of Advocates98. The draft law was approved by the Council of Ministers on 29.8.201299, and it was approved by the Commission on Legal Issues, the Public Administration and Human Rights of the Assembly of Albania on 20.9.2012100. On 27.9.2012, it was approved in plenary session101.The amendments are in three main aspects:

96. Brikena Kasmi, deputy minister of Justice, round table “On the law for the profession of advocate”, organised by the Ministry of Justice and EURALIUS III on 18.7.2012, Ministry of Justice, Tirana.97. Minutes of the meeting of 20.9.2012 of the Commission on Legal Issues, the Public Administration and Human Rights of the Assembly of Albania. http://www.parlament.al/web/Per_Ceshtjet_Ligjore_Administraten_Publike_dhe_te_Drejtat_e_Njeriut_143_1.php 98. Id.99. Draft law “On some additions and amendments to law no. 9109 dated 17.07.2003 “On the profession of advocate in the Republic of Albania”, approved by the Council of Ministers http://www.km.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=16903 100. Minutes of the meeting of 20.9.2012 of the Commission on Legal Issues, the Public Administration and Human Rights of the Assembly of Albania. http://www.parlament.al/web/Per_Ceshtjet_Ligjore_Administraten_Publike_dhe_te_Drejtat_e_Njeriut_143_1.php101. News from the Assembly of Albania http://www.parlament.al/web/Kuvendi_mblidhet_ne_seance_plenare_dhe_diskuton_gjeresisht_projektligjin_Per_disa_ndryshime_14743_1.php

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

3

OB

JEC

TIV

E

1. initial training of candidates for advocate and continuing training of advocates, 2. the disciplinary process, and 3. insuring lawyers for liability to their clients.

Of those issues, only the disciplinary process is directly linked to the specific objective, whereas the two other aspects have consequences of a more general nature with an indirect effect on reducing delays. The new provisions define the types of disciplinary violations as well as establishing time periods for a disciplinary proceeding. However, a disciplinary proceeding remains a very long process, goes through several levels and puts an unreasonable burden on the person complaining. This means that in cases when a disciplinary violation is brought to light by the court, it will be very easy for the complaint to be left in silence, as currently happens. This was also the main criticism made of the law by judges and other professionals102.

It is not sufficient for the Ministry of Justice and EURALIUS III to be the institutions responsible for this measure; in addition, the National Chamber of Advocacy should have been defined as a partner institution. Separate funds have not been provided for the implementation of this measure, whereas the evaluative mechanism is only the following of the legislative process, to which the entry into force of the law could also have been added, as a measurable indicator. The time period defined for realisation of the measure (the second six months of 2011) was realistic, since the work had begun as of the time the Strategy was approved; therefore failing to respect it shows weak abilities in the coordination of work.

3.1.2. Drafting and approval in the Assembly of subordinate legal acts in implementation of the law “On the organisation and functioning of the administrative courts” Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: First six months after approval of the lawStatus: Not implemented

This is a measure of a regulatory nature. Law no. 49/2012 “On the organisation and functioning of the administrative courts and the adjudication of administrative disputes” was approved by the Assembly on 3.5.2012103. Although article 73 of the law provides, as for every other law, that it enters into force 15 days after publication in the Official Journal104, it still had not been put into implementation, because article 70 provides that the functioning of the administrative courts will begin after entry into force of amendments to law no. 8588 dated 15.3.2000 “On the organisation and functioning of the High Court” for the creation of the Administrative College of this court and the creation of the infrastructure necessary for the normal exercise of those courts.

The law authorises the issuance of these subordinate legal acts:1. Acts of the Council of Ministers necessary for the creation of the infrastructure of the administrative courts105. There is no information as to whether such acts were necessary or whether or not they have been approved. 2. Decree of the President of the Republic on the date of starting the functioning of the

102. Discussions in the roundtable “On the law for the profession of advocate” organised by the Ministry of Justice and EURALIUS III, 18.7.2012, Ministry of Justice, Tirana.103. Text of the law in the Legal Library http://80.78.70.231/pls/kuv/f?p=201:Ligj:49/2012:03.05.2012 104. This law was promulgated by the President of the Republic on 11.5.2012 and published in Official Journal no. 53/2012.105. Article 70, paragraph 4 of the law.


administrative courts106. This act has not been approved, because the proposal of the Minister of Justice has to be awaited, which should come after the two conditions for the beginning of activity of the courts have been met.3. A subordinate legal act of the High Council of Justice in implementation of article 5, point 4 of the law107. This provision must be a mistake, because article 5 does not define the need for any subordinate legal act of the HCJ; the matters dealt with in this article have been resolved by an appendix to the law.4. Decree of the President of the Republic on the territorial competences, central seat of the administrative courts as well as the number of judges for each administrative courts of first instance and the appeal court in Tirana108. This measure was fulfilled with decree no. 7818/2012.

This measure is repeated in three strategic objectives at the same time: Strategic objective 1 (respectively, specific objective 1.4.), Strategic objective 3 and Strategic objective 7 (specific objective 7.3.). This shows an absence of accurate planning, creating unnecessary overlapping and confusion.

It has been rightly provided that the responsible institution for this measure is the Ministry of Justice. However, the formulation of the objective is wrong, because none of the subordinate legal acts foreseen by the law are to be approved in the Assembly, but rather by a number of other institutions. Separate funds have not been provided for the implementation of this measure. The evaluative mechanism is following the legislative process, which is incomplete. In addition to that, the entry into force of the subordinate legal acts should also have been provided, as a measurable indicator. The time period for realisation of this measure ended in September 2012 and this time period was realistic, taking account of the time period provided for measure 3.1.3. (See below).

3.1.3. Amendment to the law “On the organisation and functioning of the High Court” in the service of due processResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice, High Court, EURALIUS IIIDeadline for implementation: Second six months of 2011 Status: Not implemented

This is a measure of a regulatory nature. The draft law was approved by the Ministry of Justice during 2012. On 4.7.2012, it was approved by the Council of Ministers109. The draft law was discussed in the Assembly’s Commission on Legal Issues, the Public Administration and Human Rights and after five meetings was approved by it110. It was put into the agenda of the plenary session of 27.9.2012, but it has not passed to a vote111.

This draft law has been the subject of a broad process of discussion, including an international conference organised by EURALIUS III, the Delegation of the European Commission in Albania, the Ministry of Justice and the High Court112.

106. Article 70, paragraph 5 of the law.107. Article 71 of the law.108. Article 5, paragraph 4 of the law.109. Ministry of Integration, Report on the implementation of the action plan for fulfilling the 12 Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania, June-July 2012 http://mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2042 110. Minutes of the meetings of 17.7.2012, 24.7.2012, 10.9.2012, 20.9.2012 and 24.9.2012 of the Commission on Legal issues, the Public Administration and Human Rights of the Assembly of Albaniahttp://www.parlament.al/web/Per_Ceshtjet_Ligjore_Administraten_Publike_dhe_te_Drejtat_e_Njeriut_143_1.php 111. News from the Assembly of Albania http://www.parlament.al/web/Kuvendi_mblidhet_ne_seance_plenare_dhe_diskuton_gjeresisht_projektligjin_Per_disa_ndryshime_14743_1.php112. News from EURALIUS III, http://www.euralius.eu/sq/news/45-conference-on-the-high-court-reform-in-albania

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

3

OB

JEC

TIV

E

The draft law in question makes amendments in three main aspects:

1. It creates an Administrative College;2. It increases the number of members of the Court from 17 to 19;3. It establishes criteria for the selection of the members and defines the procedure of their appointment113.

Of those changes, increasing the number of judges has a direct influence on the realisation of the aims of the specific objective in question. On the other hand, although it was declared that the draft law permits the High Court to try cases in three judge panels114, which would help even more to fulfil this objective, the draft law actually only contains a general formulation that refers to the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Civil Procedure. In order for the High Court to try cases with judicial panels of fewer than five judges, amendments to those codes are necessary, and the drafting and approval of such amendments would require much more time.

It has been correctly provided for this measure that the responsible institutions will be the Ministry of Justice and the High Court, as a directly interested institution. On the other hand, the Mission EURALIUS III cannot be a responsible institution, but a partner, although this division is not clear in the Strategy.

Separate funds have not been provided for the implementation of this measure, and the evaluative mechanism is incomplete. As with the previous measures, in addition to following the legislative process, the entry into force of the acts might also have been provided as an indicator. The time period for realisation of this measure has been foreseen to end in the second six months of 2011. This time period was not realistic, taking into account that work on this draft had not yet begun at the time of approval of the Strategy115. This is one of many examples of a provision of short time periods for the drafting of laws without taking into account the technical capacities and the necessary time that should be taken for discussion and consultation involving such draft laws with importance for the justice system.

3.1.4. Amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, especially for speeding up the process of trial at all three levels Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, High Council of Justice (HCJ)Deadline for implementation: Second six months of 2011Status: Not implemented

This is a measure of a regulatory nature. It has not been implemented; the Code of Civil Procedure has not undergone any amendments since the approval of the Strategy. The Ministry of Justice created

113. Text of the draft law at http://www.parlament.al/web/PROJEKTLIGJ_P_R_DISA_NDRYSHIME_DHE_SHTESA_N_LIGJIN_NR_8588_DAT_15_03_2000_P_R_ORGANIZI_14510_1.php 114. Minutes of the meetings of 17.7.2012, 24.7.2012, 10.9.2012, 20.9.2012 and 24.9.2012 of the Commission on Legal Issues, the Public Administration and Human Rights of the Assembly of Albaniahttp://www.parlament.al/web/Per_Ceshtjet_Ligjore_Administraten_Publike_dhe_te_Drejtat_e_Njeriut_143_1.php115. The work group was created by order no. 7846 of the Minister of Justice dated 11.11.2011. A preliminary report was submitted by EURALIUS III on reform in the High Court on 6.12.2011. See Ministry of Integration, Report on the implementation of the action plan for fulfilling the 12 Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania, 20 April 2012 http://www.mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=1965 and the documents of EURALIUS III http://www.euralius.eu/images/downloads/recommendations/comments/komente%20mbi%20reformen%20ne%20ligjiin%20per%20organizimin%20dhe%20funksionimin%20e%20gjykates%20se%20larte%20albanian%20version%20.pdf


a work group to prepare amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure116, which was supposed to have finished drafting within the third quarter of 2012 (by 30 September 2012)117, but those amendments still have not been finalised and have not gone to the Council of Ministers for approval.

Meanwhile, we have no information about the content of the proposed amendments. It should be emphasised that the measure itself does not have an appropriate formulation, because it does not detail the aspects in which the Code will be changed to realise the intentions of the objective.

Obligations were imposed on the Ministry of Justice and High Council of Justice for this measure. It is not clear whether the High Council of Justice is in the role of responsible institution or partner. Separate funds have not been provided for the implementation of this measure, whereas the evaluative mechanism is not complete. The provision only of operating expenses for measures of this nature shows a lack of good planning and is not realistic, because for draft laws like this, qualified expertise and a broad process of consultation and discussion with state institutions and other non-state actors is needed. It often happens that such activities are supported financially by international projects because the respective state institutions have not provided funds for this important part of the process of law drafting.

The time period for the realisation of this measure has been foreseen to end in the second six months of 2011, a time period that was not realistic, taking account of the importance and expanse of the Code. The fact that those amendments have not been realised up to today, and that they have not been subjected to a process of consultation and broader discussion among the interested state and non-state actors, highlights once again that the drafting and approval of such laws requires longer time periods.

3.1.5. Amendment of the Civil Code to transpose the EU directives, including simplified procedures for obligations Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: Second six months of 2011Status: Not implemented

This measure, too, has a regulatory nature. The Civil Code was amended by Law no. 17/2012, approved on 16.2.2012. Those amendments had to do with the meaning of non-property damage and the method of calculating it118 and accompanied the changes made in the provisions of the Criminal Code on the criminal offences of insult and defamation. The amendments have no relation to any EU directive. In addition, the amendments do not include simplified procedures for obligations.

It has been rightly provided for this measure that the responsible institution will be the Ministry of Justice. Separate funds have not been foreseen for the implementation of this measure, whereas the evaluative mechanism is not sufficient. The entry of the law into force could have been provided as a fuller indicator. The time period for realisation of this measure has been provided to end in the second six months of 2011, and this time period was not realistic, taking into account the importance and range of the Code.

116. Ministry of Integration, Report on the implementation of the action plan for fulfilling the 12 Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania, October 2012. http://www.mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2109 117. Id.118. Text of the law in the Legal Library, http://80.78.70.231/pls/kuv/f?p=201:Ligj:17/2012:16.02.2012

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

3

OB

JEC

TIV

E

3.1.6. Amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially to speed up the trial process at all levels Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, High Council of Justice, General ProsecutorDeadline for implementation: Second six months of 2011Status: Not implemented

This measure, too, has a regulatory nature. A work group for reform of the Criminal Procedure Code was created in October 2011, with the participation of about 70 members representing all the public agencies and international missions interested. It bears mentioning that the Ministry of Justice followed an open and transparent policy in this case of consultation with all the state and non-state actors who were interested.

All these agencies and missions submitted proposals to the Ministry of Justice in connection with the issues that the reform should deal with. After an absence of progress in the working group, a task force was created in March 2012, with nine members, who were assigned with drawing up an analytic document with the principles of Criminal Procedure Code reform and the main issues that the work group should deal with.

On 1 October 2012, the task force delivered its report. The work group met again on 9 and 10 October and approved the report of the task force119. A new time for finishing the draft law was set for February 2013120. However, in order to orient this vital process in the best way possible, the Ministry of Justice, as the responsible institution, should have defined more clearly the vision and main purposes that the process of reforming the Code of Criminal Procedure should follow. It should also be emphasised that the measure itself does not have an appropriate formulation, because it does not detail in which aspects the Code should be amended in order to realise the aims of the objective.

Obligations for this measure have been put on the Ministry of Justice, the High Council of Justice and the General Prosecutor. It is not clear whether the High Council of Justice and the General Prosecutor are in the role of responsible institution or partner institution. For the implementation of this measure, special funds have not been provided, whereas the evaluative mechanism is not sufficient. The entry of the Code into force could have been provided as a fuller indicator.

The time period for realisation of this measure had been foreseen to end in the second six months of 2011, and this period was not realistic, taking account of the importance and range of the Code, as well as the fact that at the moment when the Strategy was approved, the work had not yet begun.

3.1.7. Review of the Code of Administrative Procedures Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, SIGMADeadline for implementation: Second six months of 2011Status: Not implemented

This measure, too, has a regulatory nature, although it is not clear how it is related to strategic objective

119. All information is from the Internet page of the Work Group for CPC Reform, https://sites.google.com/a/procedurapenale.info/reforma-e-kpp-see-reform-of-the-cpc/ 120. Ministry of Integration, Report on the implementation of the action plan for fulfilling the 12 Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania, October 2012. http://www.mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2109


3, because the Code of Administrative Procedures regulates the activity of the state administration. The Ministry of Justice has created a work group and, in cooperation with EURALIUS III, it is examining law no. 49/2012 “On the organisation and functioning of the administrative courts and the adjudication of administrative disputes”, the current Code of Administrative Procedures and the proposals submitted by the experts of the SIGMA project121. The work group has drawn up an initial draft law, but there is no information about what phase of consultations this draft is in, although it is expected that it will be ready at the end of 2012122.

It has been rightly provided for this measure that the responsible institution will be the Ministry of Justice, with the assistance of the SIGMA project. Special funds have not been provided for the implementation of this measure, nor are their financial resources available from SIGMA. The mechanism is not complete, as the entry of the Code into force should have been the final, measurable indicator. The time period for realisation of this measure has been foreseen to end in the second six months of 2011, and this time period was not realistic, taking into account the importance of the Code.

Specific objective 3.2: Increasing the performance of judges and prosecutors, as well as orienting the judicial system toward the best european practices for providing quality services to the citizens

3.2.1. Review of the law on the Magistrates’ School and the subordinate legal acts Responsible institution: Magistrates’ School, Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Not implemented

This is a measure with a regulatory nature. The Ministry of Justice created a work group to review this law; the group reached the conclusion that changes in the law are not necessary and that the issues identified by the work group could be resolved by regulations of the steering board of the School123. The Magistrates’ School has not undertaken any initiative to review the law, but has merely designated its representatives in the work group created by the Ministry of Justice124.

The fact that the work group has reached the conclusion that there was no need to amendment the law shows the deficiencies in the preparation of the Strategy, especially in bringing out problem areas. In truth, neither the introduction to the Strategy nor the text of the measure itself shows the aspects in which the law is to be changed nor what problem areas should be addressed.

For this measure, the Magistrates’ School and the Ministry of Justice have been designated as the responsible institutions. The designation of institutions other than the Ministry of Justice as responsible for drafting legislation is one of the problems of the Strategy, because the primary end responsibility should belong only to the Ministry of Justice, whilst other institutions directly interested in the respective measure should be shown as partner institutions. Only operating expenses have

121. Ministry of Integration, Report on the implementation of the action plan for fulfilling the 12 Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania, September 2012. 122. Ministry of Integration, Report on the implementation of the action plan for fulfilling the 12 Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania, October 2012. http://www.mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2109 123. Id.124. Ela Qokaj, Magistrates’ School, chancellor, letter no. 827 dated 2.8.2012 in response to letter no. 282/2012 dated 13.7.2012 of the Open Society Foundation for Albania (Soros).

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

3

OB

JEC

TIV

E

been provided as financial resources; the time period designated is 2011. Taking it as given that this means the end of 2011, it should be emphasised that this time period was not realistic, because the work group had not even been created at the time the Strategy was approved125. The indicator has been correctly designated.

3.2.2. Effective implementation of the rules of selecting candidates for magistrate and their formation and evaluation* Responsible institution: Magistrates’ SchoolDeadline for implementation: 2011- 2013 (continuing)Status: Implemented126

This measure, which aims at qualitative improvement, is very similar to (indeed, it is identical with) specific objective 3.3. It is not clear what the difference is between them. In addition, since the measure does not provide for any improvement or change in the work practice of the AMS for selecting candidates, it remains a simply routine activity of the School and should not have shown up as a measure in the action place.

However, for the sake of completeness of the monitoring, information will be given in this part of the report about the implementation of the selection rules, formation and evaluation of the candidates during the period of monitoring, whereas in the part of the report that pertains to specific objective 3.3, information will be given about the improvement of those rules.

For the academic year 2011- 2012, the High Council of Justice determined that the Magistrates’ School will accept 10 candidates for judge127, whereas the General Prosecutor determined that seven candidates for prosecutor will be accepted128. The entrance competition was held in September 2011 and of about 250 competitors, 17 were selected129.

Also in September 2011, the HCJ made a temporary designation of candidates for magistrate to perform their professional internship as judges130. On 17 November 2011, the President of the Republic decreed the final appointment of four new prosecutors, just graduated from the Magistrates’ School, and the temporary appointment of candidates for prosecutor who had finished the second year of studies131. In December 2011, the HCJ proposed, and the President of the Republic decreed, the final appointment of eight judges who had just graduated from the Magistrates’ School132.

In April 2012, the HCJ designated eight vacancies for candidates for magistrate, judge profile, for the academic year 2012-2013133. For that academic year there will be no vacancies for candidates for

125. The work group was created on 11.11.2011. See Open Society Foundation for Albania (Soros), Civil report of monitoring the action plan to address the 12 Priorities of the European Commission – 2012, Priority 7 http://www.soros.al/2010/article.php?id=407 126. This is a measure of a continuing nature. Implementation has begun and is in process according to the time periods.127. Decision nr. 277 of the High Council of Justice dated 22.6.2011, http://www.kld.al/node/343 128. Indirect information from the announcement of the competition for acceptance into the Magistrates’ School, www.magjistratura.edu.al 129. Ela Qokaj, Magistrates’ School, chancellor, letter no. 827 dated 2.8.2012, in response to letter no. 282/2012 dated 13.7.2012 of the Open Society Foundation for Albania (Soros).130. HCJ decision no. 279 dated 16.09.2011, http://www.kld.al/node/348, but the reference to the President’s decree is lacking, because they were removed from the official Internet page but not published in the Official Journal.131. Id., in connection with the President’s decree.132. HCJ decision no. 282 dated 16.12.2011, http://www.kld.al/node/350 133. HCJ decision no. 288 dated 16.04.2012, http://www.kld.al/node/356


prosecutor134. In September 2012, the HCJ decided on the temporary designation of candidates for magistrate to perform their professional internship as judges in the court of the Tirana judicial district135.

The first phase of the acceptance competition for the Magistrates’ School for the academic year 2012-2012 was held on 17 and 19 September 2012. At the end of it, 59 competitors were selected to pass to the second phase of the competition136.

The responsible institution for this measure is the Magistrates’ School, whilst the expenses foreseen are only from operating funds. The Strategy provides that this measure is implemented in a continuous manner during the years 2011-2013. The defined monitoring mechanisms are general: periodic reports before the steering board and implementation of recommendations (it is thought that the recommendations are those of the board, since they are not defined in the action plan). Those elements have been correctly defined.

3.2.3. Continuing and appropriate training of judges and prosecutors on: human rights and violence in the family, commercial cases, the Stabilisation/Association Agreement (SAA), European law, the acquis communautaire, the practice of the ECtHR, the practice of the European Court of Justice, new legislative developments*Responsible institution: Magistrates’ School, Ministry of Justice, High Council of Justice, General Prosecutor’s Office, UNIFEMDeadline for implementation: 2011- 2013 (continuing)Status: Implemented137

This is a measure that aims at capacity building. During the period July 2011-July 2012, the Magistrates’ School organised:

a. Six training sessions on human rights, the practice of the ECtHR and violence in the family. All those sessions, in which 262 judges and prosecutors were trained, were primarily financed by various donors.

b. Four training sessions on judicial ethics and behaviour in the courtroom, in which 56 judges and prosecutors took part.

c. Four training sessions on commercial cases, in which 59 judges and prosecutors took part.d. Eight training sessions on the SAA, European law, the acquis communautarire and the practice of

the European Court of Justice, in which 208 judges and prosecutors took part. e. Twelve training sessions on new legislative developments (new contracts, the confiscation of

assets, cybercrime, protection from discrimination, probation service, alternative sentences), in which 174 judges and prosecutors took part138.

The Magistrates’ School, the Ministry of Justice, the High Council of Justice, the General Prosecutor’s Office and UNIFEM have been defined as the institutions responsible for this measure. It would be more correct for the HCJ, GPO and MoJ to be partner institutions, because it is not their mission nor

134. Indirect information from the announcement of the acceptance competition for the Magistrates’ School, www.magjistratura.edu.al135. HCJ decision no. 294 dated 14.09.2012, http://www.kld.al/node/373 136. www.magjistratura.al 137. This is a measure of a continuing nature. Implementation has begun and is in process, according to the time periods.138. Ela Qokaj, Magistrates’ School, chancellor, letter no. 827 dated 2.8.2012, in response to letter no. 282/2012 dated 13.7.2012 of the Open Society Foundation for Albania (Soros).

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

3

OB

JEC

TIV

E

do they have the capacity to conduct trainings.

Similarly, UNIFEM should have been defined as a partner institution, because an international organisation cannot be a responsible institution in a state strategy. The time period and evaluative mechanism have been defined appropriately. The monitoring and evaluative mechanisms might have been defined more fully, providing the number of trainings that will be done for each year and the number of persons trained.

3.2.4. Review on a continuing basis of the curriculum of the Magistrates’ School in order to adapt it to the new needs and developments of the system*Responsible institution: Magistrates’ SchoolDeadline for implementation: 2011- 2013 (continuing)Status: Partially implemented139

The vague formulation of this measure, which aims at qualitative improvement, does not make it possible to understand in what aspects and for what purpose the curriculum of the AMS should be reviewed, and for that reason, it makes it difficult to evaluate its implementation appropriately.

In the academic year 2011-2012, the Magistrates’ School added the following courses in the study plan of the second year: a legal clinic, legal English, computer law, environmental law and the organisation and functioning of advocacy140. Those courses, although beneficial for the general formation of future judges and prosecutors, are not sufficient to consider the measure totally implemented.

The responsible institution for implementation of this measure is the Magistrates’ School, whereas the time period has been foreseen to be continuous during the years 2011-2013. No special budget has been provided for this measure. The defined monitoring mechanisms are periodic reports to the steering board and the implementation of its recommendations. Those elements have been defined correctly.

3.2.5. Training activity for judges and the advisory and administrative staff of the High Court*Responsible institution: High CourtDeadline for implementation: 2011- 2013 (continuing)Status: Partially implemented141

This is a measure that aims at capacity building. During 2011, no training was held for the judges, advisory staff or administrative staff of the High Court142. During 2012, eight employees of the administration of the High Court were trained on “Standards of the approach of the public to judicial information” organised by the Centre for Development and Democratisation, the British Embassy and the Article 19 organisation. Also during 2012, 22 legal assistants of the High Court also benefited from a training session on the correct administration of the judicial process, organised by the Magistrates’

139. This is a measure of a continuing nature. Implementation has begun and is in process according to the time periods.140. Ela Qokaj, Magistrates’ School, chancellor, letter no. 827 dated 2.8.2012, in response to letter no. 282/2012 dated 13.7.2012 of the Open Society Foundation for Albania (Soros).141. The partial implementation was made possible by various institutions/missions of those defined in the Strategy.142. Miran Kopani, High Court, director of Studies, Publications and IT, e-mail of 17.9.2012.


School and financed by the Dutch Embassy143.

The institution responsible for the implementation of this measure is the High Court, whereas the time period has been foreseen to be continuing during the years 2011-2013. No special budget has been provided for this measure, and perhaps that is one of the reasons of its lack of implementation. The monitoring and evaluative mechanisms could have been defined more fully, providing a number of trainings to be held each year and the number of persons to be trained.

3.2.6. Training the trainersResponsible institution: Magistrates’ SchoolDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Partially implemented144

This too is a measure that aims at capacity building. During 2011, only one training was held for trainers, in the field of money laundering, investigation of corruption and the confiscation of assets, financed by the PACA project, with the participation of three judges and 11 prosecutors145.

During 2012, the French embassy financed two train-the-trainers sessions on the system of recruitment of candidates for magistrate according to the French model and the improvement of the system of training the trainers146.

Taking into account the wide variety of thematic areas of initial and continuous training offered by the Magistrates’ School, those training sessions are considered insufficient to meet the needs for increasing quality of the training offered. Furthermore, none of those trainings was realised with funds of the state budget, at a time when the Strategy foresees budgetary resources. Even in this case, as in the case of measure 3.3.4, it would have been necessary for the formulation of the measure to indicate which fields are proposed for training the trainers so that the evaluation of the status of the measure could be more accurate.

The Magistrates’ School has been designated as the responsible institution for this measure, the time period as 2011 and the defined budget as 3,265 million lek. This budget is sufficient to organise several training sessions, but there is no information as to whether the budget was or was not given and if it was given, why it was not used for this purpose147. The evaluative mechanism for this measure has not been sufficiently defined; the number of trainings and persons trained each year would facilitate its measurement.

3.2.7. Adding personnel to the Magistrates’ SchoolResponsible institution: Magistrates’ SchoolDeadline for implementation: 2011- 2013

143. Id. note 48.144. Partial implementation was made possible by using the resources of institutions/missions different from that defined in the Strategy.145. Ela Qokaj, Magistrates’ School, chancellor, letter no. 827 dated 2.8.2012 in response to letter no. 282/2012 dated 13.7.2012 of the Open Society Foundation for Albania (Soros) and the programme of training held in Vlora on 23- 25 November 2011.146. Id. and the calendar of trainings attached.147. There is reason to believe that the Magistrates’ School has not received the entire budget provided in the Strategy. See European Commission, Albania, 2012, Progress Report, SWD (2012) 334, Brussels, 10.10.2012. http://www.mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2111

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

3

OB

JEC

TIV

E

Status: Not implemented148

This measure as well aims at capacity-building. The last changes to the personnel chart of the Magistrates’ School were made in 2010149. During 2011-2012 no additions were made. However, the deficiencies in the introductory part of the Strategy and in the formulation of the measure do not permit it to be understood what the reasons are dictating an increase in the personnel.

A continuing time period and the respective budget for each year have been defined for this measure. Under those conditions, it is not clear why an increase of the personnel chart has been foreseen and for what positions.

3.2.8. Improvement of the physical working conditions in the Magistrates’ School*Responsible institution: Has not been identified in the action planDeadline for implementation: 2011- 2013Status: Implemented150

This measure is the same as the prior one and both aim at raising capacities. If the financial resources and the budget foreseen in the action plan of the Strategy are looked at carefully, it can be seen that this measure too deals with realising procurements planned in the state budget, because the amount is 2 million lek per year for each of the years 2011 and 2012. The difference is that, compared to the prior measure, the investment amounts are divided according to different budget lines.

For the year 2011, the budget provided for investments in the lines of computer equipment, office equipment, reconstruction, library and so forth was 2 million lek. The investments were realised in the amount of 100%151.

For 2012, the budget provided for investments in the lines of computer equipment, office equipment, reconstruction, library and so forth is also 2 million lek. Up to 30.4.2012, investments of 347,000 lek were realised in the budget lines of technical equipment and office furniture152.

This measure lacks a definition of the responsible institution, whereas the budget and evaluative mechanisms have been defined correctly.

3.2.9. Realisation of the public procurement procedures for: electronic equipment; office equipment; library funds and reconstruction* Responsible institution: Magistrates’ SchoolDeadline for implementation: 2011- 2013 (according to the respective sums for each year)

148. This is a measure of a continuing nature, but its implementation has not begun.149. Ela Qokaj, Magistrates’ School, chancellor, letter no. 827 dated 2.8.2012 in response to letter no.. 282/2012 dated 13.7.2012 of the director of the Open Society Foundation for Albania (Soros) and decision no. 1 of the steering council of the Magistrates’ School dated 29.3.2010, attached.150. This is a measure of a continuing nature. Implementation has begun and is in process according to the time periods.151. Ela Qokaj, Magistrates’ School, chancellor, letter no. 827 dated 2.8.2012 in response to letter no. 282/2012 dated 13.7.2012 of the Open Society Foundation for Albania (Soros). Attached is letter with prot. nr. 57 dated 20.1.2012 of the director of the Magistrates’ School to the Public Procurement Agency and the register of realisation of public procurements.152. Id. note 59. Attached is a letter with prot. nr. 692 dated 18.5.2012 of the chancellor of the Magistrates’ School to the Public Procurement Agency and the register of realisation of public procurements.


Status: Implemented153

This measure is the same as the prior one. See above.

Specific objective 3.3: Improvement of the process of selecting candidates for magistrate and their formation and evaluation

3.3.1. Selecting candidates Responsible institution: Magistrates’ SchoolDeadline for implementation: September of every yearStatus: Implemented154

As has been emphasised above, this measure and the two prior ones have been formulated in a way that is entirely inappropriate for a strategy. If they are taken in their literal meaning, those measure show routine activity of the Magistrates’ School and should not have a place in this Strategy. However, considering the formulation of the specific objective, we have assumed that they aim at improving the existing rules and practices, which makes them acceptable for an action plan.

However, since it is not specified in what aspect there should be improvement (for example, introducing a pre-selection system, increasing the number of candidates, speeding up to evaluation process and so forth), this concept (improvement) remains quite subjective and any action undertaken by the responsible institution (even changing the time period) could be considered implementation of the measure.

In the preparation of the competition for acceptance into the Magistrates’ School for the academic year 2012-2013, the steering council of the AMS approved several changes in the internal regulations, making these improvements in the acceptance process155:

a. Students who register for the competition have to submit evidence of knowing English or French156.b. Every student may compete up to three times for acceptance into the Magistrates’ School.c. The acceptance examination will be divided into the phases: a selection phase and a professional

testing phase. The thesis of the selection phase has been created as a thesis of a general level of knowledge about ethics, psychology, history, the Albanian language and so forth157.

The responsible institution, the evaluative mechanisms and the budget have been defined in an appropriate manner. The measure should not have had a continuing time period but should have had a clearly defined time period, in order to realise the improvements that should have been defined, also clearly, in the introductory part and in the concrete measure itself.

153. This is a measure of a continuing nature. Implementation has begun and is in process according to the time periods.154. See also the notes to measure 2 of specific objective 3.2. This is a measure of a continuing nature. Implementation has begun and is in process according to the time periods.155. Ela Qokaj, Magistrates’ School, chancellor, letter no. 875 dated 2.8.2012, in response to letter no. 282/2012 dated 13.7.2012 of the director of the Open Society Foundation for Albania (Soros). Attached, decision no. 35 of the steering council dated 25.5.2012.156. Id. note 63. Attached is the model of the thesis of disqualification.157. Id.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

3

OB

JEC

TIV

E

3.3.2. Teaching process Responsible institution: Magistrates’ SchoolDeadline for implementation: January-June, September-December of each yearStatus: Implemented 158

In the academic year 2011-2012, the Magistrates’ School added several courses to the teaching plan of the second year of studies159. In addition, for students accepted in the academic year 2012-2013, the condition has been established to receive a diploma for defending knowledge of the Albanian language in one of the ways recognised by the Ministry of Education and Science160.

The responsible institution, the evaluative mechanisms and the budget have been defined in an appropriate way. The measure should not have been with a continuing time period but should have had a time period clearly defined in order to realise the improvements, which should also have been clearly defined, in the introductory part and in the concrete measure itself.

3.3.3. Evaluation Responsible institution: Magistrates’ SchoolDeadline for implementation: July of each yearStatus: Implemented161

In the academic year 2012-2013 it was decided to make an evaluation by points for the first time for the three years of schooling according to a new formula approved by the steering council162.

The responsible institution, the evaluative mechanisms and the budget have been defined in an appropriate manner. The measure should not have been with a continuing time period but should have had a time period clearly defined in order to realise the improvements, which should also have been clearly defined, in the introductory part and in the concrete measure itself.

3.3.4. Study and provision of expertise in connection with the international experiences and the practice of the Magistrates’ School for integration in connection with ethics, social problems, gender discrimination, including such criteria in the selection, training and evaluation of the process* Responsible institution: UNIFEMDeadline for implementation: 2012- 2013Status: Partially implemented163

This measure is problematic, both in formulation and in the determination of the responsible institution. It has been formulated in a way that is difficult to understand, and we think that it implies the performance of studies and the drawing up of recommendations for balancing gender quotas in selecting magistrates. On the other hand, the implementation of this measure is assigned to an

158. See also the notes on measure 2 of specific objective 3.2. This is a measure of a continuing nature. Implementation has begun and is in process according to the time periods.159. See also the notes for measure 4 of specific objective 3.2. 160. Id. note 63. Attached, decision no. 35 of the steering council dated 25.5.2012.161. See also the notes for measure 2 of specific objective 3.2. This is a measure of a continuing nature. Implementation has begun and is in process according to the time periods.162. Id. note 63. 163. This is a measure of a continuing nature. Implementation has begun and is in process according to the time periods.


international organisation, which we think is mistaken and does not have a place in this Strategy.

The time period defined for this measure is 2012-2013 and its implementation has begun. UNDP, the Ministry of Labour, Social Issues and Equal Opportunities and the Swedish Embassy organised a technical discussion in Tirana on 12 June 2012 on the theme: “The necessary legal means to increase equal gender participation in decision-making”164. At the end of this roundtable, recommendations were made for legislative changes in these aspects among many others:

1. the determination of a minimum quota for female members in the High Court;2. equality in pension age for judges who are male and those who are female;3. the determination of a minimum quota for the promotion of female judges to the courts of appeal;4. the creation of a commission of gender equality at the council of the prosecutor’s office, in order to supervise equal gender participation in the ranks of that office165.

UNIFEM, an international project, cannot be the responsible institution; it should be only the Magistrates’ School. The indicator defined for this measure is simply quantitative (the issuance of recommendations), which is appropriate and sufficient. However, additional measures for the implementation of those recommendations are lacking. The budget and time period have been defined correctly.

Specific objective 3.4: Involvement of judges and prosecutors in the field of publications and strengthening scientific research work

3.4.1. Publication of the scientific journal “Jeta juridike” (“Legal life”), four issues per year.Responsible institution”: Magistrates’ School Deadline for implementation: 2011Status: Implemented

This is a measure of a qualitative nature166. Many judges and prosecutors are included in the ranks of the authors in this journal: about 34% of the authors167. Publication of the journal “Jeta juridike” is an additional possibility for judges and prosecutors to take part in academic and scientific life. The possibility of publications in a legal journal of a scientific nature contributes to strengthening the research and scientific work of the judge.

The number of 34% of the articles published is an indicator of the implementation of this measure. However, the measure has a general nature and does not identify clearly that level of involvement of judges in these publications, which makes it difficult to monitor and evaluate this measure.

The journal “Jeta juridike” is a publication of the Magistrates’ School, and the institutional responsibility

164. Emira Shkurti, UNDP, e-mail of 23.10.2012.165. Id.166. Vera Rakipi, Magistrates’ School, e-mail of 2.10.2012. The journal “Jeta juridike” is a scientific journal of a legal nature, an organ of the Magistrates’ School which is published under the care and direction of that institution. It is a periodic journal, coming out every three months, published in the Albanian language and also accompanied by a summary of the articles in English. It began publication in 2001, with four issues a year. During these years, attempts have been make to publish a dignified journal which is now in the hands of the entire community of Albanian jurists and more broadly. 167. Vera Rakipi, Magistrates’ School, e-mail of 2.10. 2012.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

3

OB

JEC

TIV

E

has been provided appropriately. The financial resources provided correspond to the sum necessary for its publication. The time period is realistic. On the other hand, the indicators, although related to the measure as such, do not have a direct connection to the specific objective. The indicator should have expressed at least a particular percentage of scientific articles published by judges and prosecutors, which would possibly have exceeded the 34% that is the current level.

3.4.2. Publication of four professional texts in the field of justiceResponsible institution: Magistrates’ SchoolDeadline for implementation: 2012Status: Partially implemented

During 2011-2012, four issues of the periodic journal “Magjistrati” (“The Magistrates”) were published, with works by candidates for magistrate who are following the three-year study programme168. The measure speaks of professional books; it is very general and difficult to identify and monitor. Professional texts in the field of justice increase the possibility of judges to benefit from professional literature in the Albanian language and the possibility that they will use those resources in an eventual scientific work. This measure could also be interpreted as the publication of books written by the judges or prosecutors themselves.

Considering the formulation of the measure, it cannot be understood why the responsible institution is only the Magistrates’ School. It is understandable that it should be the Magistrates’ School if the four publications are related only to the journal “Magjistrati”. But it is unclear why four books very selected, what the titles are, whether the authors should be judges and prosecutors, why they are essentially related as an essential matter to strengthening the scientific research work of the judge and who selects the publications. Consequently, it is impossible to judge whether the resources provided are appropriate, and in particular they are not sufficient if the measure foresees the publication of four texts and not four issues of a journal. Consequently, the indicator is general and no specific.

3.4.3. PublicationsResponsible institution: Magistrates’ SchoolDeadline for implementation: 2013Status: Implemented

The measure is of a qualitative nature and is provided to be realised up to the year 2013. During the period of monitoring, several publications by various authors were published, most of them new magistrates, but not only.

In connection with institutional responsibility, the comment is the same as in point 2 above.The resources have been provided in an equal manner with the funds for publication of the journal “Jeta juridike” or “Magjistrati”. For this measure as well, the indicator is general and not specific, whereas the time period is sufficiently long and appropriate for realising its purposes.

168. Id. note 75.


Specific objective 3.5: Improvement of specialised expertise in judicial proceedings

3.5.1. Improvement of the medical-legal service, computerising several of the processes, digitalisation in the autopsy room and the archives*Responsible institution: Institute of Legal MedicineDeadline for implementation: 2013Status: Not implemented

This measure aims at a qualitative improvement of the medical-legal service. There is no information about the status of realisation of this measure169.

The Institute of Legal Medicine170 performs medical-legal expertise, at the request of the parties to a civil process, the subjects of a criminal proceeding and other legal persons, against payment of expenses and the respective tariffs. Digitalising the autopsy room and the archives, in appearance, improves one of the specialised expertise required in criminal or civil proceedings. In the inability to obtain information regarding this measure, as well as in the absence of other public information, we judge this measure not to have been implemented.

The responsible institution indicated is appropriate, but also because of the absence of information, it is difficult to judge whether the resources made available to realise this process are sufficient. The indicator that has been formulated, preservation and archiving of medical-legal activity, has been formulated more as an objective than an indicator related to the implementation of the measure. Regardless of the digitalisation of the autopsy room and the archives, the preservation and archiving of the medical-legal activity can be done in other ways, for example, written/printed documentation. The time period is more than sufficient to realise this measure.

3.5.2. Preparing a draft decision of the Council of Ministers “On the determination of the tariffs of experts and witnesses”Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice and Ministry of FinanceDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Not implemented

The measure is of a regulatory nature. The monitoring period covered in this report is July 2011 – October 2012, and the measure has not been realised within that time period. Based on information from the Ministry of Justice, the measure was realised by the approval of Instruction no. 4 of the Council of Ministers dated 12 December 2012 “On setting the measure of expenses and payments of experts and witnessed during a judicial process”171. There is no information about the phase in which the drafting of the decision stands172.

Meanwhile, there is no legal act approved and published in the Official Journal dealing with this issue.

169. The Open Society Foundation (Soros) asked for official information from the Institute of Legal Medicine by letter with prot. no. 276 dated 13.07.2012, but no answer was received.170. Decision no. 120 of the Council of Ministers, dated 27.2.2003 “On the creation of the Institute of Legal Medicine”. 171. Letter of the Ministry of Justice prot. no. 136, 10.01.2013.172. The Open Society Foundation (Soros) asked for official information from the Ministry of Justice by letter with prot. no. 288 dated 13.07.2012 and from the Ministry of Finance by letter with prot. no. 290 dated 13.07. 2012. Neither institution responded.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

3

OB

JEC

TIV

E

The experts submit their bills, and sometimes, the courts themselves apply different tariffs173. On the other hand, the tariffs for actions and services provided by the Institution of Legal Medicine and the amount and manner of calculating those expenses are designated by joint order of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance174.

The institutional responsibility, the resources and the indicators are provided correctly, whereas the time period is not realistic, considering the fact that the measure has still not been implemented.

Objective 3.6: Increasing the speed, quality and effectiveness of international judicial cooperation

3.6.1. Signing of bilateral agreements for legal assistance in the criminal field with EUROJUST, Kosovo, Kuwait and AlgeriaResponsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011-2012Status: Partially implemented

The measure is of a regulatory nature. According to information sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs175, the agreements with Kosovo (three in this field) are being negotiated by the experts of the respective ministries of justice176. Those cooperation agreements are for extradition, transfer of sentenced persons and mutual legal assistance in criminal cases.

The agreement on legal assistance in the criminal field with Kuwait has been signed and was ratified on 4.10.2012. In addition, law no. 53/2012 dated 10.5.2012 “On jurisdictional relations in criminal cases with the special investigative EULEX task force” has been approved. In connection with the agreement for legal assistance in the criminal field with Algeria, the Ministry of Justice has not concluded the negotiations. For EUROJUST177, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has no information.

According to the progress report of the European Commission for Albania of the year 2012, preparations for concluding a cooperation agreement with EUROJUST have advanced178. However, there is no information about the phase in which the process of concluding this agreement currently stands.

The responsible institutions have not been provided correctly, because other institutions such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Assembly are also involved in the process of the conclusion of international agreements. The resources have been correctly assessed. On the other hand, the indicator “implementation of the agreement” is indefinite and has been drafted in the form of an objective. The indicator could have been the entry into force of the above agreements. The time period is not realistic, taking into account the number of agreements foreseen and the long time that negotiations take on these issues.

173. Ervin Metalla, Durrës judge, chairman, e-mail of 27.10. 2012.174. Decision no. 120, dated 27.2.2003 “On the creation of the Institute of Legal Medicine”, point 5.175. Gazmend Turdiu, Foreign Ministry, general secretary, letter “Returning an answer”, prot. no. 11563 dated 21.09. 2012.176. Those agreements were approved in January 2013, beyond monitoring period of this report.177. EUROJUST stimulate and improves the coordination of investigations and criminal proceedings between the competent authorities of the member states, especially by facilitating the execution of mutual legal assistance and the implementation of requests for extradition. Information received from the Official EUROJUST web page,. http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/about/background/Pages/mission-tasks.aspx 178. Progress Report, Albania, 2012, European Commission, Brussels 10.10.2012 SWD(2012) 334 final. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2012/package/al_rapport_2012_en.pdf


3.6.2. Signing, ratification, adherence to multilateral acts (conventions and protocols) of the Council of Europe and the Hague Conference *Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: Not implemented179

The measure is of a regulatory nature. There are defects in the formulation, since it is not specified what specific conventions and protocols are proposed to be signed and ratified.

In the inability to get information about the implementation of this measure, as well as lacking other public information, we assess this measure as not having been implemented.

In connection with the responsible institutions, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Assembly should also have been provided, because they are involved in the process of the entry into force of international treaties.

On the other hand, the indicator “implantation of the agreements” is indefinite and has been drawn up in the form of an objective. The resources have been provided correctly, whereas the time period has the same defect in its formulation as the measure itself, because it is not provided in what time period each convention or protocol shall be signed.

3.6.3. Improvement of translations in the field of international judicial cooperation*Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013 Status: Not implemented

The measure is of a capacity-building nature. In the inability to obtain information about the implementation of this measure and also in the absence of other public information, we judge that this measure has not been implemented.

The responsible institution has been provided correctly. The resources have been provided from the state budget; however, it is difficult to assess whether the amount provided there will effectively improve translations in this field. We should have had information about current resources in order to be able to evaluate whether the funds are sufficient to improve the translations. The indicator is very general and is not related to the measure, whereas the time period is long and seems sufficient.

3.6.4. Training on unification of letter requests for criminal and civil legal assistance for judges, prosecutors, the staff of the Ministry of Justice and others who are interested*Responsible institution: Magistrates’ School, Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013 Status: Implemented

179. The time of realisation has been provided as 2011-2013. Therefore, this measure is considered in process.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

3

OB

JEC

TIV

E

The measure is of a capacity building nature. According to information from the Magistrates’ School180, in the framework of increasing the speed, quality and effectiveness of international cooperation, trainings have been held to unify letter requests for civil and criminal legal assistance. During 2012, five training activities were held on these subjects: • “Letters rogatory in the criminal proceeding and aspects of the judicial practice related to their

probative value”, in which 42 judges and prosecutors were trained, and • “Recognition and execution of foreign criminal decisions, the effect of international conventions

and bilateral agreements”, in which 80 judges and prosecutors were trained.

The responsible institutions and the resources have been provided correctly. This measure does not have a monitoring mechanism or indicator.

3.6.5. Creation of an electronic data base for international judicial cooperation*Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013 Status: Not implemented

Being unable to obtain information about the implementation of this measure, as well as lacking other public information, we assess this measure as not implemented.

The institutional responsibility has been correctly defined. The financial resources have not been identified. The indicator has been formulated in a general way, but the time period is appropriate.

3.6.6. Training of staff on the use of the electronic data base*Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013 Status: Not implemented

The measure is of a capacity-building nature. It is closely linked to the above measure for creating an electronic data base. In the inability to get information about the implementation of this measure, as well as lacking other public information, we judge that this measure has not been implemented.

The institutional responsibility has been correctly defined. The financial resources have not been identified. The indicator has been formulated in a general way. The number of persons who should have been trained might have been a more concrete indicator. Since this measure follows the above measure, the time period established has been correctly defined.

Specific objective 3.7: Implementation of the ICMIS system in the legal framework

3.7.1. Development and improvement of the ICMIS system*Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011- 2013Status: Implemented181

180. Mariana Semini, Magistrates’ School, director, letter with prot. no. 827, 2.8.2012, Subject: answer to letter of the Soros Foundation with prot. no, 282 dated 13.7.2012.181. This is a continuing measure. Implementation has begun and is in process according to the time periods.


This is a measure that aims at increasing the capacities of the ICMIS system. During the period 2011- 2012, the Ministry of Justice continued work with the administrative staff of the courts in order to develop and improve the ICMIS system, especially in order to make a transfer at the courts that use the ARK IT system to the national ICMIS system. EURALIUS III also assisted in this process182. On 31.7.2012, the Ministry of Justice opened the portal www.gjykata.gov.al, where information can be obtained about every judicial case in every court of the country183. The module for generating statistics was created and negotiations are going on with the company contracted to guarantee the accuracy of the collection and processing of data from all the courts, automatically and immediately184.

The portal www.gjykata.gov.al has separate pages for all the courts of all three levels. General information about the court can be obtained on those pages, but also detailed data about the cases that have been completed and those that are in the process of adjudication.

Currently, the ICMIS system has been installed and is in use in all the courts185, and the Ministry of Justice is in the process of tendering for the maintenance and updating of the system for the year 2012. It is expected that the unified registration system of judicial cases will be completed within 2012186. In addition, work continues on adding the component of audio registration of judicial sessions in several of the country’s courts187.

The responsible institution, the budget and the time period have been defined in an appropriate manner. The indicators are general, qualitative and difficult to measure (increase of transparency and public access). One of the indicators is inappropriate for this measure, because it is related to decisions of the prosecutor’s office.

3.7.2. Drafting, approval and implementation of a decision of the Council of Ministers on legitimising the electronic data base in implementation of the Albanian law on electronic data bases in the country Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Partially implemented

As to this measure there have been approved:• CMD no. 443 dated 16.6.2011 “On the creation, registration, manner of functioning, administration

and interaction and for the security of the Electronic Management System of Cases of the Judicial Bailiff (ALBIS)” as well as

• CMD no. 375 dated 6.6.2012 “On the creation, registration, manner of functioning, administration and interaction and for the security of the System of Registration of Immovable Properties (ALBSRP).

182. EURALIUS III, Report on the appropriateness of the application of the integrated case management information system (ICMIS), February 2012http://www.euralius.eu/images/downloads/recommendations/comments/raport%20mbi%20pershtatshmerine%20e%20aplikacionit%20te%20icmis%20albanian%20version.pdf183. News from the Ministry of Justice http://www.justice.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=7987, but also www.gjykata.gov.al. 184. Ministry of Integration, Report on the implementation of the action plan for fulfilling the 12 Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania, June-July 2012. http://mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2042185. Ministry of Integration, Report on the implementation of the action plan for fulfilling the 12 Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania, October 2012 http://www.mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2109 186. Ministry of Integration, Report on the implementation of the action plan for fulfilling the 12 Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania, September 2012. 187. Id.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

3

OB

JEC

TIV

E

In addition, consultation with the IT structures has concluded for the draft decision on the ICMIS and the Ministry of Justice is finalising the initiative, which is expected to be forwarded soon for an opinion to the NAIS188

The responsibility, budget, time period and indicators have been defined appropriately.

3.7.3 Approval of system rules that will compel the judicial hierarchy to work in the system with predefined rules and responsibilities, starting from the registering secretary, the chief secretary, the secretary of the session, the chancellor, the judicial body, the chairmen of the courts and ending with the role of inspectors in the Ministry of Justice as well as those of the High Council of JusticeResponsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2012Status: Not implemented189

The draft law “On the judicial administration” defines rules and specific responsibilities for every position of the judicial administration as well as the respective structures of the Ministry of Justice that are related to the judicial administration. The measure will be evaluated as having been implemented when this draft law is approved.

In general, the responsibility, budget, time period and indicators have been defined appropriately.

Specific objective 3.8: Improvement of the infrastructure of the courts and prosecutors’ offices

3.8.1. a) Case management – phase IResponsible institution: General Prosecutor’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Partially implemented (beyond the time period foreseen)

This is a measure that aims at building the capacities of the prosecutor’s office. The case management system for the General Prosecutor’s Office, which foresees the transformation of the physical files into electronic format, is part of the 2010 IPA programme of the European Commission The project has been divided into two phases: The first phase includes the creation of the physical network that will serve as the platform for the creation and installation of the software, which makes up the second part of the project190.

For the first phase of the project, amounting to 1.2 million euro, the tender has been conducted successfully and the announcement of the winner is expected191. For the second part of the project, with a value of 1.8 million euro, the tender has been announced192 and the first selection of the candidates

188. Letter from the Ministry of Justice, prot. no. 136, dated 10.1.2013.189. This is a measure as to which the time period has not expired, but there is no information whether its implementation has started.190. Ministry of Integration, Report on the implementation of the action plan for fulfilling the 12 Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania, June-July 2012. http://mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2042191. Edlira Jorgaqi, General Prosecutor’s Office, director of Studies, meeting on 21.9.2012.192. Notification of the announcement of the tender at https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/europeaid/online-services/index.cfm?ADSSChck=1346878899352&do=publi.getDoc&documentId=123895&pubID=133071


was done on 3.9.2012. It was expected for the winner to be announced within this year (2012)193 but it has been reported that this tender has been recently cancelled and will be re-bid.

The institutional responsibility and the budget for this measure have been defined correctly, but the European Commission should also have been named as a partner institution, and the amount should also be made precise that it will contribute for the creation of this system. It turns out that the General Prosecutor’s Office has realised its financial obligations through a contribution of 75,000 lek194.

The time period defined is not realistic, taking into account that it is a matter of foreign financing which is subject to the rules and time periods of the donor. The indicators that have been defined are very general, all the more when it is a question of the first phase of the project. The indicators are the same for this measure and the three prior measures.

3.8.1. b) Installation of the telephonic VOIP systemResponsible institution: General Prosecutor’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: 2012Status: Not implemented195

There is no information about the implementation of this measure. It does not turn out that the General Prosecutor’s Office has made any investments of this kind196.

The responsible institution, budget and time period have been defined in an appropriate manner.

3.8.1. c) Surveillance systemsResponsible institution: General Prosecutor’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: 2012Status: Implemented

Because of the unclear formulation of the measure, it cannot be understood that kind of surveillance systems are meant. If it is a matter of safeguarding the offices of the prosecution with cameras, then the General Prosecutor’s Office has provided, in the budget for 2012, an amount of 4 million lek for cameras in the building of the General Prosecutor’s Office and the tendering process has been completed within the first six months of 2012197. The responsible institution, budget and time period have been defined appropriately.

3.8.1. d) Installation of the telephonic VOIP systemResponsible institution: General Prosecutor’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: 2013Status: Not implemented198

193. Edlira Jorgaqi, General Prosecutor’s Office, director of Studies, meeting on 21.9.2012.194. General Prosecutor’s Office, Report of actual expenses of the programme by articles, first nine months of 2012 http://www.pp.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=457195. The time period of this measure has not yet ended, but there is no information as to whether its implementation has started.196. General Prosecutor’s Office, Report of actual expenses of the programme by articles, first nine months of 2012 http://www.pp.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=457197. Id.198. The time period for this measure has not yet ended, but there is no information about whether its implementation has started.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

3

OB

JEC

TIV

E

This measure is the same a measure 3.8.1/b. It is not clear what the difference is between then. Nor is there information about the implementation of this measure. It does not turn out that the General Prosecutor’s Office has made any investment of this nature199.

The responsible institution, the budget and the time period have been defined in an appropriate manner.

3.8.1. e) System of automatic card entry-exit in the prosecutor’s of f icesResponsible institution: General Prosecutor’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: 2013Status: Partially implemented

The implementation of this measure, which is of a capacity-building nature, has been foreseen to end in the year 2013. In 2011, the General Prosecutor’s Office received a budget of 372,000 lek for the installation of this system200. This budget was completely spent in order to realise this purpose. For the year 2012, a budget of 5 million lek has been foreseen in the Medium-Term Budget Plan for this purpose, but this budget has not been allocated for the General Prosecutor’s Office201.

The responsible institution, the budget and the time period have been defined in a satisfactory manner, but this is a case where the planning is not being done in the proper way, because the financial means either do not exist or are being used for another purpose.

3.8.2. Building a joint network with the General Prosecutor’s Of f ice and the installation/conf iguration of the VOIP telephonic systemResponsible institution: General Prosecutor’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: 2011- 2013Status: Partially implemented This measure of a capacity-building nature repeats yet once again the first phase of the IPA programme for case management, which has been treated in measure 3.8.1/a of this specific objective, as well as for the installation of the VoIP telephonic system, which was dealt with in measures 3.8.1/b and 3.8.1/ç. In addition to this, investments in considerable amounts have been made to link the prosecutor’s offices by fibre optics.

Tenders have been conducted for the year 2011 and investments have been realised for fibre optic connections in the General Prosecutor’s Office and the district prosecutor’s offices of Tirana, Durrës, Berat, Dibër, Fier, Gjirokastër, Lezha, Saranda and Vlora, in the total amount of about 5 million lek202.

199. General Prosecutor’s Office, Report of actual expenses, by articles, first nine months of 2012 http://www.pp.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=457200. General Prosecutor’s Office, Monitoring report on the performance of the products of the state budget for the year 2011 http://www.pp.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=325201. General Prosecutor’s Office, Report of actual expenses of the programme, by articles, first nine months of 2012 http://www.pp.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=457202. General Prosecutor’s Office, Monitoring report on the performance of the products of the state budget for 2011 http://www.pp.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=325


For the year 2012, two million lek have been provided for fibre optic connections and work has begun in the prosecutor’s offices of the districts of Korça, Kurbin, Mat, Pogradec and Tropoja and at the Vlora prosecutor’s office at the court of appeal203.The responsible institution, budget and time period have been defined in an appropriate manner. The indicators are general and difficult to measure.

3.8.3. Training of IT experts of the judges and prosecutors Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, courts, General Prosecutor’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: 2011- 2013Status: Not implemented204

This is a measure that aims at capacity building. It is also partially repeated below; see measure 3.8.6. It is not clear what the difference is between them nor what the intent is of this specific measure, that is, the area of training. Indeed, the formulation of the measure is not clear, as to whether IT specialists will be trained who are judges and prosecutors or IT specialists of the courts and prosecutor’s offices.

There is no information about the implementation of this measure.

The Ministry of Justice and the General Prosecutor’s Office are naturally the institutions responsible for training IT specialists (and the judges and prosecutors, if that is the case), whereas the “courts” should not have been defined as a responsible institution. First, because of the way the judicial system is organised, this term is not used to refer to all the courts or some of them. Secondly, the courts do not have capacities to hold trainings, and therefore, they should not be assigned with this responsibility, all the more when the implementation of the measure is not accompanied by a separate budget.

The time period has been defined correctly, whereas the indicator is superficial. In order to facilitate the measurement of progress under this measure, it would have been good to establish as monitoring mechanisms the number of trainings and persons trained that are to be realised in each year, the thematic areas of those trainings and so forth.

3.8.4. Training employees of the judicial administration Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, courts, General Prosecutor’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: 2011- 2013Status: Not implemented205

The Ministry of Justice has approved a training programme for the judicial administration for 2012-2014206. During 2012, trainers were trained who will train the judicial administration, also including IT experts. Those trainings are expected to begin in 2012.

203. General Prosecutor’s Office, Report of actual expenses of the programme, by articles, first nine months of 2012 http://www.pp.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=457 204. The time period of this measure has not yet ended, but there is no information as to whether its implementation has begun.205. The time period of this measure has not yet ended, but there is no information as to whether its implementation has begun.206. Order no. 9024 of the Minister of Justice dated 30.12.2011.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

3

OB

JEC

TIV

E

It is reported that by order no. 9024 of the Minister of Justice dated 30.12.2011, a training calendar was approved for the judicial administration for the period 2012 – 2014207 and the respective budget was also allocated208. However, our project was not able to obtain official information about the realisation of this measure. It does not appear that the Magistrates’ School held trainings of such a nature209.

See the notes on measure 3.8.3 in connection with the institutional responsibility and budget.

3.8.5. Installation of an electronic system in all the court archives Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Partially implemented

As has been explained for other measures above, all the courts are supposed to be using the ICMIS system, and judicial cases can be found in the portal www.gjykata.gov.al. However, there are several courts, such as that of Tirana, Durrës and others like them, that do not use the ICMIS system, and consequently, this electronic system has not been extended to their archives.

The institutional responsibility has been correctly defined, and the budget designated for the project is considerable, but the time period is not realistic, taking into account that it is a matter of voluminous work.

3.8.6. Holding trainings for the IT personnel of the courts and the administrationResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice, courts, General Prosecutor’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: Has not been established in the action plan Status: Not implemented

This measure overlaps with measures 3.8.3 and 3.8.4. Neither the distinction between them nor the purpose of this concrete measure, that is, the training area, is clear.

On 15 September 2011, EURALIUS III organised the first one-day meeting in the Ministry of Justice of all the IT specialists in the Albanian courts. Discussions were held in two concentrated sessions, respectively on ICMIS developments and on data protection in the system. The purpose of the meeting was to give the IT specialists the possibility to improve the effectiveness of the IT units in the Albanian courts, to discuss problems, to share experience and to identify solutions to those problems210. There is no information as to whether other actions have been undertaken for the implementation of this measure.

See the notes about measure 3.8.3 for institutional responsibility and the budget.

207. Ministry of Integration, Report on the implementation of the action plan for fulfilling the 12 Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania, June-July 2012. http://mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2042208. European Commission, Albania 2012 Progress Report, SWD(2012) 334, Brussels, 10.10.2012 http://www.mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2111, but also We Communicate, the quarterly bulletin on projects in the justice system in Albania, no. 3, 2011, http://www.justforumalbania.org/site/arkiva and EURALIUS III, Report on training chancellors in Albania, May 2011. http://www.euralius.eu/en/recommendations 209. Magistrates’ School, http://www.magjistratura.edu.al/#76 210. We Communicate, Quarterly bulletin on the justice system in Albania, no. 3, 2011, http://www.justforumalbania.org/site/arkiva


3.8.7. The electronic case management system put into full use in all the judicial districts*Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011- 2013Status: Implemented (before the time period allocated)

The measure overlaps with measures 3.7.1. and 3.8.5. It is not clear what the difference is between them, because they seem simply to repeat one another.

The measure has begun to be implemented, because all the country’s courts are using the ICMIS system of case management211. There is not information in connection with the level of use of the system (partial or complete).

The responsible institution, budget and time period have been defined in an appropriate manner. The indicators are general and difficult to measure (increase of transparency and public access). One of the indicators is inappropriate for this measure, because it is related to the decisions of the prosecutor’s office.

3.8.8. Conversion of legal proceedings through consolidation of the electronic system*Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011- 2013Status: Partially implemented212

This is a measure that is difficult to understand. The consolidation of the electronic system overlaps with measures 3.7.1, 3.8.5. and 3.8.7. The initiative undertaken by the Ministry of Justice in the framework of digitalising the justice system for the installation of the system of audio registration of judicial session is being realised with the support of the USAID project JuST. This system has already been installed in three courts: Korça, Durrës and Lezha, and it is expected to be installed in many other courts on an on-going basis.

It has been foreseen that the implementation of this measure will end in 2013, but there is not information as to whether its implementation has started.

The responsible institution, budget and time period have been defined in an appropriate manner. The indicators are general and difficult to measure (increase of transparency and public access). One of the indicators is inappropriate for this measure, because it is related to decisions of the prosecutor’s office.

3.8.9. Development of a system of automated management of cases in the prosecutor’s of f iceResponsible institution: EU, General Prosecutor’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: 2011- 2012Status: Partially implemented

This measure is the same as measures 3.8.1/a and 3.8.2 provided for this specific objective.

211. Ministry of Integration, Report on the implementation of the action plan for fulfilling the 12 Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania, October 2012 http://www.mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2109212. The time period of this measure has not yet ended, but there is no information as to whether its implementation has begun.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

3

OB

JEC

TIV

E

3.8.10. a) Completion and replacement of electronic equipment for 27 courts and the OAJBResponsible institution: OAJB and the courtsDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Implemented

During 2011, the OAJB procured electronic equipment for its offices and 27 courts for a total amount of about 20 million lek213.

The responsible institution, the budget and the time period have been defined in an appropriate manner. Indicators are lacking, but the number and type of electronic equipment procured, according to the courts and the defined budget, could be used as such.

3.8.10. b) Completion and replacement of electronic equipment for 25 courts and the OAJBResponsible institution: OAJB and the courtsDeadline for implementation: 2012Status: Partially implemented

During the first eight months of 2012, the OAJB procured electronic equipment for its own offices and 21 courts, for a total amount of about 21 million lek214.

The responsible institution, the budget and the time period have been defined in an appropriate manner. Indicators are lacking, but the number and type of electronic equipment procured, according to the courts and the defined budget, could be used as such.

3.8.10. c) Completion and replacement of electronic equipment for 26 courts and the OAJB*Responsible institution: OAJB and the courtsDeadline for implementation: 2013Status: Not implemented

It has been foreseen that this measure will be implemented in 2013.

The responsible institution, the budget and the time period have been defined in an appropriate manner. Indicators are lacking, but the number of courts and the defined budget might be used as such.

5. CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE PROGRESS ACHIEVED From the above evaluation, it turns out that of 50 measures provided for the realisation of strategic objective 3, only 15 measures have been completely implemented, 15 others have been partially implemented and the remaining 20 measures has not been implemented.

If we look in more detail at the dynamics of implementation of the measures, we see that:

213. Office of Administration of the Judicial Budget (OAJB), Register of realisation of public procurements for the judicial power, January-December 2011 http://www.OAJB.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=272 214. OAJB, Register of realisation of public procurements for the judicial power, January-August 2012, www.OAJB.gov.al


30%

30%

40%



PARTIALLY IMPLENTED

NOT BEEN IMPLENTED

• 30% measures are considered implemented (15), among which eight have a continuing nature and their implementation extends until 2013. This shows planning abilities in the implementation of those measures. One measure has been implemented earlier than the time period foreseen.

• 30% measures were partially implemented (15), of which six still have a time period for being completed, but the evaluation has been given because of the insufficiencies of actions undertaken to address the objective.

• 40% measures were judged not implemented (20), among which 10 measures still have a time period for being implemented. Of those, there is no information for six measures as to whether their implementation has started, for one measure implementation has not started, and another measure should start to be implemented in 2013. Four measures considered not implemented have begun to be implemented. They are all of a regulatory nature and have to do with the approval of several important laws.

The best progress was achieved in the field of investments in technology, in courts and prosecutors’ offices, but especially in the courts. Investments in electronic equipment have been considerable and have been repeated, as have investments in the installation of the ICMIS system, its further development and making the information available to the public at large.

Trainings are an area where not everything expected has been realised. Despite the considerable number of trainings at the Magistrates’ School, it has to be mentioned that a very small number of those trainings have been realised with funds of the state budget. The majority of the trainings continue to take place with the funds of donors in conformity with the thematic programme of training judges and prosecutors approved every three years by the School’s Technical Council. Pronounced deficiencies are also seen in the training of the judicial administration, IT personnel and judges and assistants in the High Court.

In conclusion, it can be said that although measures have been taken to create good technical work conditions for judges and prosecutors, and modern methods and systems have been put and continue to be put into implementation, the whole legal framework that would guarantee trials within a reasonable time, access, transparency and service to the public still has not been completed. In addition, judges, prosecutors and the staff that assists them in daily work should be trained according to programmes that are adapted to their needs and the developments in the system of justice.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

3

OB

JEC

TIV

E

The time periods defined in the Strategy are, in general, realistic. For 15 measures, the time periods are not realistic, for 34 measures, they have been realistically defined, whereas one measure is without a time period provided. Several measures are also included in this number as to which, although they foresee a continuing time period, it is not identified what part of the measure will be completed in each part of the time period.

Instances can be seen in strategic objective 3 of measures that aim at amending very important laws in very short and unrealistic time periods. (The seven regulatory measures under specific objective 3.1 have a term of the second six months of 2011). In general, deficiencies are observed in the implementation of measures of a regulatory nature, that is, the drafting of legal and subordinate legal acts.

It can be seen that although some of these acts require a qualified majority in the Assembly, the biggest impediment to their approval has not been the absence of political consensus, but weak planning and delayed starting of the drafting process. In particular cases, a lack of coordination between public agencies is also seen (amendments to the law “On advocacy” or the law “On the High Court”). Nor are cases absent when a regulatory measure has not been implemented because it has been considered unnecessary (for example, the amendments proposed to the law “On the Magistrates’ School”). This fact speaks to deficiencies in the process of drafting the Strategy or the absence of law drafting capacities.

In addition, the resources have not been identified for two measures, so that the time period cannot be realistic. If the resources are identified within 2012 and included in the state budget for 2013, or funds are found from donors, then 2013 could be a realistic time period.

In connection with the responsible institutions, it should be emphasised that in no case has there been a clear separation between the responsible institutions and the partner institutions. This determination would be essential both to impose the respective obligations on those institutions, as well as to enable accurate monitoring of the implementation of the respective measures.

This is especially true for measures of a regulatory nature. In several of them, responsibility for drafting legislation has been assigned to bodies that normally have only a secondary contribution in this aspect, such as the General Prosecutor’s Office. This has occurred with four measures. In one of these measures (3.3.4), responsibility has been assigned only to an international organisation. This should not happen in a state strategy. In total, in 43 cases, institutional responsibility has been defined as it should, whereas in seven measures it is not sufficient.

The financial resources have been defined correctly for 41 measures, whereas for the other nine, the resources have not been identified precisely. Those measures include ones where there is no definition of the resources, as well as several other measures that have not been formulated with sufficient clarity in order to understand whether the resources are sufficient.

Particularly for measures that contemplate trainings, sufficient resources have not been provided. This is especially true for measures that foresee trainings organised by institutions that do not have them as part of their basic function (High Court, General Prosecutor’s Office, courts and others). It is impossible for those institutions to organise trainings only with operating expenses.

It has been provided that 21 measures will be covered only from operating expenses; for two measures, only from donor funds (measures 3.3.4 and 3.8.2); for two other measures, joint funds of the Albanian


government and donors, whereas for the 23 remaining measures, the funds have been foreseen to come from the state budget. For two measures, the resources have not been identified. From the monitoring, it was seen that there were also cases when a measure was not implemented because of the lack of financial resources despite the fact that they were listed in the Strategy (measure 3.8.1/d).

Another general problem is the provision of only operating expenses for measures of a regulatory nature, which shows a lack of good planning and is not realistic, because for especially important laws, qualified expertise and a broad process of consultation and discussion with state institutions and other non-state actors are necessary. It often happens that such activities are financially supported by international projects, because the respective state institutions have not provided funds for this important part of the law drafting process. The determination of monitoring and evaluative mechanisms is an element of the Strategy with many deficiencies. For measures of a regulatory (legislative) nature, in general, the indicator is only the approval of the amendments. Under conditions when the Strategy does not provide the aspects in which the law is to be amended, having this as the mechanism makes it even more difficult to monitor the effect of the measure in reaching its objective.

Several of the mechanisms defined have been formulated as objectives or measures (for example, safe-keeping and archiving of medical-legal activity). For 35 measures, the monitoring and evaluative mechanisms are very general (that is, difficult to monitor) or not defined, whereas the monitoring mechanisms are appropriate for 15 other measures.


Strategic objective 3 should have been formulated more clearly, better defining the elements of effectiveness of the judicial system. Such a better formulation of the strategic objective would also have led to a better identification of the specific objectives and the respective measures.

For example, the objective could have been formulated simply as “Consolidation of the effectiveness of the judicial power”, and the specific objectives would elaborate the meaning of this relatively broad notion.

Where possible, the specific objectives might have been divided according to institutions or thematic areas (fields). This might have avoided the overlapping of objectives or measures noticed in this strategic objective. For example, the measures that aim at raising the capacities of the magistrates’ School might have been separated from the measures that aim at raising the performance of the judges and those that also affect other actors. In the same way, the measures that put responsibility on the General Prosecutor’s Office might have been grouped separately, because they have to do mainly with investments in the IT field. Or the measures related to the ICMIS system might have been grouped under a single specific objective.

In addition, concrete measures should have been formulated more clearly, because with the current formulation it is very hard to monitor their implementation(“the teaching process”, “evaluation”, “surveillance systems”, “conversion of legal proceedings through consolidation of the electronic system” and others).

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

3

OB

JEC

TIV

E

For this very important objective, measures having to do with the daily activity of the institutions should have been provided less frequently and there should have been more measures for capacity-building and qualitative improvements.

More measures to reduce delays in judicial proceedings might have been foreseen, especially of the nature of making judges and the administrative staff more capable in planning sessions and case management. Such might be measures related to improving the notification system, the recording of judicial sessions, the furnishing of the courts with systems for planning judicial sessions (and the use of courtrooms), the training of judges on the use of such systems, and so forth.

For measures that include the holding of trainings, the area of training and the audience should have been defined better, as well as clear objectives in connection with the number of trainings to be held and the number of persons to be trained. This would facilitate the implementation of the measures and also their monitoring. The same should be done with other measures. For example, the measure “Publication of the journal ‘Legal life’, four issues a year” would have been more appropriately formulated as “increasing the percentage of articles publishing by judges from X% to Y%”. That formulation should also have been reflected in the measurement indicators.

Several measures of the nature of infrastructure could have been transferred to other strategic objectives, such as strategic objective no. 7, for example, the measures related to purchasing equipment for the courts.

Duplicated measures should be stricken. For example, “Publications” should be taken out, because it is a repetitive measure and it is sufficient for the time period of the above measures, which provide for publications, to go until the year 2013.

For the measures “Signing bilateral agreements for legal assistance in the criminal field with EUROJUST, Kosovo, Kuwait and algeria” and “Signing, ratification, adherence to multilateral acts (conventions and protocols) of the Council of europe and The Hague Conference”, the responsible institutions should also include other institutions, such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Assembly. The indicator “implementation of the agreements” could be replaced by the entry into force of the above agreements. It would also be necessary to specify the concrete conventions and protocols that it is aimed to have signed and ratified.

For the measure “Creation of an electronic data base for judicial cooperation”, the necessary resources that enable its realisation should be identified.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

LawS and SubordInate LegaL aCtS:Law no. 9109 dated 17.7.2003 “On the profession of advocate”, amended.

Law no. 49/2012 “On the organisation and functioning of the administrative courts and the adjudication of administrative disputes”.

Law No. 17/2012 “On some additions and amendments to law no. 7850 dated 29.7.1994 “The Civil Code of the Republic of Albania”.

Decision no. 277 of the High Council of Justice dated 22.6.2011.

Decision no. 279 of the High Council of Justice dated 16.9.2011




Decision no. 1 of the Steering Council of the Magistrates’ School dated 29.3.2010.

Decision no. 35 of the Steering Council of the Magistrates’ School dated 25.5.2012.

Decision no.120 of the Council of Ministers, dated 27.2.2003 “On the creation of the Institute of Legal Medicine”.

draft LawS:Draft law “On some amendments and additions to law no. 8588 dated 15.3.2000 “On the organisation and functioning of the High Court”.

offICIaL LetterS froM tHe reSponSIbLe InStItutIonS:Ela Qokaj, Magistrates’ School, chancellor, letter no. 827 dated 2.8.2012, in response to letter no. 282/2012 dated 13.7.2012, of the director of the Open Society Foundation (Soros).

Ela Qokaj, Magistrates’ School, chancellor, letter no. 875 dated 2.8.2012, in response to letter no. 282/2012 dated 13.7.2012, of the director of the Open Society Foundation (Soros).

Gazmend Turdiu, Foreign Ministry, general secretary, letter “Returning an answer”, prot. no. 11563 dated 21 September 2012.

MeetIngS/e-MaILS:Miran Kopani, High Court, director of Studies, Publications and IT, e-mail of 17.9.2012.

Ermira Shkurti, UNDP, e-mail of 23.10.2012.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

3

OB

JEC

TIV

E

Vera Rakipi, Magistrates’ School, e-mail of 2.10.2012

Ervin Metalla, Durrës court, chairman, e-mail of 27.10.2012.

Edlira Jorgaqi, General Prosecutor’s Office, director of Studies, meeting, 21.9.2012.

reportS:Ministry of Integration, Monthly reports on the implementation of the action plan for meeting the 12 recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission on Albania, April, June-July, September and October 2012.

Open Society Foundation (Soros), Civic report of monitoring the action plan to address the 12 priorities of the European Commission – 2012, Priority 7.

European Commission, Albania 2012 Progress Report, SWD (2012) 334, Brussels, 10.10.2012.

Letter, prot. no. 57, 20.1.2012, of the director of the Magistrates’ School to the Agency of Public Procurement and the register of realisation of public procurements.

Letter, prot. no. 692, 18.5.2012, of the chancellor of the Magistrates’ School to the Agency of Public Procurement and the register of realisation of public procurements.

EURALIUS III, Report on the appropriateness of the case management information system (ICMIS) application, February 2012.

General Prosecutor’s Office, Report of actual expenses of the programme, by articles, first nine months 2012.

General Prosecutor’s Office, Monitoring report on the performance of products of the state budget for 2011.

EURALIUS III, Report on training of chancellors in Albania, May 2011.


NO.4

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

Strategic ObJectiVe 4Consolidation of access to the justice institutions so that they are open for everyone and actively engaged in encouraging alternative forms of dispute resolution (important)

1. ANALYSIS OF THE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVEAccess to justice is a fundamental part and an instrument of human rights, defined in and protected by the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR)215 and other international instruments. In addition to constituting a right in itself, it guarantees and strengthens the implementation in practice of the fundamental rights. It is considered one of the main pillars of the rule of law and of human rights.

It is important to stress that access to justice is not a standardised concept and it does not only include “access to court”, but all the elements that influence the realisation of the access of individuals to legal aid, alternative measures of dispute resolution, effective indemnification, information about rights and obligations in court, a reasonable time length of legal and judicial procedures for the realisation of those rights, and so on.

A fundamental precondition that insures access to justice to all individuals alike is legal aid, which the state is obligated to guarantee, to organise and to finance, for the purpose of making it efficacious216. Encouraging alternative forms of dispute resolution and access to the extra or quasi-judicial mechanisms constitutes one of the elements to encourage access to justice. In the existing formulation, the strategic objective is elaborated with the determination of specific objectives, and for this reason, we suggest that this strategic objective should not include or should not emphasise particular specific objectives in its text217.

2. ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES The specific objectives defined to fulfil this Strategic objective reflect the fundamental elements of the concept of “access to justice” such as, for example, the right of citizens to be informed about the laws that have been approved, the ability to become familiar with them and to understand then, to use them and to obtain protection from them, at a reasonable time and for a reasonable cost, and so on. Several of the specific objectives have been drafted in a general or extremely brief manner, without specifying the concrete impact on realising the purpose of the strategic objective.

4.1 Increasing the access of the public and professionals to know the legislation (important)

215. Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR provide respectively for “free access to justice for every individual regardless of social status or economic condition” and “the right to an effective means of appeal”.216. According to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), a state may be found liable for the absence of effective access to justice.217. If this strategic objective were to stress/distinguish among the specific objectives, then it would be more in order, based on an analysis of the conditions and problem areas done in the narrative part of the Strategy, especially the part about “access to justice” and the priorities of European integration, to stress in the text of the strategic objective “increasing the effectiveness of legal aid” based also on the current definition as a specific objective that is “very important” in the action plan of the Strategy.


The objective is relevant and is a precondition for achieving the purpose of the strategic objective – through guaranteeing the access of professionals, especially citizens, to know the law – and later, to use it in realising their rights. The fulfilment of this objective is a condition for realising other specific objectives, that of improving the effectiveness of legal aid, using alternative forms of dispute resolution more broadly and so forth.

4.2 Effectiveness of legal aid (very important)This objective, considered “very important” and a principal one in fulfilling the strategic objective, has been formulated in a broad and general manner, as are the measures drawn up for its fulfilment. This objective has not been formulated as a specific objective and does not indicate its purpose – that of informing citizens about the procedures and conditions for obtaining legal aid and increasing the number of cases when legal aid is provided, which should have been reflected in this specific objective.

4.3 Improving public relations (very important)Although the objective has been formulated in an unclear and general way, improving the access of citizens to judicial information and services, dealt with in the framework of the elements of a due legal process, can be considered very important and relevant for fulfilling the strategic objective.

4.4 Effectiveness of alternative forms (important)The objective has been formulated in a general way, as have several of the measures drawn up to realise it. It is an important objective and an essential element of the concept of consolidation of “access to justice”.

4.5 Improving and strengthening the role of the auxiliary actors of the justice system – the free professions (important)Improving the quality of the services of advocates, notaries or other free professions, such as mediators and arbitrators, by raising their professional capacities and disciplining them better, assists in improving access to justice. This objective is relevant to reaching the strategic objective, although it should have been formulated in a more direct and concrete manner.

3. EVALUATION OF THE ACTIONS PROVIDED TO ADDRESS SPE-CIFIC OBJECTIVES A majority of the measures/actions provided for each specific objective have the aim of raising the capacities of state structures, respectively, 13 measures: seven are of a regulatory nature and six other measures aim at improving the quality of services.

4.1 Increasing the access of the public and professionals to know the legislation (important)The measures under this objective are generally of a capacity-building nature – three out of the five measures foreseen. One measure refers to a qualitative increase of service/access, and one measure is of

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

a regulatory nature. In addition to implementation of the constitutional and legal obligation to publish on time those acts that are supposed to be published in the Official Journal by state structures and the Official Publications Centre, the measures that have been provided aim at modernising the system of official publications, especially those involving publication and entry into force of acts through the electronic version of the Official Journal. So far as concerns their formulation, measure 4.1.3 has not been drafted clearly and does not show the purpose for which it was proposed. Analysing the fulfilment of the specific objective by means of the planned measures, those measures can be considered as the minimum for improving access to legislation by judges, lawyers, prosecutors and so forth, especially so far as concerns the access of the public to information of interest to it. The fulfilment of this objective would require that concrete actions be taken by the state structures to guarantee publication on time of the acts that are supposed to be published, as well as periodic independent monitoring in order to measure the implementation of those obligations or their impact on law professionals and the broader public.

4.2 Effectiveness of legal aid (very important)Of the measures foreseen for this objective, two are of a regulatory nature, one is for capacity-building and two measures are for qualitative improvements through increasing the number of cases on providing legal aid. The measures have been drawn up concretely, except for measure 4.2.4 (effective implementation of the legislation for free legal aid), which has not been formulated in a specific manner and the progress of which is difficult to measure, since its implementation depends not only on other measures defined in this objective but also on other actions not concretely planned, such as informational activities for society and vulnerable groups about the procedures for obtaining legal aid or eliminating in practice the bureaucratic impediments to real access to legal aid. Under those conditions, the planned measures are insufficient to assure an increase of the efficacy of the system of legal aid.

4.3 Improving public relations (very important)The measures have been drawn up to increase transparency and the informing of the public about official documents, on the basis of which the relations of the court with the public might be improved and consolidated. Planned for this objective are three measures, one of them regulatory, one for capacity-building and one aiming at qualitative improvement of the service. Measure 4.3.2 (effective implementation of the rules “On relations of the court with the public”) is a routine activity, drawn up in a general manner, which implies for its fulfilment the implementation of several other measures not planned. The measurement of the progress of the measures defined in this objective, and especially measure 4.3.2, also turn out to be difficult because of the failure to plan for surveys or polls on the satisfaction of complaints of “the users of the courts” about their access to court and the quality of the judicial services.

4.4 Effectiveness of alternative forms (important)The planned measures are directed toward the preparation of the legal infrastructure and the structures for the administration of alternative forms of dispute resolution. The measure are categorised as follows: two out of six are of a regulatory nature, two are for capacity-building, and the other two measures aim at qualitative improvement, although they have been drafted in a general way, especially measure 4.4.3, thus making it difficult to evaluate and monitoring their correct fulfilment.


4.5 Improving and strengthening the role of the auxiliary actors of the justice system – the free professions (important)The measures of this objective are categorised as follows: six of the defined measures are for capacity-building, one measure is of a regulatory nature and one measure aims at qualitative improvement. Several of the measures provided, respectively, measures 4.5.3, 4.5.4 and 4.5.5, are focused on the implementation of functional and routine duties of the Ministry of Justice over its dependent structures, more in the direction of the qualitative improvement of their services for improving access to justice for individuals.

4. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE EVALUATION ABOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EVERY ACTION/MEASURE

Specific objective 4.1: Increasing the access of the public and professionals to know the legislation

4.1.1 Publication of legal and subordinate legal acts on time*218

Responsible institution: Official Publication Centre Deadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: Partially implemented

The increasing volume of new legislation and amendments to existing legislation has brought a considerable increase in the issues of the Official Journal published by the Official Publication Centre (OPC), causing the OPC to meet a series of difficulties in meeting the obligation to publish on time – within the legal time periods – the respective legislation219.

The OPC itself has brought out in the past the failure to publish in the Official Journal the texts of a large number of international agreements ratified by law without it being possible to verify the respective texts220. In 2008 the People’s Advocate informed the Assembly of Albania about all the international agreements not published in the official Journal, which turn out still not to have been published221.

For the fourth consecutive year, the Centre on Issues of Informing the Public (CIIP)222 has monitored the publication in the Official Journal of the acts of the central constitutional institutions, findings that were published in September 2011 in the report “Transparency of official publications in the Republic of Albania, 2011223. The main problem areas of this report are related to:

218. The status of these measures has been determined on the basis of monitoring progress during the period July 2011-October 2012.219. Ilir Kondi, Official Publication Centre, director, meeting, 10 September 2012. From the meeting held with the director of this institution and the staff of the OPC, we have been informed of the problem areas of the current system for preparing the Official Journal, where every official act to be published comes only in hard copy to the OPC and the OPC is obliged to retype the acts from the beginning. 220. Ilir Kondi, Official Publication Centre, director, meeting, 10 September 2012. Mr. Kondi informed us that during the last three years, all the acts to be published that were “sent” to the OPC have been published. It should be emphasised that the statement of Mr. Kondi about the ability to publish all the official acts refers only to acts to be published sent by the respective structures to the OPC. This information can also be supported by reports of the Centre on Issues of Informing the Public (CIIP), from which it turns out that in principle, official acts not published in the Official Journal (OJ) have not been published either on the official Internet pages (Council of Ministers Decisions or CMDs, instructions of the ministers) or judicial decisions of the High Court and the Constitutional Court. That is, the failure to publish acts in the OJ that should be published seems to be a consequence of failure by state structures to respect the law and send publishable acts on time to the OPC, rather than the failure by the OPC to meet the legal obligation. The above information has been taken only from an interview held at the OPC. 221. People’s Advocate, Special report on international agreements ratified by law but not published in the official Journal, to the Assembly of Albania, prot. nr. 122, dated 23.5.2008. 222. It is the only actor that does such monitoring in a continuous manner, from 2006 and on-going. 223. CIIP, Report “Transparency of official publications in the Republic of Albania, 2011”, http://www.infocip.org/raporti_web_2011.pdf ,.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

1. The failure to publish in “extra” editions of the Official Journal the “stock” of the texts of the international agreements ratified by law during 2011;

2. 16 CMDs not published in the Official Journal, although in comparison with prior years, an improvement of the situation of publishing these CMDs on time is seen224. From 93 CMDs not published in 2006, only 16 CMDs were not published in 2011225;

3. A worsening of the situation of the publication in the Official Journal of instructions of the ministers226;

4. A troubling deterioration concerning the announcement within the legal time periods and even in the publication of the unifying decisions of the High Court (six out of 13 decision monitored were not published in the Official Journal during 2011, primarily because of lateness in announcing them)227;

5. The finding for the first time, in 2011, of three decisions of the Constitutional Court not published in the Official Journal228.

To be truthful, orders of the ministers, unifying decisions of the High Court and decisions of the Constitutional Court have a more direct effect on citizens than the laws, which give a general framework. A worsening of the situation with the publishing of judicial decisions of the Constitutional Court and unifying decisions of the High Court, having the purpose among other things of setting norms for judicial practice, also affects the absence of information and sensitising judges, prosecutors, advocates and other legal professionals in a timely fashion. Under those conditions, a significant improvement in the realisation of this measure is not observed. The problem areas met with in the past in connection with the failure to publish the texts of international agreements, observed by the People’s Advocate, the OPC itself and especially the findings of the annual CIIP monitoring reports (2008-2011) are quite disturbing and show a real hindrance in access to the legislation.

The problems found show that the current functioning of the OPC creates an overload for transcribing the acts approved and sent by state structures for publication, evidencing the fact that it is outside its competences to verify whether those structures send the approved acts to the OPC in accordance with the legal time periods. What is even more disturbing, publication of the official acts on time in the Official Journal has as its primary function making it possible for them to enter into force, both in the case of instructions of the ministers229 (which enter into force after publication in the OJ), decisions of the Constitutional Court (immediately upon publication in the OJ) or unifying decisions of the High Court (publication in the next issue of the official Journal). As a second function, publication in the Official Journal serves for formal or real knowledge about and education of society in connection with the legal framework that is approved.

It is considered inappropriate to identify the institutional responsibility for implementation of this measure as being solely of the OPC, with the reasoning that the OPC has the legal obligation to publish all acts that are supposed to be published in the Official Journal only after they are sent by the state structures. The Ministry of Justice and the main constitutional institutions should also be defined as institutions responsible for its implementation.

224. Id., page 16.225. Id.226. Id., pages 24-32.227. Id., pages 32-35.228. Id., pages 37-38.229. The legal effects that those acts might have created up to the moment of their publication are null; they are without legal force and the acts themselves are invalid, as if they do not exist. Furthermore, those instructions are issued in implementation of laws or CMDs and by means of rules that determine and guarantee the implementation of the respective legislation.


So far as concerns the monitoring mechanism, it is general and does not serve to measure the implementation of the measure. It would be in order for the indicator to be formulated in such a manner as to illustrate the increase of the number of “stock” acts publishable from one year to another in the Official Journal; the sending of acts to the OPC on time by the state structures; and so forth. Concerning the time period, it is suggested that it be defined more clearly, since the time period “publication on time” has been determined by law and is a routine activity. The financial resources have been defined specifically for each year.

4.1.2 Updated publication of the codes and collections of legislation*Responsible institution: Official Publications Centre (OPC)Deadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: Not implemented

On the Internet page of the OPC, the codes230 and collections of legislation231 are updated to the year 2008 or 2010, although publication in electronic format is less costly than paper publication and assures faster access to information. Law no. 96/2012 “On the Official Publication Centre”232 provides for the creation of an “electronic archive of acts” in which all the publishable acts will be contained, together with all the amendments they have undergone after their approval, in a single updated act – at the same time as the publishing of the amendments.

Since the measure puts emphasis on the updated publication of the codes and collections of legislation, considering the above information this measure has been evaluated as not implemented; consequently, it has not contributed to the realisation of the specific objective.

The Ministry of Justice should be provided to be the responsible institution together with the OPC. The time period, financial resources and indicator for measuring success have been formulated concretely and clearly. The implementation of this measure will depend on the implementation of the subordinate legal acts for law no. 96/2012 “On the Official Publication Centre”, especially the creation of the electronic archive of acts but also the human and technical resources of the OPC.

4.1.3 Publication on time of official publications on the official Internet page*Responsible institution: Official Publication CentreDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: Not implemented

Law no. 96/2012 “On the Official Publication Centre” foresees a reduction of the publication time of the acts publishable in the Official Journal from 30 days (the maximum time period) to within 10 days from the time the acts are sent to the OPC and the publication of all official Journals and publishable

230. The Criminal Code amendments approved by law no. 23/2012 “On some additions and amendments to law no. 7895 dated 27.1.1995 “The Criminal Code of the Republic of Albania”, was promulgated by presidential decree no. 7341 dated 20.3.2012. The amendments to the Criminal Code are not reflected in the published version under publications on the Internet page of the OPC. In addition, the amendments to the Electoral Code made in August 2012 not only have not been reflected, but the Code is not accessible at all on this page, http://www.OPC.gov.al/botime/botimetk.htm 231. The collections of legislation also date up to 2010, which means that they are no updated. If the code are amended more rarely, the laws are often subject to amendments, sometimes even within the same year. 232. Law no. 96/2012 “On the Official Publication Centre”, promulgated on 18.10.2012, decree no. 7797 of the President of the Republic of Albania.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

acts in the electronic archive of acts233. According to the amendments in the law, the OPC will make a simultaneous publication of the “Official Journal” in paper format and in electronic format, whilst the moment the “Official Journal” comes out from printing will be considered the date and hour of inclusion in the electronic archive of acts.

A work group has been created, made up of representatives of the Ministry of Justice and the OPC, for the improvement of the official Internet page of the OPC234. A draft law “On the on-line portal of laws”, launches as an initiative of the Ministry of Justice, is expected to be approved by December 2012.

The implementation in practice of the amendments provided in law no. 96/2012 “On the Official Publication Centre” is not expected to be realised in the near future, because of the need for preparation of subordinate legal acts or orders of the Minister of Justice in implementation of it. In particular, the creation of the electronic archive of acts will be a long process (six months) and difficult so far as concerns its secure administration, with the purpose that there not be intervention from outside in the texts of the official journals, its updating according to the new time periods provided by law, the absence of qualified staff at the OPC in this connection and the absence of financial resources to create an Internet page that is secure and of high quality. The 10 day time period for publication in the Official Journal of every publishable act will be a challenge for the staff of the OPC even if it comes in electronic format, because of the absence of human and technical resources.

The principal “sending” constitutional organs should be included in the responsible structures as well as the Ministry of Justice. The indicator for measuring success is general. The implementation of this measure depends on the fulfilment of the legal obligation of the state structures to send publishable acts to the OPC on time. The time period seems reasonable and the budgets have been planned in an appropriate manner for each year.

4.1.4 Indexing the decisions of the High Court and the conventions ratified by the Republic of AlbaniaResponsible institution: Magistrates’ School and Council of Europe (CoE) Deadline for implementation: 2013Status: Partially implemented

the mission of European Assistance to the Albanian Justice System “EURALIUS II” realised, in cooperation with the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs235, the preparation of a compact disk (CD), electronically, containing all the texts of the international conventions ratified by law by the Assembly of Albania up to the year 2010.

In the framework of this project, 1000 copies of the CD were delivered to the Ministry of Justice and the Magistrates’ School for judges and prosecutors. It was planned for a copy of this CD also to be put on the Internet page of the Ministry of Justice, so that it would be accessible for all, but this has not been

233. The archive is to be created and will be administered according to procedures to be prepared by the Council of Ministers within six months from the entry of the law into force.234. Ilir Kondi, Official Publication Centre, director, meeting, 10 September 2012. The amendments to the law have to do among other things with the obligation of the responsible institution that proposes the act to bring the act to the OPC on a compact disk (CD), but again the OPC will meet the legal obligation to verify the text against the approved act and make a linguistic edit under the conditions of an absence of standardisation or references that should be applied by the state structures. The OPC will be supported by the Turkish “TICA” Foundation for the improvement of the infrastructure, equipment and training of the OPC staff.235. A project of the European Union implemented in Albania from 2008 to 2010.


done so far. Meanwhile, it is a problem that the CD should be updated with agreements ratified from the year 2010 and ongoing236.

With the support of the USAID Program “On strengthening the system of justice in Albania”, JuST, the Magistrates’ School is working on the preparation of a data base of the unifying decisions of the High Court. The main work for the determination of the methodology, the identification of the decisions, the construction of the database and the entry of the decisions into the database by students of the Magistrates’ School has been completed. The public launch of this initiative, initially planned for the month of September237, was put off until November 2012238.

The indexing of the unifying decisions of the High Court and international agreements is expected to facilitate the access of law professionals and will contribute to the unification of judicial practice in the correct application of law by the ordinary courts. It remains to be seen whether this good initiative will continue to be done by the responsible state institutions beyond the time period provided. The failure to announce/reason unifying decisions by the High Court within the legal time period, as a result of non-publication of the periodic bulletin of the High Court and in the Official Journal, might be an impediment to the indexing of those decisions.

This measure can be considered only partially implemented because the database of unifying decisions of the High Court and the respective search engines are not yet working. However, it is to be emphasised that the time period for the measure is still running.

The time period defined for the realisation of this measure is inappropriate and should have been detailed, based on the phases of realisation of the respective measure. This would facilitate the implementation of the measure on time and its evaluation. The High Court should have been included as a responsible institution, together with the Ministry of Justice. In addition, the USAID programme JuST should have been defined as a partner institution, which is supporting the realisation of part of this measure. The financial resources have been clearly defined. So far as the success indicator is concerned, we judge that it is insufficient in measuring the implementation of this measure. The financial resources have been identified in a concrete amount, but we cannot assess whether they are appropriate.

4.1.5 Improving the data management system at the OPC according to the standards of the European indexing system (EUROVOC)*Responsible institution: Official Publication CentreDeadline for implementation: 2011 - 2013Status: Not implemented

the purpose of this measure is to improve and harmonise the system of indexing data by the OPC according to the standards of the Official Journal of the European Union. Although there is no official information from the OPC, in a meeting we had with this institution we were informed that a concrete project does not yet exist of the OPC to reach this standard239.

236. Joaquin Urias, Mission EURALIUS III, head of mission, meeting on 26 September 2012. EURALIUS III did not have information about the continuation of the process of indexing and publishing ratified international agreements. 237. Roland Gjoni, USAID programme JuST “For strengthening the justice system”, leader of the component for legal training, e-mail of 16.07.2012. 238. Jonida Dervishi, USAID programme JuST “For strengthening the justice system”, e-mail of 18 October 2012.239. Ilir Kondi, Official Publications Centre, director, meeting, 10 September 2012.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

The search system and the methodology of indexing data of the OPC has to be standardised with the process of indexing the acts of the state and constitutional structures, for the purpose of coordinating the data with the “sending” structures of the acts publishable in the OPC and the creation of the possibility to have on-line access of publishable acts. This measure can be treated together with the initiative to improve the Internet page by the Ministry of Justice in cooperation with the OPC as well as the initiative to draft a law for the on-line portal of laws240.

The financial cost to realise this measure has not been defined, which could be a principal reason for the non-implementation of this measure. The planning of financial resources for measures of such a nature, to improve existing data management systems according to the European indexing system, which requires specific funds, should be done on time and precisely, because the realisation and quality of implementation of this measure depend directly on that.The success indicator is general. The Ministry of Justice should be included as a responsible institution, because of the management and coordination of several initiatives related to this measure. The time period seems reasonable.

Specific objective 4.2: Effectiveness of legal aid

4.2.1 Approval of subordinate legal acts for the law “On legal aid”Responsible institution: State Commission of Legal Aid, Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Implemented (beyond the defined time periods)

The State Commission of Legal Aid (SCLA) drew up and approved five decisions241 in implementation of law no.10 039, dated 22.12.2008 “On legal aid”. The process of drafting and consultation in the preparation of those decisions was transparent and comprehensive, and those acts underwent discussions with interest groups in a conference on the subject “Legal aid aims at increasing access to justice” organised on 16 April 2011, with the participation of representatives of the National Chamber of Advocacy, EURALIUS III and not-for-profit organisations. After examining the conclusions of the conference and the suggestions of EURALIUS III, the SCLA approved those decisions at a meeting on 25 June 2011242

According to EURALIUS III, several of those decisions, respectively, decision no.2 on the approved procedure for selecting the advocates who will provide legal aid and decision no.3 on the form of request for legal aid are inappropriate and could hinder the efficient provision of legal aid. This Mission has suggested the amendment of those decisions to the SCLA243.

The above decisions were approved two and a half years after the approval of the law and were published in the Official Journal six months after their approval by the SCLA – in December 2011.

240. Information received from the OPC refers only to data exchanged during the meeting held on 10 September 2012. The OPC promised that it would send the Open Society Foundation (Soros) fuller information about these measures, but a response was never sent because it was decided to annul it.241. Decision no. 1 of the State Commission of Legal Aid dated 25.6.2011 “On the priorities in the cases for which legal aid is provided for 2011 and 2012”; decision no. 2 of the State Commission of Legal Aid dated 25.6.2011 “On the rules for designating advocates, law offices and NPOs that will provide legal aid”; decision no. 3 of the State Commission of Legal Aid dated 25.6.2011 “On the approval of the form of request to obtain legal aid and the documents that should be attached to the model form of request”; decision no. 4 of the State Commission of Legal Aid dated 25.6.2011 “On determining the amount of compensation for advocates who will provide primary and secondary legal aid”; decision no. 5 of the State Commission of Legal Aid dated 25.6.2011 “On the criteria of evaluation, the format and standards for checking quality in the provision of legal aid”. Official Journal, no. 173, December 2011.242. Blegina Kodra, SCLA, chairman, letter “Response to your letter for information about the implementation of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy”, prot. no. 116/1, 15.9.2012.243. Joaquin Urias, EURALIUS III, head of mission, meeting, 26 September 2012.


The decision of the SCLA to designate advocates who will offer legal aid was applied/implemented only in May 2012 with the announcement by the SCLA of the competition procedure. The lateness in the preparation and entry into force of the law’s subordinate legal acts has created a problematic situation concerning access to legal aid.

Based on the importance of drafting and approving the subordinate legal framework for implementation of the law “On legal aid”, this measure is considered implemented with a delay, in relation to the defined time period. However, it should be emphasised that the lateness in approval and entry into force of these subordinate legal acts meant that there was an absence of provision of free legal aid. The institutional responsibility, the time period and the monitoring mechanism have been defined clearly. The expenses for realisation of this measure have not been identified. The institutional responsibility has been accurately identified.

4.2.2 Signing a memorandum of understanding on free legal aid and anti-discrimination measures Responsible institution: State Commission of Legal Aid, Ministry of Justice, Anti-discrimination CommissionerDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Implemented

the SCLA has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Commissioner for Protection against Discrimination244, with the State Commission of Legal Aid in the Republic of Kosovo245 and with the People’s Advocate246, for the coordination of activities for the effective implementation of human rights through providing legal aid in a professional manner of high quality.

The primary reason for entering into those memoranda should be better coordination between the state structures that may provide legal aid, for the most part primary aid but also secondary aid, for the purpose of increasing the effectiveness of legal aid. In all the memoranda that have been signed, the concrete activities that will be realised or the number of cases for which legal aid will be provided are not specified, but they have been drawn up as general commitments of the parties.

The entering into of memoranda of understanding between the SCLA and other state structures is considered not to be an effective way to realise access to free legal aid, so long as the activities that will be realised and the financial costs of implementing them are not clearly defined247.

The measure was realised on time. Considering the time of approval of the law and the functioning of the SCLA the time period is judged to be realistic and accurate. The indicator, institutional

244. Commissioner for Protection from Discrimination, memorandum of understanding between the State Commission of Legal Aid and the Commissioner for Protection from Discrimination, signed on 1.4.2011, http://kmd.al/skedaret/1335360261-MoU%20K.Ndihmes%20Juridike0001.pdf 245. Memorandum of understanding between the State Commission on Legal Aid and the Agency for Free Legal Aid, 18 May 2012, prot. no 68; prot. no. 7k-53/12. Document made available to the project by Blegina Kodra, SCLA chairman, letter “Response to your request for information about the implementation of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy”, prot. no. 116/1, 15.9.2012.246. Memorandum of understanding between the State Commission on Legal Aid and the People’s Advocate, 8 June 2012, prot. no. 82 for the SCLA and 169 for the People’s Advocate. Document made available to the project by Blegina Kodra, SCLA chairman, letter “Response to your request for information about the implementation of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy”, prot. no. 116/1, 15.9.2012.247. Rajmonda Bozo, Tirana Legal Aid Society (TLAS), executive director, meeting, 19 September 2012. TLAS has received 120 requests for primary and secondary legal aid from the People’s Advocate (the latter has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the SCLA), without any kind of financial support for the referred cases.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

responsibility and resources have been defined in a clear manner.

4.2.3 Training and seminars on free legal aid, including cases of gender discrimination, violence in the family and other vulnerable groupsResponsible institution: UNIFEMDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Not implemented

Training activities for the law “On legal aid” and the subordinate legal acts in implementation of it have been primarily organised by civil society and non-profit organisations (NPOs), which have been providing legal aid for years to groups in need. A similar case is the trainings on the new system of legal aid, organised by the Tirana Legal Aid Society (TLAS) in cooperation with the National Chamber of Advocacy, for advocates in the chambers of advocacy in Tirana and Vlora248. Data received from the SCLA give no information about trainings or seminars held in this field249.

However, in addition to the important contribution of NPOs in organising ad hoc training activities on the law “On legal aid” and its implementation, the SCLA should draw up a national training programme based on the priorities for providing this service and the characteristics of all the beneficiary groups. NPOs or training centres should provide training based only on this programme and according to the rules defined by the SCLA. The National Chamber of Advocacy should also play an important role for putting the system of legal aid into the mandatory training programme for advocates.

The principal institution responsible could not be UNIFEM, an international body that provides professional technical assistance in favour of state institutions and Albanian society in general. The SCLA should be specified as a responsible institution, since it is the central institution that guarantees the effectiveness of legal aid. The expenses for this measure have been identified as expenses of the UNIFEM project, which means that the activities planned in its framework in fact constitute the foreseen measure. Considering that fact, the time period has been clearly defined.

The demand is high for such activities which aim at improving professional capacities in this field, and those needs cannot be covered only with the expenses of foreign donors, but also require the budget of the SCLA, as the central institution that among other things has the duty of carrying out such activities. Measures of this nature, which in themselves aim at raising consciousness and education about the efficacious implementation of legal aid as a new system, should be long-term in order to be able to produce the desired effects.

The indicator that evaluates the implementation of the measure is incomplete – it should specify the number of trainings per year according to the issues defined by the measure, the target group that will be trained, the total number of persons to be trained and so forth.

4.2.4 Ef fective implementation of the legislation on free legal aid*

248. Rajmonda Bozo, Tirana Legal Aid (TLAS), executive director, meeting, 19 September 2012. The trainings held in September and November 201on the theme “Perfecting the system of legal aid – a condition for increasing the access of individuals in need to justice”, organised by TLAS and the National Chamber of Advocacy. 249. Blegina Kodra, SCLA, chairman, letter “Response to your request for information about the implementation of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy”, prot. no. 116/1, 15.9.2012.


Responsible institution: State Commission of Legal Aid (SCLA)Deadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: Not implemented

Since this is a framework measure that in itself includes all other measures, and responds completely to fulfilling the specific objective, it bears stressing that an evaluation of this measure implies at the same time an overall evaluation of the realisation of this objective. For this purpose, an evaluation of the implementation of this measure has been made after a detailed analysis of the entirety of the elements directly related to the provision of free legal aid.

Although the law “On legal aid” was approved in 2008, only after four years did the SCLA sign contracts with eight lawyers and four NPOs to provide legal aid, based on decision no. 90 dated 15.6.2012250. During 2011, the SCLA did not approve any of the 27 requests for provision of legal aid (14 criminal cases and 13 civil cases) because of deficiencies in their documentation251. In 2012, the SCLA approved the grant of legal aid for five cases (two criminal cases and three civil ones)252, as well as approving the request of TLAS to provided legal aid for the registration and beginning of the procedures for putting 33 children, unregistered in the civil status offices, under guardianship 253.

According to EURALIUS III, which supports the SCLA with expertise in several components of its programme, the very small number of cases accepted for being given legal aid (five cases, because 33 cases are only the registration procedures for children and the starting of the guardianship procedures proposed by TLAS) since the entry into force of the law “On legal aid” and the subordinate legal acts shows that the legal aid system is not functioning254.

It is observed that the most essential information is lacking about the existence/location of the SCLA, the beneficiary categories of legal aid, the application procedure and the procedure for filling out documentation, which realistically restrict access to legal aid. The SCLA still has not started a website where that information is published. Another obstacle to access to legal aid is constituted by the current practice of the functioning of the SCLA, especially for citizens who live outside of Tirana, through direct contact with the staff of the SCLA within the premises of the Ministry of Justice – in the reception room for the population. An increase of the number of applications in the future would make it impossible for this procedure followed by the SCLA to be efficient, making a change urgently necessary255.

It turns out to be difficult for citizens seeking legal aid to fill out the forms and supply the respective documentation, because of a large number of documents (seven certifications) which have to be collected and sent to the SCLA256. This procedure is very complicated for the categories

250. Blegina Kodra, State Commission on Legal Aid, chairman, letter “Sending official documentation: Information related to the implementation of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy”, prot. nr. 116/1, 15.09.2012.251. Id.252. Id. Those matters were approved in meetings organised on 23.4.2012 and 20.6.2012.253. Id. 254. Joaquin Urias, EURALIUS III, head of mission, meeting, 26 September 2012.255. One effective solution would be to contract with a lawyer in every administrative region for the purpose of providing primary assistance and the preparation of requests for legal aid and sending it or communicating electronically with the SCLA. Roundtable “On the perspective of legal aid in Albania”, 23 May 2012, organised by EURALIUS III, the People’s Advocate, TLAS and Civil Rights Defenders, conclusions of the roundtable.256. An applicant has to submit documents proving that he is included in social assistance programmes or meets the conditions for being included in them, such as, for example, he should submit seven certifications: from the labour office, from the tax office, the social insurance office, the office of registration of immovable properties, the automobile registration office, the respective sections at the municipality or commune where they live, showing whether they are subjects registered with them and the labour inspectorate, in order to verify that they do not work informally.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

of affected groups, as very poor strata of the population, with a low educational level, members of the Roma minority or others, who should be given assistance in filling out the request/respective documentation. The refusal of 27 requests for legal aid during 2011 by the SCLA was argued by the applicants’ failure to fill out all the legal documentation.

Another economic hindrance that restricts the effective access of individuals in need to judicialservices or legal aid is the high judicial fees257. The restriction of the access of persons in economic difficulty because of their inability to pay a “judicial fee” has been found by the court of the Pogradec judicial district, which by intermediate decision dated 17.4.2012, made a request to the Constitutional Court for a control of the constitutionality of article 11/2 of law no. 10 065 dated 29.1.2009 “On some amendments to law no. 9975 dated 28.7.2008, ‘On national fees’ ”.

Through the centre Res Publica, the Open Society Foundation for albania (Soros) has brought such a case to the Constitutional Court, which is trying it together with the above application from Pogradec. In addition to the categories considered beneficiaries by other laws, such as victims of trafficking, victims of family violence and invalids, an exemption should also be provided for all those subjects who are considered beneficiaries of legal aid according to the criteria defined in the law “On legal aid”. The exemption from judicial fees should include not only the tariff for depositing the lawsuit in court, but also that of execution of the judicial decision, the payments for psychologists in family cases, notary documents and other experts.

Another disturbing problem affecting the effective implementation of the legislation on legal aid is the existence of a parallel system of advocates primarily for criminal cases, where much lower payments are seen than those provided in the decision of the SCLA or the process of their selection from the list sent by the National Chamber of Advocacy (NCA) by judges/prosecutors – the latter are in an open conflict of interest and this directly affects the low quality of service provided258.

Despite the improvements in filling out the legal framework in the field of the system of legal aid, concerns about the compatibility of the provision of this system with the standards of the Council of Europe have recently been raised in a letter from the Human Rights Commission or the Council of Europe to Minister of Justice Halimi259. The Commissioner lists, in a detailed and disquieting manner, a series of problem areas observed in the Albanian system of providing legal aid, including:

• The very small number of cases where legal aid is provided by the SCLA (based on the above letter, as of May 2012, the SCLA had provided aid in only three cases out of 25 requests submitted up to that time);

• The low level of public awareness;

257. The legislation of Albania on fees significantly restricts the access of citizens who do not have sufficient income to file a lawsuit (the fee for judicial service of 12,000 has undergone a fourfold increase), the continuation of the judicial procedure (the fee for securing the object of the lawsuit in cases where indemnification is sought – 1% of the amount sought) and securing the execution of the judicial decision (the fee for execution by the bailiff’s service is 5% of the amount awarded by the court.258. Roundtable “On the profession of advocate in the Republic of Albania) organised by the Ministry of Justice and EURALIUS III, 18 July 2011. The system of advocates mainly for criminal cases continues to be administered by the National Chamber of Advocacy (NCA) through the preparation and distribution of lists of advocates at the beginning of every year to courts and prosecutors’ offices. This system has turned out to be quite problematic because of the selection from the list to particular cases without criteria by judges or prosecutors (they are also in an open conflict of interest as defined in article 49 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), but in addition because of the extremely low payments which, in most cases, are paid significantly late (six months to a year after the end of the proceedings).259. Letter of the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe, Nils Muiznieks, to Minister of Justice Eduart Halimi, 15 October 2012, accessed at http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/News/2012/121106Albania_en.asp.


• The complicated procedures to apply for legal aid by delivering a considerable number of documents, especially for vulnerable strata such as the Roma and handicapped persons;

• Restrictive criteria for the selection of advocates who are to provide legal aid, the absence of transparency in their selection process and the high fees determined for them;

• Deficiencies in the country’s legal framework for judicial fees in civil cases, as a precondition for starting a judicial proceeding or securing the execution of a judicial decision, deficiencies that conflict with the standards and recommendations of the Council of Europe260.

The recommendations of the Human Rights Commissioner are in conformity with the recommendations about in this report and in essence aim at a review and improvement of the national system of legal aid in conformity with the standards of the Council of Europe so as effectively to assist persons who are in a difficult economic or social situation to enjoy their rights. Based on the implementation with significant delay of the subordinate legal acts under the law “On legal aid”, the limited number of cases of offering legal aid and the legal or administrative impediments concerning the legal tariffs and the functioning of the SCLA, the effective implementation of the legislation has not been realised and the measure is considered “not implemented”.

The Ministry of Justice should have been designated as the responsible institution together with the SCLA, because on the basis of the law, it has a special role in the administration of legal aid and it sees to the implementation of the legal and subordinate legal provisions and the quality of the provision of legal aid.

The budget foreseen for this measure is operating expenses, which in fact should have been the annual budget of the SCLA. The indicator should have been drawn up more concretely in order to evaluate realistically whether it has been fulfilled from one year to the other – an increase of the number of cases resolved with a particular percentage for each year. The time period, however, has been defined adequately.

Specific objective 4.3: Improving public relations

4.3.1 Adjustment of the structure/personnel chart of the courts and training of the staf f* Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: Partially implemented

The rules “On the relation of the court with the public”, approved by order of the Minister of Justice no. 6775/5 dated 30.9.2010, define the relation of the court in the face of the public, charging the chairman of the court with constructing, preserving and improving the relationship of the court with the public. The rules define the obligation of the chairmen of the court to create, by internal orders, a public relations office (PRO), using the existing administrative staff until the determination

260. We cite expressly from the letter of Commissioner Muiznieks: “The legal obligation to pay 3% of the amount of the lawsuit in civil cases ahead of time and 3% of the amount awarded by the court for the execution of a judicial decision might be disproportional measures, which restrict access to court exceedingly. Because of this system, some persons are hindered in the exercise of their rights in civil proceedings because of economic difficulties”.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

of the organisation, composition and number of personnel by the Minister of Justice, according to point 1.3 of chapter III of those rules261. The order of the Minister of Justice “On the designation of the structures of the judicial administration” defines that the IT specialist in each court will be the official representative of the court in relations with the public and the media.

In the orders issued in implementation of these rules, a non-uniform implementation is found in the courts of the judicial districts of Durrës and Korça262. The order for creation of the PRO in the court of the Durrës judicial district was drawn up in general terms, so far as concerns the duties of the chairman of the court in implementation of those rules, and it defined the administrative staff that will serve in that office263.

On the other hand, a more detailed elaboration about the information that can be accessed by interested citizens or the media, the manner of giving the information, the posting of the rights and obligations of citizens in the court, the management of requests and complaints of the public are issues provided in the internal order of the chairman of the court of the Korça judicial district264 and the Pogradec judicial district265. According to information received from the court of the Tirana judicial district, the public relations office was established on the basis of the rules approved in 2010 and the official web page is regularly updated266.

This is a measure that has been partially implemented, because the training of the staff of the PROs has not been done. This measure is difficult to assess precisely, because, in the absence of official information from the Ministry of Justice, the project tested the implementation of the measure in only the three pilot courts. The composition of the staff of the PRO is considered provisional until the approval of the draft law “On the organisation of the judicial administration”, which is expected to change the personnel chart of the administration of the courts.

The country’s courts and their chairmen should also be included as responsible institutions, as well as the Magistrates’ School for realising trainings. The indicator is not complete, because it only specifies the revised personnel chart of the PRO and not staff training, how frequently the training shall be done and so forth. It has not been defined whether the operating expenses are those of the Ministry of Justice, the courts or the Magistrates’ School for the training part. The time period has been designated as continuing.

4.3.2 Ef fective implementation of the rules “On the relation of the court with the public”*Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice and the courtsDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: Partially implemented

261. The rules charge the chairman of the court with the duty of public relations through media communication, the taking of measures to orient the public in the premises of the court, the taking of measures to update the court’s web page, the administrative direction of the PRO as well as the organisation of knowledge-supplying and educational activities. The chairman has been charged with giving reports on the court’s problem areas at least once a year and so forth. Also defined in the rules are the obligation for the division of information into restricted and unrestricted acts and the determination of procedures for giving out this information; the standardisation of reports for the media; the drafting of press declarations according to particular modalities and other matters.262. Not having received information from the Ministry of Justice about the implementation of this measure, the project tested its implementation in three pilot courts in the judicial districts of Tirana, Durrës and Korça, considering also that those courts have the highest number of cases.263. Ervin Metalla, court of the judicial district, chairman, e-mail of 23.07.2012.264. Admir Belishta, Court of the Korça judicial district, letter prot. no. 246 dated 30.07.2012 “Answer to letter prot. no. 302/2012 dated 19.07.2012”.265. Niko Rapi, chairman of the court of the Pogradec judicial district, Conference of the Leadership of the Judiciary in Albania, presentation, “Administration of the courts: public relations of the court”, 20 April 2012 http:// www.justforumalbania.org/viewtopic.php?t=71&f=5 266. Fatri Islamaj, court of the Tirana judicial district, chairman delegated by the High Council of Justice, e-mail of 19.09.2012.


It is expected that by means of those rules, the relations of the court with the public and the media will be improved, with the purpose of overcoming the passive role of the court in rigidly respecting the obligations for transparency of judicial activity or informing about judicial services – the latter being guaranteed by the procedural codes and by the law “On the right to obtain information about official documents”.

Checking the implementation of these rules or the functioning of the PROs in the courts has not been done by the Ministry of Justice, the High Council of Justice or civil society. In addition, there is no statistical assessment of citizens about the transparency of the court or the quality of its services. The Magistrates’ School has not concluded an agreement in cooperation with the Ministry of Justice on training the judicial administration or the employees of the PRO267.

The Ministry of Justice took the initiative to create a portal for the courts; inaugurated on 31 July 2012, it constitutes an important step in increasing the transparency of the judicial system. By means of this portal, 32 websites have been prepared, for each court of first instance, court of appeal and the High Court. It is a duty of the courts to enter key information on those pages for the public and the media, for the purpose of regulating this relationship. The court of first instance of Tirana and the Tirana court of appeal continue with the old ARK IT system.

Although this portal constitutes an important means for increasing transparency with the public, it does not guarantee access to justice268 to have information exclusively on-line for cases, judicial decisions or other information of interest to the public for the many individuals who cannot use it for one reason or another.

In a monitoring in the court of Tirana during the year 2011, the Centre for Parliamentary Studies found that judicial decisions were not posted on any of the public bulletin boards of the court; they could be accessed only on the Internet pages of the court of Tirana and of the HCJ269.

Another troubling problem in entering all the judicial decisions on the Internet web page is the publication of all the personal data of victims of trafficking, rape or the witnesses in those proceedings, a situation that continues even after an instruction of the Data Protection Commission entered into force that those data should be removed before the publication of the judicial decision on the Internet270.

Several of the reasons that limit the effectiveness of implementation of the Rules on the relations of the court with the public, failing to fulfil the specific objective, relate to issues of:

• determining the structure of a PRO – charging employees of the current judicial administration with additional duties for public relations;

• naming the IT specialist of the court as an official representative of the court for public and media relations, whilst he has an entirely different professional profile;

• the will and dedication of the heads of the courts, who should be monitored and checked as to the

267. Ela Qokaj, Magistrates’ School, chancellor, letter with prot. no. 627 dated 2.8.2012 “Answer to letter prot. no. 282/2012 dated 13.7.2012 “Request for information – Implementation of the Action Plan of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy”.268. In one of its recent decisions, the European Court of Justice (of the European Union) stressed that “electronic means” should not be used exclusively, because of the danger “that the exercise of rights will be impossible in practice...for particular individuals”; ECJ, Rosalba Alassini and Filomena Califano v. Wind SpA, C-317/08, C-320/08; 8 March 2010, para. 58.269. Centre for Parliamentary Studies, The judge and the public: Increasing the responsibility of the judges to the public, 2011, page 34.270. Commissioner for the Protection of Personal Data, instruction no. 15 dated 22.12.2011 “On the processing and publication of personal data in the judicial sector”, Official Journal no. 176, January 2012.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

activities they perform in the framework of these rules;• preparing and approving a draft law on the organisation of the judicial administration, on the

basis of which all the personnel charts of the courts will be reviewed.

For the purpose of implementing these rules, it is also necessary for there to be a discussion of the good practices created in several of the country’s courts and for a full regulatory reform to be undertaken in this connection, establishing long-term programmes for improving public relations.

Above all, the implementation of this measure should not be treated as a measure/objective in itself, because it is closed tied to improving the quality of trials, the holding of trials within a reasonable time period, the reduction of corruption in justice and the trust of the public in justice as vital elements of access to justice.

Another way to measure the quality of judicial services to the public or interested parties is to do independent surveys/periodic monitoring with lawyers and interested parties in the court and the reflection of the findings of those surveys for improving the public relations of the courts. On the other hand, transparency should be increased in connection with the processing of the complaints of citizens about the quality of the judicial services offered in the court, statistics should be produced year by year about those services and the conclusions from checking them should be made public by the Ministry of Justice and the High Council of Justice.

The on-line system of complaining on the web page of the Ministry of Justice is expected to process complaints quite quickly; however, up to now there is no information about the rules for processing the complaints nor have statistics been published. This measure is partially implemented, but we suggest that formulations of such measures (like the formulation of measure 4.2.4) be avoided in the future action plan, because they are general, not concrete and it is difficult to evaluate progress under them, since their implementation depends on whether or not a series of other sub-measures, not specified in the action plan, have been realised.

The time period has been determined in an inappropriate manner, considering the complexity of this measure. If this measure is to be divided into several sub-measures, it should also be accompanied by a division into reduced time periods, more simple to monitor and evaluate. The financial resources have not been foreseen – costs of materials/judicial decisions that will be posted, maintenance and updating of the Internet page, costs of training the employees of the PRO or development of monitoring/surveys. For the effective implementation of these rules, specifically designated funds are necessary, which cannot be covered simply by operating expenses.

The indicators for evaluating the measure are incomplete – the number of activities of a PRO should be indicated, the number of periodic and thematic reports of the court chairmen, the number of complaints per year, the number of complaints resolved positively and so forth271. The institutional responsibility has been drawn up appropriately.

271. The only appropriate indicator for verifying the implementation of this measure would be the performance of systematic observation on the level of satisfaction of the users of the courts. The Open Society Foundation for Albania (Soros) has supported an initiative of the Institute for Public & Legal Studies to perform such an observation in the courts of the Tirana and Durrës judicial districts. The data secured from these observations might be used as an indicator in future monitoring. The public institutions (the Ministry of Justice and the High Council of Justice) should perform such observations in the future.


4.3.3 Consolidation of the judicial archives through contemporary methods of automation Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Partially implemented272

The Ministry of Justice has put the portal of the courts into functioning, through which the archive of judicial cases of the courts has been published on-line since the beginning of functioning of the ICMIS system. But since this system has not been extended to all the country’s courts, the measure is considered only partially implemented.

This measure is complex and needs to be divided into sub-measures, such as:

• Preparation of rules for indexing archives in the courts, • Entering all the old judicial decisions onto the Internet, • Transferring judicial decisions to the central archive after a 10 year period,• Testing the system, and others.

The time period provided is formal, and we judge the financial resources to be insufficient. In addition to the Ministry of Justice as the responsible institution, the chancellors of the courts, who are responsible for the administration of the court archives, might also be included. The evaluative indicator is extremely general, and it is suggested that the following be defined: rules for standardisation of indexing the archives; the number of decisions entered onto the Internet web pages, the number destroyed or send to the central archives; and so forth.

Specific objective 4.4: Effectiveness of alternative forms

4.4.1 Approval of new subordinate legal acts for mediation Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: First six months of 2011Status: Implemented

In implementation of law no. 10 385 dated 24.2.2011 “On mediation and dispute resolution”, two subordinate legal acts have been approved, dealing with the licensing procedures, the registration of mediators and taking away a mediation licence273.

The time period provided is not realistic, because the first six months of 2011 has been provided, whilst the Justice Strategy itself was only approved in July of that year. The expenses for implementation of the measure have been accurately planned as operating expenses. The responsible institution and the indicator have been correctly defined.

272. There is no information from the Ministry of Justice.273. CMD no. 414 dated 8.6.2011 “On the creation and manner of functioning of the Commission for Licensing Mediators”; CMD no. 418 dated 8.6.2011 “On the procedure of taking away a mediation licence”.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4.4.2 Draf ting and approval of the law “On arbitration” Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, GIZ, DIS, UNCITRAL, court, arbitrators and mediatorsDeadline for implementation: First six months of 2011Status: Not implemented

A draft law “On arbitration” has not yet been approved. This law is expected to regulate the procedure of international arbitration, whereas for internal arbitration, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure will be amended by a work group created at the Ministry of Justice. The draft law is expected to be prepared by the end of 2012274.

It should be defined clearly that the responsible institution is the Ministry of Justice. International organisations cannot be defined as responsible institutions, but as partner institutions. The time period is not realistic, as for the previous measure. The budget and indicator have been clearly identified.

4.4.3 Ef fective implementation of the new legislation on alternative forms of dispute resolution* Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, GIZ, DIS, UNCITRAL, court, arbitrators and mediatorsDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: Not implemented

The status of this measure has been evaluated by looking at the effective implementation of the legislation on mediation as well as the legislation for arbitration. Considering the information given above, no significant step has been taken for the latter. So far as concerns evaluating the effective implementation of the legislation on mediation, it should be emphasised that this was done by analysing progress in the implementation of a number of other sub-measures making up the above measure.

The Commission for Licensing Mediators has licensed more than 141 natural persons as mediators and two legal persons as to whom 27 mediators were approved275. The list of licensed mediators276 and their attachment to the courts have been put on-line by the Ministry of Justice. The USAID project JuST277 has financially supported the opening and functioning of mediation offices in Durrës and in Korça. The first meeting of licensed mediators was organised by the Ministry of Justice and the JuST project on 19 June 2012.

Notwithstanding the advantages of mediation in speed of procedures, reduced costs and adaptation to the needs of the parties, it remains an instrument little used as an alternative for dispute resolution in Albania278. The functioning of the two mediation offices currently operating has been made possible only thanks to the support of the JuST project and civil society. In addition to fact that mediation offices are not functioning in all the districts/courts of the country, the National

274. Ministry of Integration of Albania, Report “On implementation of the action plan for addressing the Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission about Albania”, May 2012, http://www.mie.gov.al/, 2012, p. 13. According to information from the Ministry of Justice, the draft law was prepared and consulted with outside actors. However, it still has not gone to the Council of Ministers for Approval.275. Quarterly bulletin on justice system projects, We Communicate, no. 6, April – June 2012, p. 2.276. List of licensed mediators, http://www.justice.gov.al/UserFiles/File/Personat_e_licencuar.pdf 277. Roland Gjoni, JuST, USAID project “On strengthening the justice system”, leader of the component of legal training, e-mail of 16.07.2012. During the eight months when the mediation centre has functioned at the court of the Korça judicial district, the court has referred 65 cases to it (31 family cases, 17 civil ones, three commercial ones, 14 criminal cases), of which only 50% have been resolved by mediation. In total, the number of cases resolved by mediation in the court of Korça and that of Durrës with the financial assistance of the JuST project is 185 cases (38 civil cases, 15 commercial ones, 128 family cases, four criminal cases).278. Conference of Leadership of the Judiciary, conclusions of the conference, 20 April 2012, Tirana.


Chamber of Mediators, as a leading organ of that profession and which is expected to draft and approve rules on mediation, a Code of Ethics, a national training programme for mediators and the legal tariffs for that profession, still has not been created. It was planned for this Chamber to be formed by December 2012, although the law on mediation did not provide a time period for its creation. A rather important aspect that should be dealt with in the framework of encouraging the use of the mediation procedure is the financial costs to citizens, in the viewpoint of free access to justice. Until now, parties who have resolved cases by mediation have not had financial costs for this procedure, because currently it is supported by the USAID project JuST. After the financing is interrupted, citizens will have to pay the cost themselves as well as the judicial expenses for depositing a lawsuit in court or for their advocates. This procedure might need to be improved by an intervention in the law, specifying a mandatory referral for mediation to an intermediation centre before the lots are drawn.

As this continues, citizens who use mediation should be exempted from the payment of the judicial fee determined in the joint instruction of the Ministers of Finance and Justice. In addition, citizens who meet the criteria for obtaining legal aid should be exempted from the service tariffs for mediation, as a part of the legal aid scheme. The implementation of this measure depends on the implementation of other measures under this objective, such as the creation of the National Chamber of Mediators, the approval of the law on arbitration and others.

The National Chamber of Mediators and the arbitration centres should also be defined as a responsible institution. The evaluative indicator has been formulated in a general manner, and it would be better for the indicator to be formulated in such a way as to show the increase of the percentage of the number of cases from one year to the other.

The budgets have been clearly identified as budgets of the international projects, which are assistance for the state institutions. At the time this plan is updated, the project JuST should be added to the list of partner institutions and the budget defined for this measure. In addition, the time period has been correctly identified as continuing.

4.4.4 Informational campaigns Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, GIZ, DIS, UNCITRAL, court, arbitrators and mediatorsDeadline for implementation: 2011-2012Status: Partially implemented

In the framework of the JuST project, informational brochures have been prepared for the mediation centres at the Korça and Durrës courts279. There has been no initiative by the Ministry of Justice. In general, those campaigns remain mostly part of the activity of international organisations such as USAID, UNICEF, MEDART, the IFC, CEP and RCCD (the foundation “Resolution of Conflicts and Conciliation of Disputes”).

Providing information about alternative forms of dispute resolution and encouraging citizens, advocates and judges to use them are very important means to make these forms effective in the future. The preparation of f lyers and other forms of standardised information in all the

279. Conference of Leadership of the Judiciary, documents of the conference, 20 April 2012, Tirana. .

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

mediation centres or arbitration centres will improve the use of those instruments, and through them, the access of citizens to justice. This measure has been only partially implemented, and as a consequence it has not brought an improvement in the encouragement and use of the alternative forms, mediation and arbitration.

It should be specified that the Ministry of Justice is the institution responsible for this measure, making a distinction from the donors in this field, who are partner institutions. The budgets have been identified clearly as budgets of international assistance projects for the state institutions. The indicator is inappropriate and has no relation to the realisation of the measure. It would be better for the indicator to be formulated in a manner so as to show the increase of the number of activities or f lyers distributed from one year to the other. The time period has been set out clearly.

4.4.5 Linking the arbitration centre with other local branches Responsible institution: Ministr y of Justice, GIZ, DIS, UNCITRAL, court, arbitrators and mediatorsDeadline for implementation: 2011-2012Status: Not implemented

According to information from the Ministry of Justice, this measure is related to the approval of amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, which will address issues of arbitration within the country.

The Ministry of Justice and the donors or partners should be clearly defined as the responsible institution. The success indicator is inappropriate. As also provided for other measures above, the budget has been identified as a budget of international assistance projects for the state institutions. The time period defined is formal, since even this Strategy itself was not approved until July 2011.

4.4.6 Training of mediatorsResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice and USAID Deadline for implementation: 2011-2012Status: Partially implemented

Mediators have been trained in Korça and Durrës by the USAID project JuST. After it is created, the National Chamber of Mediators should prepare and approve a national plan for training mediators. This measure cannot contribute to realising the specific objective so long as the National Chamber of Mediators is not set up.

The National Chamber of Mediators, which is a legal person independent of the state and which has been charged by law with the administration and functioning of this profession, should be defined as a responsible institution together with the Ministry of Justice. The expenses are not identified nor have success indicators been defined, such as, for example, the number of trainings according to the local offices and so forth. The time period defined is formal, since even the Strategy itself was only approved in July 2011.


Specific objective 4.5: Improving and strengthening the role of the auxiliary actors of the justice system – the free professions

4.5.1 Creation of an electronic system of notaries Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: Not identified in the action planStatus: Partially implemented

The reform for digitalisation of the profession of notary and the system “One Stop Shop – System of the Profession of Notary”280 was inaugurated on 20 June 2012281 and has been promoted by the Ministry of Justice as one of its most fundamental reforms for providing services that are fast, secure and with reduced cost for the citizens.

For the purpose of preparing this reform, amendments were made in the law “On the profession of notary”282. The digitalisation reform of the notary profession has two main aspects:

• on-line access of notaries to the office of registration of real properties (ORIP) for receiving updated information of the legal situation of ownership of immovable property, for the purpose of preparing notary acts to alienate or to recognise ownership of immovable items or real rights over them;

• digitalisation of the notary registers and the creation of a single digital registry for all the notaries in Albania.

From 1,000 new lek, the cost of service in the ORIP, it will be reduced in the notary’s office to 600 new lek. The service that will be offered by notaries has been presented as having maximum security, in the service of which notaries will be insured with a private insurance company. In implementation of the rules for the One Stop Shop system of notaries, on-line announcements have been made by the Ministry of Justice in cooperation with the Central Office of the Registration of Immoveable Properties and the National Chamber of the Notary Profession for notaries in Tirana, who will be registered in the system at the ORIP and will open the respective accounts.

Although the on-line access of notaries to the ORIP extends only to the cities of Tirana and Durrës, the digitalisation reform of notaries will serves the improvement of the quality of service for citizens by providing this service in a short time and for a reduced cost. This will be part of the reforms in this area, with a real and practical effect on citizens, because of the will of the National Chamber of the Notary Profession and the cooperation with the Ministry of Justice.

A time period is not provided for the realisation of this measure. It should be divided into several sub-measures, and the National Chamber of the Notary Profession should be provided as the responsible institution together with the Ministry of Justice. The indicator is not completed and should be made more specific. The budget has been determined, but we cannot say whether it is really accurate.

280. Order no. 248 of the Minister of Justice dated 7.6.2012, “Rules on the approval of the manners, procedures and conditions for the use of the electronic system “One Stop Shop – System of the Profession of Notary”.281. Public announcement of the Ministry of Justice, accessed at http://www.justice.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=neës&lid=7972 282. Law no. 10 491 dated 15.12.2011 “On some additions and amendments to law no. 7829 dated 1.6.1994 “On the profession of notary”, amended, Official Journal no. 166/2011, p. 8411.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4.5.2 Training and capacity-building of notaries and advocates on the exercise of functions, European standards and developments in legislation*Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: Not implemented

In the framework of digitalising notary services and the functioning of the “One stop shop – System of the Notary Profession”, the Ministry of Justice has organised several training activities with notaries of the city of Tirana. An agreement of cooperation between the Ministry of Justice and the Magistrates’ School for the organisation of trainings for notaries and advocates has not been signed. The Magistrates’ School cooperates with the National Chamber of Advocacy, sending annual programmes of continuous training, so that interested advocates can apply to take part in the trainings, for payment283.

There is no appropriate programme of training by the Ministry of Justice for advocates and notaries. The Ministry of Justice should enter into a cooperation agreement with the Magistrates’ School, which might offer specific trainings (or joint ones with judges and prosecutors) for those professions, according to their specific needs.

The necessary partner structures have not been foreseen, such as the National Chamber of the Notary Profession, the National Chamber of Advocacy or the Magistrates’ School as responsible institutions along with the Ministry of Justice. The expenses for realisation of those trainings have not been identified. The indicator, which is not complete, should specify the number of trainings with advocates and notaries for each year, the number of persons trained and so forth. The time period has been defined.

4.5.3 Effective implementation of the procedures of recruitment, licensing and certification of the free professions, as well as procedures for disciplinary them*Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: Implemented

During 2012, 67 notaries, 70 private judicial bailiffs, 17 bankruptcy administrators, 143 mediators and 108 outside translators were licensed. So far as controls are concerned, thematic inspections and inspections on the basis of complaints were conducted in the private bailiff service and several notary offices, imposing disciplinary measures of a fine or removal of the licence when violations were found.

The indicators for measuring implementation are inappropriate. Those should specify the number of checks to be performed, the recommendations and their implementation, the number of complaints about each profession, the conclusions of public controls and so forth. This measure has been drawn up in an unclear manner (overlapping the measure that follows it), is complex and should be divided into several measures – for each free profession, for example, for judicial bailiffs, advocates, mediators, arbitrators and so forth. The institutional responsibility, resources and time periods have been defined accurately.

283. The National Chamber of Advocacy has supplied information about its cooperation with the Magistrates’ School.


4.5.4 Exercise of periodic monitoring/checking of the free professions by the Ministry of Justice* Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013Status: Not implemented

In the absence of information from the responsible institution and other information made public, the measure is considered not to have been implemented.

As is also provided for measure 4.4.5, the drafting of this measure is unclear, and the evaluative indicator should include the number of controls to be exercised, according to the profession, the specific thematic areas, the number of recommendations that have been implemented by the professions monitored and so forth. The institutional responsibility, resources and time periods have been defined accurately.

4.5.5 Improving working conditions of the State Attorney’s Office Responsible institution: State Attorney’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: Second six months of 2011Status: Not implemented

In the absence of information from the responsible institution and other information made public, the measure is considered not to have been implemented.

This is a routine measure and should not have been included in this action plan. The institutional responsibility, time period, resources and monitoring and evaluative mechanism have been defined accurately.

4.5.6 Increasing capacities of the State Attorney’s Office through trainings, scientific meetings and supplying scientific publicationsResponsible institution: State Attorney’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013Status: Not implemented

In the framework of the project EURALIUS III, a seminar was organised in Albania in the field of international contracts and international arbitration284. Since this is the only information made public, the measure is considered not to have been implemented285. On the basis of the rules of functioning of the State Attorney’s Office, the office of inspection organised training activities, exchanges of experience and so forth.

The Ministry of Justice and Magistrates’ School should also be responsible institutions. The number of trainings, meetings or publications, and agreements for doing trainings, should be provided as evaluative indicators. The time period and resources have been defined clearly.

284. It was held in the premises of the Ministry of Justice on 29 and 30 June 2011, according to the official announcement of the Internet page of the State Attorney’s Office, http://www.avokaturashtetit.gov.al/index.php?option=com_content&vieë=category&layout=blog&id=14&Itemid=36 285. There is no information about this from the State Attorney’s Office.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4.5.7 Creation of an electronic data base in the State Attorney’s office and consolidation of its official Internet pageResponsible institution: State Attorney’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: 2012-2013Status: Not implemented

The Internet page has not been updated. According to the rules of functioning of the State Attorney’s Office, the secretary of the General State Attorney is the functionary responsible for updating this web page, in cooperation with the IT specialist of the Ministry of Justice286.

This measure is complex and should be divided into several sub-measures/phases for realisation, because of the specific expertise that is required for it. The Ministry of Justice should also be defined as a responsible institution. The expenses for realisation of this measure have not been provided. The evaluative indicator is not complete – data entry and updating it every week/month should have been defined, the updating of the Internet page every week/month and so forth. The time period is realistic.

4.5.8 Preparation and signing of agreements of cooperation with the Magistrates’ School for the realisation of various trainings* Responsible institution: State Attorney’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013Status: Not implemented

There is no agreement of cooperation between the Magistrates’ School and the State Attorney’s Office for the training of state attorneys for 2011287. It is expected that a cooperation agreement for the training of state attorneys will be signed during 2013288.

The Ministry of Justice and the Magistrates’ School should also be responsible institutions for the realisation of this measure. The time period is formal and the financial resources have not been identified for the realisation of these trainings. The evaluative indicator is incomplete – the time for realisation of the agreement, the number of trainings per year and questionnaires evaluating the training should be provided.

5. CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE PROGRESS ACHIEVEDFrom the monitoring of the 26 measures defined for realisation of strategic objective 4 of the action plan of the Justice Strategy, it turns out as follows:

• 15% measures have been evaluated as implemented (four), among which one measure was implemented beyond the defined time period and another measure has a continuing nature,

286. There is no information about this measure from the State Attorney’s Office.287. Ela Qokaj, Magistrates’ School, chancellor, letter “Response to letter no. 282/2012 dated 13.7.2012 “Request for information – implementation of the action plan of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy”, prot. no. 827 dated 2.8. 2012. There is no copy of an agreement or agreements signed between these institutions in the information sent.288. Eva Cepa, Magistrates’ School, e-mail of 27.09.2012. An agreement of understanding has been signed between the Magistrates’ School and the State Attorney’s Office for the formation process and the selection of candidates for state advocate for the period April-July 2010, prot. no. 341 dated 15.4.2010.


15%

31%

54%



PARTIALLY IMPLENTED

NOT BEEN IMPLENTED

up to 2013; • 31% measures were evaluated as partially implemented (eight), among which four measures

still have a time period for being realised, and • 54% measures were evaluated as not implemented (fourteen), among which 11 still have a

time period for being realised289.

Time period of realisation: The “measures implemented” were realised within the time period provided. Only one measure was implemented Tbeyond that time period. Only one measure did not have a time for realising it provided. Most measures provided in this objective are long-term, 15 out of 26. This means that their Deadline for implementation extends to 2013 (they have been indicated above with the sign *), whereas for 10 measures (of the 15 measures that extend until 2013) it is defined that they are “continuing”. Only one measure in this action plan has a time period determined for its realisation in the year 2013. However, it should be pointed out that for 10 measures, the time periods have been defined in an inappropriate/unrealistic manner, including those measures whose realisation depends on the implementation of sub-measures not defined in the action plan or measures with a time period within the first six months of 2011, whereas the Strategy itself was approved only in July 2011. On the other hand, for 16 other measures, the time periods have been defined in a realistic and concrete manner.

Determination of the responsible institutions: For 16 out of 26 measures, the institutions responsible for their implementation have not been defined in an accurate or complete manner – only the institution directly responsible has been defined, which cannot accomplish the implementation of the measure without the support or supervision of the Ministry of Justice, or for several measures, the responsibility has been defined at a higher institutional level (the Ministry of Justice) without providing for the structures that benefit directly from those measures as partner institutions, for example, the courts, the National Chambers of the Notary Profession, of Advocacy, of Mediators and so forth.

For four measures, the division is not specified between the institution responsible and the partner structures – primarily donors who might be supporting those measures with expertise. On the other

289. Of these 16 measures that have not been implemented, information from the Ministry of Justice or the State Attorney’s Office has not been obtained for seven of them. In addition, for those measures public information is lacking or official data on the website of those institutions or in various reports.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

hand, for one measure, the responsible institution has been designated erroneously (the international organisation UNIFEM). For 10 measures, the institutional responsibility has been defined adequately.

Determination of resources/expenses: Of the 26 measures, for 15 measures, the respective expenses have been clearly specified. For 10 measures it has been defined that they will be accomplished with the “operating expenses” of the responsible state structures, and for five measures, the financial resources have been planned in the framework of foreign assistance projects without specifying the amounts.

For 11 measures, the financial resources have not been defined correctly or they are insufficient, for example, for three measures, the financial resources have not been identified. It should be brought out that those measures have to do with the organisation of training activities or the creation and updating of websites, for which sufficient resources are essential. In addition, for several of the measures that will be realised with operating expenses of the respective state structures, such as, for example, the effective implementation of the legal aid legislation or the implementation of the rules for public relations of the court, we suggest that the budgetary planning is inappropriate.

Determination of the monitoring and evaluative mechanisms: of the 26 measures defined under this objective, only for six measures has the evaluative indicator been determined accurately and fully. For 20 measures, the indicators have been drawn up in a general manner or are incomplete for evaluating the implementation of the respective measure; for one measure, no monitoring indicator has been identified. Suggestions about the inappropriateness and re-formulation of the existing indicators have been identified for every concrete measure.

The nature of the actions and the planned indicators: of the 26 measures planned for this strategic objective, seven are of a regulatory nature, 13 for capacity-building and the seven others aim at qualitative improvement. So far as concerns the nature of the indicators or monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, 14 are quantitative indicators and 12 are qualitative indicators.


Considering the above analysis of the strategic objective, we would suggest its simplification and re-formulation as:

“guaranteeing access to justice” The strategic objective is elaborated through determining specific objectives; for this reason, we suggest that it should not include or emphasise particular specific objectives in its text. If this strategic objective were to emphasise/single out specific objectives, then it would be better – based on the analysis of the conditions and problem areas in the narrative part of the Strategy, especially the part of “access to justice” and the priorities of European integration – for it to be stressed in the text of the strategic objective as “increasing the effectiveness of legal aid”, based also on its current definition in the Strategy’s action plan as a specific objective that is “very important”.

The formulation of the current specific objectives should be reviewed for the purpose of including concrete references concerning their role in realising the strategic objective. Those formulations should exclude routine measures of the state structures for their normal good functioning and refer to


an elaboration of the elements of the strategic objective. Such a grouping of the measures of the specific objective would overcome the general manner of their formulation and assure their real monitoring.

Based on the above, it is necessary for the measures that pertain to guaranteeing access to justice in practice to be re-formulated – this is especially necessary under this strategic objective. One of the specific objectives, which is a precondition for access to justice, is legal aid, which in practice is provided to a very limited extent; it might even be said that the system is not really functioning. This has become a troubling problem in Albania, showing up even as an issue that could have a negative impact on respect for human rights in the framework of the process of the country’s European integration. Improving the system of legal aid by eliminating the legal and administrative barriers should be emphasised even more in this objective and the progress of the respective measures should be speeded up.

We suggest the following other measures be added, in the framework of the subdivision “guaranteeing in practice...”, according to the specific objectives:

• Surveys and polls with the users of the courts about the quality of the judicial services and access to information of interest to the public – if possible, done according to defined European standards;

• The performance of periodic monitoring about the verification of the updating of information of public interest on the Internet pages of the state structures (primarily the organs of justice);

• Periodic publication of statistics about the complaints of the public and their processing by the respective structures (the courts, the Ministry of Justice and so forth);

• The creation and consolidation of a data base about the provision of legal aid – the number of cases, the number of advocates, NPOs, defence attorneys assigned in criminal cases;

• The preparation of continuous training programmes for the professions that provide services: advocates, notaries, mediators, arbitrator, judicial bailiffs, psychologist and so forth;

• Information programmes about the criteria of giving legal aid and the procedures of application for the alternative forms of dispute resolution.

We suggest that other measures be added in the framework of the subdivision “improvement of legal and subordinate legal acts...for realisation of the specific objectives”:

• In addition to the categories considered as beneficiaries by separate laws, such as victims of trafficking, victims of family violence and invalids, an exemption from judicial fees should be guaranteed for all subjects who are considered beneficiaries of legal aid according to the criteria defined in law no. 10 039 dated 21.12.2008 “On legal aid”. The exemption from judicial tariffs should include not only the tariff for filing a lawsuit in court, but also that for execution of the judicial decision, payments of psychologists for family proceedings, notary documents and other experts290.

• Drafting and approving amendments to the law “On mediation” in order to specify the procedure of mandatory referral for mediation to a mediation centre before the judicial lots are cast. Citizens who use mediation should be exempted from the payment of the judicial fee defined in the joint instruction of the Ministers of Finance and Justice. In addition, citizens who meet the criteria to benefit from legal aid should be exempted from the service tariffs of mediation, as a part of the legal aid scheme.

290. The exemption from judicial tariffs should be done by law and not by instructions or other subordinate legal acts, as in the case of an instruction of the Ministers of Finance and Justice, who have amended the instruction, increasing the fee for filing lawsuits several times.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LawS and SubordInate LegaL aCtS:Law no. 8977 dated 12.12.2002 “On the system of fees in the Republic of Albania”, amended, attachment no. 5, point A, “Fees for actions and services performed by the judicial administration”.

Law no. 8977 dated 12.12.2002 “On the system of fees in the Republic of Albania”, amended, attachment no. 5, point B, “Fees for actions performed by the judicial bailiff”.

Law no. 10 491 dated 15.12.2011 “On some supplements and amendments to law no. 7829 dated 1.06.1994 “On the profession of notary”, amended, Official Journal 166/2011.

Law no.10 039 dated 22.12.2008 “On legal aid”.Law no. 96/2012 “On the Official Publication Centre”.

Council of Ministers Decision no. 414 dated 8.6.2011 “On the creation and manner of functioning of the Commission for Licensing Mediators”; CMD decision no.418 dated 8.6.2011 “On the procedure for taking away a mediation licence”.

Joint instruction of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice no. 13 dated 12.2.2009 “On the determination of the service tariff for actions and services of the judicial administration, the Ministry of Justice, the prosecutor’s office, the office of a notary and the office of registration of immovable properties”.

Order no. 248 of the Minister of Justice dated 7.6.2012 “Rules on improving the manners, procedures and conditions for the use of the electronic system “One Stop Shop – System of the Notary Profession”.

Rules “On the relations of the court with the public”, approved by order of the Minister of Justice no. 6775/5 dated 30.9.2010.

Draft law “On the Official Publication Centre”, approved in the Council of Ministers on 6 July 2012, placed on the work calendar of the Assembly of Albania for approval for 24 September – 12 October 2012 http://www.parlament.al/web/Kalendari_i_punimeve_te_Kuvendit_11826_1.php (information accessed on 27.09.2012).

Decision of the State Commission of Legal Aid no.1 dated 25.6.2011 “On the priorities in the cases for which legal aid is provided for 2011 and 2012”.

Decision of the State Commission of Legal Aid no. 2 dated 25.6.2011 “On the rules for designating advocates, law offices and NPOs that will provide legal aid”.

Decision of the State Commission of Legal Aid no. 3 dated 25.6.2011 “On the approval of the form of request to obtain legal aid and the documents that should be attached to the model form of request”. Decision of the State Commission of Legal Aid no. 4 dated 25.6.2011 “On determining the amount


of compensation for advocates who will provide primary and secondary legal aid”.

Decision of the State Commission of Legal Aid no. 5 dated 25.6.2011 “On the criteria of evaluation, the format and standards for checking quality in the provision of legal aid”.

Decision of the State Commission of Legal Aid no. 90 dated 15.6.2012 “On announcing the winners for the provision of legal aid”.

Intermediate decision of the court of the Pogradec judicial district dated 17.4.2012 to the Constitutional Court with the application “To ask the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Albania for a control of the constitutionality of article 11/2 of law no. 10 065 dated 29.1.2009 “On some amendments to law no. 9975 dated 28.7.2008 “On national fees”

Case of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), Rosalba Alassini and Filomena Califano v. Wind SpA, C-317/08, C-320/08, 8 March 2010, para. 58.

Documents/official letters from the responsible institutions:Admir Belishta, court of the Korça judicial district, chairman, letter with prot. no. 247 dated 30.7.2012 “Response to letter with prot. no. 302/2012 dated 19.7.2012”.

Blegina Kodra, State Commission on Legal Aid, chairman, letter to the National Chamber of Advocacy (NCA), “Forwarding information about the activity of the State Commission on Legal Aid for 2011”, prot. no. 23 dated 5.03.2012.

Blegina Kodra, State Commission on Legal Aid, chairman, letter to “Sending official documentation ‘Information related to the implementation of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy”, prot. no.116/1 dated 15.09.2012.

Ela Qokaj, Magistrates’ School, chancellor, letter “Response to letter no. 282/2012 dated 13.7.2012 ‘Request for information – Implementation of the action plan of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy”, prot. no. 827 dated 2.8. 2012.

Commissioner for Protection against Discrimination, memorandum of cooperation between the State Commission of Legal Aid and the Commissioner for Protection against Discrimination, signed on 1.4.2011, http://kmd.al/skedarët/1335360261-MoU%20K.Ndihmës%20Juridike0001.pdf

Memorandum of cooperation between the State Commission on Legal Aid and the People’s Advocate, 8 June 2012, SCLA prot. no. 82, People’s Advocate prot. no. 169, People’s Advocate.

Memorandum of cooperation between the State Commission on Legal Aid and the Agency for Free Legal Aid, 18 May 2012, prot. no. 68; prot. no. 7k-53/12.

Memorandum of understanding between the Magistrates’ School and the State Attorney’s Office on the formative process and the selection of candidates for state advocate for the period April – July 2010, prot. no. 341, dated 15.4.2010.Roundtable “On the perspective of legal aid in Albania”, 23 May 2012, organised by EURALIUS III,

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

the People’s Advocate, TLAS and Civil Rights Defenders, conclusions of the roundtable.

Roundtable “On amendments to the law ‘On the profession of advocate in the Republic of Albania’, organised by the Ministry of Justice and EURALIUS III, 18 July 2011.

Niko Rapi, chairman of the court of the judicial district of Pogradec, Conference of the Leadership of the Judiciary in Albania, presentation, Administration of the courts: relations of the court with the public, 20 April 2012 http://www.justforumalbania.org/viewtopic.php?t=71&f=5

Conference of the Leadership of the Judiciary in Albania, JuST, USAID project, 20 April 2012, conclusions of the conference, http://www.justforumalbania.org/viewtopic.php?t=71&f=5List of licensed mediators http://www.justice.gov.al/UserFiles/File/Personat_e_licencuar.pdf

MeetIngS/e-MaILS:Ilir Kondi, Official Publication Centre, director, meeting, 10 September 2012.

Rajmonda Bozo, Tirana Legal Aid Society (TLAS), executive director, meeting, 19 September 2012.

Joaquin Urias, Mission EURALIUS III, director, meeting, 26 September 2012.

Roland Gjoni, JuST, USAID project “For strengthening the justice system”, leader of the component of legal training, e-mail of 16 July 2012.

Ervin Metalla, judge of the Durrës judicial district, chairman, e-mail of 23.07. 2012.

Fatri Islamaj, judge of the Tirana judicial district, chairman delegated by the High Council of Justice, e-mail of 19.09. 2012.

reportS:Ministry of Integration of Albania, “Report on the implementation of the action plan for addressing the Recommendations of the Opinion of the EU on Albania”, June-July 2012.http://mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2042

Ministry of Integration, report “On annual progress 2012 (Contribution II, May-August 2012), http://mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2042

Centre on Issues of Informing the Public, report “Transparency of official publications in the Republic of Albania, 2011”, http://www.infocip.org/raporti_web_2011.pdf ,.

Centre of Parliamentary Studies, report “The judge and the public: increasing the responsibility of judges to the public”, 2011.

Quarterly bulletin on projects for the justice system, We Communicate, no. 6, JuST, USAID, April–June2012.

People’s Advocate, special report “On international agreements ratified by law and not published in the Official Journal”, to the Assembly of Albania, prot. no. 122, dated 23.5.2008.


NO.5

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

4

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E

Strategic ObJectiVe 5Consolidation of the trust of the public in the justice system, in parallel with the consolidation of good governance through the fight against corruption and other negative phenomena that impede the country’s development and integration, as well as guaranteeing the functioning of the rule of law (very important)

1. ANALYSIS OF THE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVEStrategic objective no. 5 has been considered “very important” by the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy. It is also in conformity with the vision of the Strategy for the coming years, according to which: albania will enjoy the status of a country that is integrated in european and euro-atlantic structures, as a rule of law, converting the justice system into one that is open for everyone, that will inspire trust in everyone and assure justice for everyone”.

This strategic objective has been formulated in a very broad manner, including in itself three aspects of the justice system that could have been separate strategic objectives, specifically, consolidation of the trust of the public, consolidation of good governance and guaranteeing the functioning of the rule of law.

Furthermore, elements of the consolidation of good governance are found scattered in the first three strategic objectives. In this sense, strategic objective no. 5 partially overlaps with those strategic objectives. However, taking into account the special importance of this objective and its breadth, it would have been better for it (the strategic objective) to have been elaborated better, providing a wider series of specific objectives. In fact, as will be seen below, the specific objectives foreseen do not manage to fulfil this strategic objective completely. This makes it difficult to monitor and even more difficult to evaluate the extent of realisation and the progress achieved up to today.

2. ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES Strategic objective 5 has been formulated broadly, collecting in one objective elements that could quite well have been organised as strategic objectives on their own. As a result of this formulation and the general nature of the strategic objective, the specific objectives provided below do not elaborate the strategic objective as they should.

5.1 Increasing effectiveness and coordination with the organs of the other powers and agencies of the executive power, as well as with the free professions and interest groups (very important). In our analysis of the strategic objective, we reached the conclusion that it (the strategic objective)


tightly combines three strategic sub-objectives: 1. consolidation of the trust of the public in justice; 2. consolidation of good governance of the justice system; and 3. the functioning of the rule of law. Analysing specific objective 5.1, it seems to us that it is only partially relevant for realising the second part of the strategic objective (consolidation of good governance of the justice system). On the other hand, the effect of this specific objective (5.1) in the implementation of the other two parts of the strategic objective is indirect in the best of cases. Of those, it better serves the good governance of the justice system and in an indirect way it may have an effect on increasing the trust of the public in the justice system.

We should underline that such broad formulations of specific objectives do not facilitate the implementation of this strategy, or even its monitoring, making it very difficult to measure its realisation with concrete indicators and results. This objective should have been clearer and more concise, so as really to serve the implementation of the strategic objective.

5.2 Improving the legislative process and speeding up the process of approximation, with a focus also on anti-corruption rules (important).This objective has been formulated in a general manner. It cannot be clearly understood how the implementation of this specific objective will serve the realisation of the strategic objective. In addition, this specific objective is repeated at the end of the strategy, now at the level of a strategic objective; see no. 8.

In addition, it seems unreasonable to emphasise the anti-corruption focus, because in the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy, improving the legislative process and that of the approximation of legislation would seem to serve in the first instance the good functioning of the system of justice. Stressing anti-corruption as a specific sub-objective in the framework of the specific objective to improve the legislative process would be more natural in the anti-corruption strategy291.

5.3 Creation of solid registration systems for organised crime and the fight against corruption (very important)This specific objective has also been foreseen, exactly the same, in the Cross-Cutting Strategy of the prevention and fight against corruption and for transparent governance. At the level of formulation, we emphasise that this specific objective more resembles a concrete measure than an objective. On the other hand, so far as its relevance to achieve strategic objective 5 is concerned (guaranteeing the trust of the public, good governance of the justice system and the rule of law), it does not seem to us that there is a logical link between this specific objective and the strategic objective. The creation of registration systems serves to facilitate the monitoring of the fight against corruption and in this way only indirectly (in the best case) serves to a certain extent the strategic sub-objective of consolidation of the trust of the public in justice.

5.4 Effective implementation of the obligations of the Cross-Cutting Strategy for the prevention and fight against corruption and for a more transparent government, 2008-2013, approved by Council of Ministers decision no. 1561 dated 3.10.2008, and the action plans of every year,

291. The three year plan of the Cross-Cutting Strategy, 2011-2013, of the prevention and fight against corruption and for transparent governance; section of reforms in the field of justice and in the judicial system, objective no. 8.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E

including the action plan 2011– 2013, approved by the Inter-Institutional Work Group (IIWG) at the meeting of 6.6.2011 (very important).This objective has been formulated in a general way and furthermore it has also been provided in the separate strategy devoted to the prevention and fight against corruption and for a more transparent government, 2008-2013, approved by decision of the Council of Ministers no. 1561 dated 3.10.2008 as noted above. In order to respond to the strategic objective, this specific objective should have been formulated differently, so as to refer exclusively to the organs of justice and to serve the implementation of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy.

3. EVALUATION OF THE ACTIONS FORESEEN TO ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES Thirteen measures in all have been provided for the realisation of strategic objective 5 (divided according to the respective specific objectives), of which five are regulatory measures, five others are measures of a capacity-building nature and three measures aim at qualitative improvement. Concerning the monitoring mechanisms for evaluating them, the overwhelming majority are quantitative, 10 such indicators against only three qualitative indicators.

5.1 Increasing the effectiveness and coordination with the organs of the other powers and agencies of the executive power, as well as with the free professions and interest groups (very important)For the realisation of this specific objective, five measures have been foreseen. Two of them (measures 5.1.1 and 5.1.5) aim at qualitative improvement in the implementation of the memoranda between the justice organs and in the process of analysing statistical data by the Ministry of Justice. Two other measures (5.1.3 and 5.1.4) have a capacity-building nature, and one measure (5.1.2) is regulatory.

The problem area identified above concerning the general formulation of specific objective 5.1 also entails difficulties in the definition of the concrete measures that are to be undertaken for the implementation of this objective. There is no measure responding directly to the sub-objective of coordination with the free professions and groups of interest.

Another problem is that the measures that aim at qualitative improvement (see above) refer to routine activities for the implementation of memoranda of understanding between institution and work with official statistics. It is also found that the measures provided for the implementation of this specific objective refer exclusively to the Ministry of Justice. In general, we are of the opinion that the measures provided for addressing this specific objective are insufficient, even superficial, and do not succeed in addressing the essence of the specific objective.

5.2 Improving the legislative process and speeding up the process of approximation, with a focus also on anti-corruption rules (important).For the realisation of this specific objective, three measures have been provided. One of them (5.2.1) has a capacity-building nature; another (5.2.2) is regulatory, whilst the final measure (5.2.3) aims at qualitative improvement in the development of analytic and planning/implementing processes for obligations that derive from international agreements. So far as the monitoring and evaluative mechanisms are concerned, two are quantitative and one is qualitative.


We should also bring out the fact once again that not only does the title of the specific objective coincide with that provided in the anti-corruption strategy, but the measures, time periods and financial resources, together with the responsible institutions, also coincide completely with the objective provided in the anti-corruption strategy. In this sense, although formally the measures in implementation of the specific objective are reasonably, the objective itself should not have been foreseen in the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy.

5.3 Creation of solid registration systems for organised crime and the fight against corruption (very important)For the realisation of specific objective 5.3, only one measure has been provided, with the nature of improving capacities. The measure in itself responds to the implementation of the strategic objective.

5.4 Effective implementation of the obligations of the Cross-Cutting Strategy for the prevention and fight against corruption and for a more transparent government, 2008-2013, approved by Council of Ministers decision no. 1561 dated 3.10.2008, and the action plans of every year, including the action plan 2011– 2013, approved by the Inter-Institutional Work Group (IIWG) at the meeting of 6.6.2011 (very important).For the implementation of specific objective 5.4, the action plan provides three measures of a regulatory nature and one measure that aims at improving capacities. It is seen, however, that the measure provided in point 5.4.1 more resembles an evaluative mechanism, that is, with an indicator, because periodic reporting is the result, the indicator of a measure of the type “drawing up periodic reports on the monitoring of fulfilment of the strategic objectives and the following of the recommendations”. The measures provided for the realisation of the objective are of a routine nature, consisting mainly of the reports of national institutions to the relevant international bodies and vice versa. Taking into account that the Cross-Cutting Strategy for the prevention and fight against corruption and transparent government has been functioning since 2008, after two three-year action plans, such measures are now routine.

4. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT ABOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EVERY ACTION/MEASURE

Specific objective 1: Increasing the effectiveness and coordination with the organs of the other powers and agencies of the executive power as well as the free professions and interest groups

5.1.1 Effective implementation of the functional legal duties and commitments, according to the memoranda of understanding entered into between the Ministry of Justice, the High Council of Justice, the General Prosecutor’s Office, the National Judicial Conference and othersResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice, High Council of Justice, General Prosecutors’ Office, National Judicial ConferenceDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013Status: Partially implemented

Starting from an evaluation of the formulation of the measure, we bring out that the measure is not conceived carefully, because it speaks of functional duties, and implementing them in the framework

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E

of the signing of memoranda of understanding as an absolute obligation for every state institution and essential for the consolidation of the rule of law and good governance. Notwithstanding the circumstances, whether or not a memorandum is signed never removes the obligation of an institution to implement its functional legal duties effectively and with responsibility.

For the implementation of this measure, it is essential for memoranda of understanding to be signed between the actors mentioned above, and it turns out that there is a memorandum of understanding signed between the Minister of Justice and the Deputy Chairman of the High Council of Justice292. The act preceding this was between the Ministry of Justice and the High Council of Justice, and it was closed since December 2011. The second memorandum is a necessity arising from the work activity of judicial inspection and the avoidance of overlapping of the competences provided by this memorandum293.

In the meantime, a memorandum of cooperation between the Ministry of Justice and the General Prosecutor’s Office is in under development, currently in the phase of the exchange of a draft agreement between those two institutions294. According to the General Prosecutor’s Office, this memorandum of understanding will put great stress on the inspection criteria of the Ministry of Justice as against the General Prosecutor’s Office and the district prosecutors’ offices as to the legality of case dismissal; in addition, another point that will included in the memorandum is the planning of even more concrete joint policies in the fight against corruption and organised crime295.

There is no memorandum between the Ministry of Justice and the National Judicial Conference or between the High Council of Justice and the National Judicial Conference. In addition, it is also essential that there be a memorandum of cooperation between the Ministry of Justice and the National Chamber of Advocacy, not yet signed, detailing the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy as much as possible. We consider this memorandum essential in view of the problem areas seen in judicial proceedings, which last an overly long time because of absences by lawyers; it is also seen as essential to establish bridges of cooperation between those two institutions.

According to information from the Ministry of Justice, the signing of memoranda of cooperation with the People’s Advocate, the General Prosecutor’s Office and the National Chamber of Private Bailiffs are in the process of being finalised296.

On the other hand, the Minister of Justice and the Director of the High Inspectorate of the Declaration and Audit of Assets signed on 28.8.2012 the memorandum “On on-line access to the electronic register of immovable properties”.

For the fulfilment of this measure, a memorandum of understanding has also been signed between the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health for the purpose of creating a medical institute for persons with mental problems who have committed criminal offences297. The phase of implementation,

292. Memorandum of understanding between the Minister of Justice and the Deputy Chairman of the High Council of Justice “On the avoidance of overlapping of competences in judicial inspection”, HJC prot. no. 1387, dated.13.09.2012. 293. Memorandum of understanding between the Ministry of Justice, represented by the General Director of Justice Issues, and the inspectorate of the High Council of Justice “On the harmonisation of the procedures of judicial inspection and the avoidance of the overlapping of competences”, 5.12.2011. 294. Edlira Jorgaqi, director of studies, General Prosecutor’s Office, interview, 21 September 2012.295. In the report for 2011 sent to the Department of Internal Administration and Anti-corruption Control (DIAAC) in the Council of Ministers, the Ministry of Justice is in agreement that a first draft of the memorandum of understanding exists. The Ministry of Justice considers this sub-measure partially implemented.296. Letter from the Ministry of Justice, prot. no. 136, dated 10.1.2013.297. http://www.justice.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=7915


forecasting the costs and approving a joint work plan has been left for a later time, which we do not evaluate at all because of the absence of official information from the Ministry of Justice.We deem this measure partially implemented, considering the fact that only two memoranda of understanding have been signed out of the four expected as a minimum between the above mentioned institutions. The memorandum between the Minister of Justice and the Deputy Chairman of the High Council of Justice was signed only a month ago, which is a relatively short time to evaluate the level of implementation. We cannot judge this measure as fully implemented just because two memoranda of understanding exist and that one is under discussion; its purpose is not just the signing of memoranda of understanding but also their implementation.

The time period provided for the realisation of this measure (2011-2013) is reasonable, since the implementation of the functional duties cannot be other than a routine and continuing activity. The financial budget foreseen is ordinary operating expenses, because we are not dealing with an activity that is presumes additional cost.

The institutional responsibility has been defined reasonably well, but other institutions such as the National Chamber of Advocacy might also have been provided. The monitoring mechanism has been formulated in a general manner and does not have a measurable nature. The publication of periodic reports on concrete actions undertaken to realise the duties provided in the memoranda of understanding might have been provided as an indicator.

5.1.2 Improvement of the law “On the organisation and functioning of the Ministry of Justice” and subordinate legal acts Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice Deadline for implementation: 2011Status: Not implemented

Based on later information from the Ministry of Justice, the responsible structures in this institution are working on the preparation of the respective amendments to this law, which among other things aims at clarifying the competences between the two inspectorates of the Ministry and the HCJ for controlling the judiciary.

From a qualitative evaluation as to how the measure contributes to the realisation of the specific objective, we consider that improving the law on the Ministry of Justice is only a basic premise that might assure an increase of the effectiveness and coordination with the organs of other powers, but it is not sufficient to address the objective.

From the report that the Ministry of Justice has prepared for the DIAAC, it turns out that the Ministry of Justice has drawn up a first draft to improve the law “On the organisation and functioning of the Ministry of Justice”, but it has not yet been finalised.

The time period provided for the realisation of this measure is not sufficient. The financial resources for realising it have been provided in an appropriate manner, as operating expenses. The institutional responsibility has been well defined, with the Ministry of Justice as the responsible institution and which has a concrete interest in the realisation of this measure. The monitoring mechanism provided for realisation of the measure is concrete and measurable, of a regulatory nature and also responding

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E

to the regulatory nature of the measure itself.

5.1.3 Continuous training of the administrative staff of the Ministry of Justice for the purpose of specialisation and profiling according to functional duties Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice Deadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: Partially implemented

The Ministry of Justice has the primary responsibility for realisation of this measure. The nature of this measure is capacity-building for the administrative staff of the Ministry of Justice, an institution that is a leader in implementation of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy.

The staff of the Ministry of Justice has been trained continuously both by state institutions (the Institute for Training the Public Administration) as well as by international bodies such as EURALIUS III, the OSCE, the PACA project and others. Several of the themes of the training are related to the independence of the judiciary and access to justice, anti-corruption, the use of the ALBIS system, learning about best European practices in the field of inspection of judges, delay by the courts in the trial of civil cases, protection of personal data, drafting of legislation and legislative technique298

The time period for realisation of this measure is realistic, extending over two years, because it is provided for the realisation of a continuing measure such as training is. The financial budget has not been provided. For increasing capacities and forming an infrastructure that is as complete as possible, especially for the institution with the main institutional responsibility such as the Ministry of Justice, the pre-determination of financial resources is essential and is a fundamental condition, directly affecting whether the measure will be implemented or not. The monitoring mechanism has been provided in a sufficient manner, but the number of trainings and the number of persons trained each year should also have been included.

5.1.4 Improvement of the physical working conditions in the Ministry of JusticeResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice Deadline for implementation: 2011-2012 Status: Not implemented

Before starting a quantitative and qualitative analysis of this measure, we should point out that it does not serve the realisation of the specific objective.

Considering the investigation done in all the official information sources, and being unable to obtain official information from the responsible institution, we find the measure not to have been realised.

The time period has been provided over two years, as a continuing measure. The financial resources have been provided concretely, making a budgetary division for each year in which the implementation of this measure has been foreseen. The institutional responsibility has been divided in a concrete way, attributing the realisation of this measure to the Ministry of Justice, which also has a concrete interest in realising it. The monitoring mechanism is correct and measurable.

298. Letter from the Ministry of Justice, prot. no. 136, dated 10.1.2013.


5.1.5 Improving the process of analysis and processing of official statistics of the Ministry of Justice Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice Deadline for implementation: 2011-2013 Status: Not implemented

This measure assists indirectly in fulfilling the specific objective. It implies raising the quality of the processing of statistics of the Ministry of Justice. The evaluation of its implementation can be achieved separately by comparing the statistic yearbook of 2010 with that of 2011, to bring out new categories that might have been processed in the statistics of 2011.

However, up to today, an essential precondition for realising this measure has been taken with the launch of the web page www.gjykatat.gov.al. This page generates official statistics of the two levels of the judiciary, and what is more important, it assures full access to all citizens of the country, thus increasing transparency and the trust of the public in the institutions of justice. The new portal aids in generating some statistics, but it does not provide general statistics.

It should be emphasised that this measure cannot be an isolated result, that is, it cannot be considered implemented once and for all, as would be the case with the approval of a law. It presupposes an entire process, where the improvement should be continuing.

The time period provided for realisation of this measure coincides with the extent of the Strategy, which makes monitoring more difficult. The time period is not concrete, but general. A time period divided into sub-periods, responding to the steps necessary toward final implementation of the measure, would have better served its realisation. The financial budget has been provided in a clear manner, as operating expenses. The responsible institution is the Ministry of Justice, with direct competence to realise this measure. The monitoring mechanism has not been formulated in a concrete manner; it is general and this makes it difficult to evaluate the measure.

Specific objective 5.2: Improving the legislative process and speeding up the process of approximation, with a focus also on anti-corruption rules

5.2.1 Training the staff of the General Directorate of Codification and officials of the state administration on legislative techniques Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, EURALIUS III, PACADeadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: Partially implemented

With the assistance of the Mission EURALIUS III, training was held on 19 – 21 September 2011 on the Law Drafting Manual, as well as the effective indicators for law drafting in conformity with EU practice. Part of this training was an Annex for the prevention of gaps for corruption in the process of law drafting. Representatives of the legal directorates from all the institutions of the executive took part in this activity299. In itself, the measure achieves the purpose of implementation of the specific objective. This measure

299. Ministry of Justice in the report for 2011 sent to DIAAC.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E

is considered realised in part, because the training should be continuing. A single training cannot exhaust all the problem areas.The time period provided is realistic. The financial resources have been foreseen to come from the protects EURALIUS III and PACA, and therefore the institutional responsibility for this measure, besides the Ministry of Justice, is held also by the international partner institutions EURALIUS III and PACA. The mechanisms for monitoring realisation of this measure are insufficient to evaluate and measure the fulfilment of the concrete measure. The number of trainings to be performed each year and the number of persons trained by the Directorate of Codification and by the state administration could also have been defined as monitoring mechanisms.

5.2.2 Publication of an annex to the Manual on Legislative Drafting for anti-corruption rulesResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice, EURALIUS III, PACADeadline for implementation: First six months of 2011Status: Implemented

In May 2011, an Annex to the law drafting manual, entitled “On the methodology of including the danger of corruption in the Albanian legislative process”300, was published. This measure was realised in cooperation with the projects PACA and EURALIUS III.

The time period for realisation of this measure is realistic. The budget provided for realising it was made possible by PACA and EURALIUS III. The institutional responsibility has been divided correctly and realistically. The monitoring mechanism is measurable and easy to apply; at the same time, the time is concrete in conformity with such a regulatory measure.

5.2.3 Holding analytic, planning and implementation processes of the international obligations from the SAA [Stabilisation/Association Agreement], progress reports of the European Commission, other strategic documents (GRECO, MONEYVAL, Warsaw Convention and others) Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice Deadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: Implemented

This measure has a logical relation to the specific objective, serving the improvement of the legislative process with anti-corruption rules in its focus.

It should be emphasised, in a deeper analysis, that this measure also serves to address partially the specific objective which, in addition to increasing the trust of the public in the justice system and the consolidation of good governance of that system, also aims a strengthening the fight against corruption. The realisation of that measure is fundamental for specific objective 5.2 itself, because it brings qualitative improvements which directly serve the purpose of strategic objective 5.

For the realisation of this measure, following the recommendations of European experts and international committees such as GRECO and MONEYVAL, the important initiative as been undertaken of the approval of law no. 23/2012 dated 1.3.2012 “On some additions and amendments to law no.

300. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/economiccrime/publications_en.asp


7895 dated 27.1.1995 “The Criminal Code of the Republic of Albania”301, which, among other things, fulfils the recommendations of GRECO by criminalising eight new offences, including “Active and passive corruption of a foreign public official”; “Active and passive corruption of a judge or official of international courts”; “Active and passive corruption of a local and foreign arbitrator” and “Active and passive corruption of a jury”. In addition, the maximum sentences have been increased for offences of corruption in the private sector, as well as expanding the territorial jurisdiction of Albanian criminal law for crimes of corruption and the exercise of unlawful influence, removing double criminalisation302.

The changes approved in the Criminal Code also reflect the recommendations of the MONEYVAL Committee for adjusting the provisions of the criminal offences of “Laundering the products of a criminal offence” and “Financing of terrorism” with the provisions of the Palermo Convection, the Vienna Convention and the United Nations Convention “Against the financing of terrorism”, according to recommendation 2 (E2) and special recommendation II (SRII).

Thus, the provisions of article 287 of the Criminal Code, “Laundering the products of a criminal offence”, and article 287/b “Misappropriation of money or goods that derive from a criminal offence or criminal activity”, as to which the gamut of activities that constitute the criminal offence was expanded and some procedural rules were added, in order to make their detection and punishment efficacious, lowering the standard of proof.

With the assistance of the PACA and OPDAT projects, guidelines have been drawn up on investigating corruption and financial crime in the service of the work of the prosecutors, judicial police officers, joint investigative units and all structures involved in the field of investigation of corruption and financial crime303.

Notwithstanding the above, it should be stressed that this measure is very broad and difficult to measure, because it contains in itself the development of three very important sub-measures:

• Conducting analytic processes,• Conducting planning processes, and • Conducting implementing processes of the international obligations.

On the other hand, there are many international obligations planned: those of the SAA, GRECO, MONEYVAL and others. The development of analytic processes will serve the process of approximation of Albanian legislation with European standards and international ones.

The time period provided for the realisation of this measure is realistic and in conformity with the complex dimension foreseen for its realisation. The financial budget has been set in an adequate manner as operating expenses. Institutional responsibility has been correctly assigned only to the Ministry of Justice. Considering the important role played in this process by international projects, such as PACA and EURALIUS III, but also the Ministry of Integration, it would be good for them also to have been named as partner institutions. The monitoring mechanism does not respond to the realisation of this measure; it is very general and does not assist in evaluating whether the measure

301. Law no. 23/2012 dated 1.3.2012 “On some additions and amendments to law no. 7895 dated 27.1.1995 “The Criminal Code of the Republic of Albania”, amended (published in Official Journal no. 26 dated 27.3.2012, entered into force on 12.4.2012).302. Helena Papa, DIAAC, inspector, e-mail of 5.09.2012, answer to “Request for information from the Open Society Foundation of Albania (Soros) no. 298/2012 dated 1807.2012.303. Report of the Ministry of Justice for 2011 to DIAAC, page 14.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E

has been realised.

Specific objective 5.3: Creation of solid registration systems on organised crime and the fight against corruption

5.3.1 Interconnection of the existing systems into an aggregated system able to produce solid statistics Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice Deadline for implementation: 2013Status: Partially implemented The first steps for realisation of this measure were taken in April 2012 with the joint order of the Ministry of Justice, the Interior Ministry and the General Prosecutor’s Office “Establishing a work group to create standardised forms for a consolidated system of data about the criminal offences of corruption and for the creation of a standardised format for the consolidated system of data on criminal offences related to organised crime”304.

By means of the joint order, it was decided to create a work group for the purpose of meeting the objectives of the recommendations of the European Commission about the formation of an aggregated system able to produce solid statistics. The work group was charged with preparing a standardised format for obtaining initial data and historical information about cases of corruption and organised crime, including investigation, criminal prosecution and/or final judicial decisions, as well as determining the methodology for collecting the data. Currently, the work group has drawn up in an integrated form for statistical data about criminal offences related to corruption and organised crime for the years 2099-2011 and the first six months of 2012.

Full implementation of the measure is planned to extend beyond the time span of this monitoring report. The measure is considered partially implemented, with time remaining for further realisation.

The time period has been defined accurately. The financial budget has not been defined, and this fact might make realisation of the measure difficult in the future, because we are dealing with a capacity-building measure for which it is essential that a specific financial resource be available. The institutional responsibility is not complete, with the Interior Ministry and the General Prosecutor’s Office not having been foreseen. The monitoring mechanism is concrete and conforms to the measure, assisting in the evaluation of its status.

Specific objective 5.4: Effective implementation of the obligations of the Cross-Cutting Strategy for the prevention and fight against corruption and for a more transparent government, 2008-2013, approved by council of Ministers decision no. 1561 dated 3.10.2008, and the action plans of every year, including the action plan 2011 – 2013, approved by the inter-institutional work group (iiwF) at the meeting of 6.6.20115.4.1 Periodic reporting of the fulfilment of the strategic objectives*Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, CORIP [Central Office of the Registration of Immovable Properties], DIAAC, PACADeadline for implementation: 2011- 2013 (continuing)

304. Joint order prot. nr. 1628/4, dated 6.4.2012 of the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Interior and General Prosecutor see: http://justice.gov.al/UserFiles/File/Urdhri%20i%20perbashket_formati%20i%20standardizuar_statistika_korrupsion%20&%20krimi%20i%20organizuar.pdf


Status: Implemented

As we have set out above, this measure resembles a monitoring mechanism and not really an action to be undertaken. However, it contemplates a long process of drawing up periodic reports, giving knowledge to the public and specialised international organisations about fulfilment of the measure and the assistance needed. Thus we have the annual reports of the Ministry of Justice to the project PACA and to the DIAAC.

The information that the Ministry of Justice periodically sends to the Ministry of Integration in connection with objective 7 of 12 of the European Commission should also be mentioned. The reports of the Ministry of Justice are sent regularly to those institutions and are presented clearly in the reports on the implementation and application of the recommendations of the opinion of the Council of Europe on Albania305.

Based on a logical analysis of this measure compared to the specific objective, we think it does not serve to elaborate or address it; it foresees a routine activity among those institutions that has already been going on for four years now.

The time period conflicts with the very formulation of the measure, which provides for periodic reporting, that is, several times over a well-defined span of time. Time periods that are so general306 are not the most propitious for this measure. The institutional responsibility is correct. The financial budget has been defined correctly, as operating expenses. The monitoring mechanism has been formulated as a measure. Here we have an exchange of places, with the measure in the place of the monitoring mechanism and vice versa.

5.4.2 Reflecting continuously the obligations of international instruments and acts in internal legislation in the anti-corruption field Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, DIAAC, PACADeadline for implementation: 2011- 2013Status: Implemented

In the framework of improving the legislative process and implementing the obligations of international instruments and acts in domestic legislation, this measure is essential for realising the specific objective in the anti-corruption field.

GRECO had imposed five recommendations on Albania in connection with the subject of incrimination for corrupt actions. During the process of approval of the report on compatibility, Albania was evaluated as having partially met four of the recommendations, with one having been fulfilled completely307. This evaluation was based on the fact that the draft law for amendments to the Criminal Code had not yet been approved in the Assembly.

With the approval of law 23/2012 “On some additions and amendments to law no. 7895 dated 27.1.1995

305. Report on the implementation of the action plan about the recommendations of the European Commission, July-July 2012, http://mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2042306. Two years, 2011-2013.307. Compliance report for the third evaluation round for Albania: “Incriminations (ETS 173 and 191, GPC 2)” ; pp. 3-6, see http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoRC3(2011)3_Albania_EN.pdf

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E

“The Criminal Code of the Republic of Albania”, amended308, the Republic of Albania considers that all of the recommendations of GRECO are fulfilled for theme I – The incrimination of corruption offences. Following the GRECO recommendations, those offences have been included in the Criminal Code:

• active309 and passive310 corruption of foreign public officials, members of foreign public assemblies, officials of international organisations, members of international parliamentary assemblies as well as judges and officials of international courts, members of foreign judicial juries and Albanian and foreign arbitration judges;

• increasing the maximum sentences for acts of corruption in the private sector and unlawful influence;

• jurisdiction for all acts of corruption in the public and private sector and the exercise of influence – removal of the legal requirement of double criminality.

The time period and financial resources for realisation of this measure are realistic. The institutional responsibility is concrete and proper, starting from the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for the approximation of the domestic legislation with international legislation; then with the institution of DIAAC and the PACA project, which have special competence in the area of anti-corruption. The monitoring mechanism has been defined concretely and is measurable.

5.4.3 Periodic reporting to GRECO and MONEYVAL about the implementation of the Criminal CodeResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice, DIAAC, General Prosecutor’s Office (GPO), Financial Investigation Unit (FIU) Deadline for implementation: 2011- 2013 (continuing)Status: Implemented

Periodic reporting to GRECO and MONEYVAL is an obligation that derives from the membership of Albania in those monitoring mechanisms of the Council of Europe. Therefore, the implementation of this measure does not seem to be linked to specific objective 5.4 (Implementation of the Strategy against corruption). However, from the information provided by the DIAAC311, it turns out that information in the form of reporting to GRECO is done periodically, every year312.

We do not have information from the Ministry of Finance (The General Directorate of Prevention of Money Laundering/GDPML) about the progress of reporting to MONEYVAL, notwithstanding attempts to contact made in the official route313.

308. Law no. 23/2012, Official Journal no. 26, 27 March 2012; see: http://www.qpz.gov.al/botime/fletore_zyrtare/2012/PDF-2012/26-2012.pdf 309. Article 244/a. Active corruption of foreign public civil servants.“Promising, proposing or giving, directly or indirectly, any kind of irregular benefit, for oneself or third persons, to a foreign public civil servant, an employee of a public international organisation, a member of a foreign public assembly or a member of an international parliamentary assembly, to perform or not to perform an action that is related to his duty or function, is punishable by imprisonment of from six months up to three years and by a fine of from 300,000 up to 3,00,000 lek.310. Article 259/a. Passive corruption of foreign public civil servants.“Asking for or receiving, directly or indirectly, any kind of irregular benefit or such a promise, for oneself or third persons, or the acceptance of an offer or promise that comes from an irregular benefit, by a foreign public civil servant, an employee of a public international organisation, a member of foreign public assembly or a member of an international parliamentary assembly, to perform or not to perform an action that is related to his duty or function, is punishable by imprisonment of from two up to eight years and by a fine of from 500,000 up to 3,000,000 lek”.311. The department of internal administration and anti-corruption control in the Council of Ministers (DIAAC) represents the Republic of Albania in GRECO.312. GRECO up-date by e-mail from Helena Papa, inspector of the DIAAC, 3.09.2012.313. The GDPML coordinates work for implementation of the recommendations of MONEYVAL.


Also to be awaited, however, is the report of August 2012 approved by GRECO, because the supplementary report is approved 18 months after approval of the compliance report, which was published in April 2011314.

The time period, financial resources and monitoring mechanisms for the realisation of this measure have been planned in an adequate manner.

5.4.4 Training of the actors involved in the process of reporting and the operators of the justice system (judges, prosecutors and other system actors) Responsible institution: Magistrates’ School, PACA, Ministry of Justice Deadline for implementation: 2011- 2013Status: Not implemented

Training is an important action, essential to realise specific objective.4, because it includes the preparation of those operators of the justice system who report on the implementation of the strategy against corruption. Specifically, those operators are the Ministry of Justice, the General Prosecutors’ Office and the Magistrates’ School. The Ministry of Justice plays an important role in the implementation of this measure. Because of the absence of information from the responsible institutions or published data about this measure in official sources, the measure is judged as unimplemented. The time period, we think, is realistic and concrete, since we are dealing with a continuing action like training. The financial budget has been provided from the expenses of the PACA project. However, we should mention that for 2011, the PACA project has organised only one training activity out of four in all. The institutional responsibility has been divided correctly. The monitoring mechanism is insufficient; the number of trainings to be organised every year, the number of persons trained and so forth should have been specified concretely.

314. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoRC3(2011)3_Albania_EN.pdf

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E

38%

31%

31%



PARTIALLY IMPLENTED

NOT BEEN IMPLENTED


From monitoring the progress of implementation of the 13 measures defined for realisation of strategic objective no. 5 of the action plan of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy, it turns out that:

• 38% measures were evaluated as implemented (five), four of which are measures of a periodic, continuing nature,

• 31% measures were evaluated as partially implemented (four), but they still have time for being realised, up to 2013;

• 31% measures were evaluated as not implemented (four) as of the time of monitoring. It bears emphasising that two of those measures have a longer time period for realisation, up to 2013, and therefore there is still time to realise them, whereas one measure (5.1.2) is beyond its time period, and it should have been realised in 2011.

From an evaluation of the time periods for realising the concrete measures, it turns out that 10 measures have realistic time periods, whereas three have been provided in an unrealistic way that is not measurable. Measures prevail that have a two year time period (2011-2013). In the four specific objectives mentioned above, it is noticed that the measures generally have long time periods implementation, which makes the process of implementation difficult as well as the process of monitoring their progress and evaluating them.

So far as concerns the institutions responsible for realising the measures provided in the Strategy, in 10 measures they have been provided in a correct, concrete and realistic manner and are in conformity with the competences of the institutions, whereas in 3 measures they have been provided incompletely, not including institutions that could play an important role. Such, for example, is measure 5.1.1 where in addition to the institutions specified, the National Chamber of Advocacy and that of the Notary Profession should also have been included, as organisations representing the free professions.

According to a more detailed analysis of the distribution of responsibility, we would point out that the Ministry of Justice plays the main role as the responsible institution or at least coordinator. In fact, the entire strategic objective no. 5 has in its centre a series of regulatory measure or improvement of capacities, addressed to the separate directorates of the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry of Justice


also holds the highest institutional rank in the process of justice reform, both because of its control competences315, as well as its role in the process of reporting progress to such bodies as GRECO, MONEYVAL and others.

Another dimension related to the direct responsibility of the Ministry of Justice and its competences is the institutional cooperation between all the actors contributing to justice reform. Thus, the Ministry of Justice has been included in all the measures as a responsible institution. Under those conditions, in the absence of official information from the Ministry of Justice as well as lacking other data made public in reports or on various official websites, several measures have been evaluated as not implemented.

In addition, another feature that is noticed is the absence of a clear separation between the responsible institutions and the partner institutions. For example, in objective 5.2, out of the three measures provided, EURALIUS III and PACA have also been foreseen along with the Ministry of Justice, since the measures have to do with anti-corruption actions as well as continuous training of the human resources in the Ministry of Justice. However, we think the status of those projects should have been no more than partners, since it is the state institutions that are responsible for the implementation of national strategies.

From an evaluation made of the financial resources provided in the measures of objective no. 5, it turns out that in 11 measures the resources have been defined adequately, whereas for only two measures have the budgets not been identified. Keeping in mind that most measures foreseen in this specific objective are for capacity-building, financial resources defined concretely have a positive effect on whether the measures will be realised.

From an evaluation of the monitoring mechanisms and those for evaluation, it turns out that: for seven measures the indicators have been expressed in a formal, general and insufficient manner, whereas for six measures, they are concrete and can easily be monitored.

Out of 13 measures in total, 10 monitoring mechanisms are quantitative and three are qualitative. The monitoring of this strategic objective has also met with problems concerning the drawing up of monitoring and evaluative mechanisms, because we often see the same or similar indicators for several different measures. Generally, the indicators have been formulated in a way that is formal, abstract and difficult to measure.

Difficulties are encountered in allocating a concrete, measurable indicator for qualitative improvement measures. More specifically, measure 5.1.5 on “improving the process of analysis and processing the official statistics of the Ministry of justice” has the indicator “better quality of the reports and initiatives” – an indicator that is not concrete and is difficult to measure. Furthermore, some of the indicators have been expressed as objectives, as an impact of the measure and in few cases do we find them formulated properly316. Because of unclear formulations of the evaluative indicators, the evaluation of whether a measure has been realised and a reference to the supporting documentation becomes even more difficult.

315. Control exercised against private or state bailiffs. 316. Measure 5.4.1, where the indicator has the form of a measure (the action that should be undertaken), because first, it is logical to have an action, such as “drafting periodic reports on monitoring the fulfilment of the strategic objectives ...” and later, “periodic reporting on the monitoring of the fulfilment of the strategic objectives” is a concrete, measurable indicator.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E

6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS One of the recommendations with highest priority is the reformulation of the Strategy, drafting measures that are more concrete and phrases that are more concise, which will make it easier to understand the Strategy and will require a concrete result, avoiding long formulations that hide the true objective.

We would propose that the strategic objective be formulated as “Consolidating good governance and the trust of the public in the justice system”. In fact, since those who formulated the Strategy themselves recognise the special importance of this strategic objective, the question naturally arises: how effective can an objective be, which in itself is so broad that it could perfectly well have been a strategy about good governance and the rule of law?! Concision in the formulation guarantees to a certain extent the sense of its purpose in a simpler way, as well as enabling evaluation of its implementation.

In general, the specific objectives have been formulated concisely, but they do not respond in the entirety to strategic objective no. 5 nor do they fully meet it. Specific objective 5.4, however, is very general and furthermore provides for the effective implementation of the obligations that derive from another strategy, the Strategy for the fight against corruption. To respond to the strategic objective, this might be replaced by another or be reformulated so as to refer exclusively to the justice organs in service of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy.

We also draw attention to the fact that several strategic objectives have foreseen some routine measures of the state institutions or have been formulated in that way317. We are of the opinion that the Justice Strategy should define the principal actions that should be undertaken by the responsible institutions, bringing a strategic vision rather than measures that are merely ordinary operations and functional duties.

The main problems emphasised in the Strategy, especially in specific objective 5.1 in connection with the Ministry of Justice, are the training and capacities of its administrative staff and the need to increase the number of staff. We think that special attention should be devoted to creating a professional tradition for the civil servants of the Ministry, and we are also convinced that professionalism is deeply linked to the creation of a permanent and efficacious work force.

We recommend that one of the measures of objective 5.1 be dedicated to the implementation of an audit of the functions of the Ministry of Justice. The audit would assure a full analysis of the functions that have been entrusted to the Ministry and the way in which they have developed. In addition, it would include a study of the decision-making process, the internal structure of the Ministry and the appropriateness of the staff profile and the system of its selection. The final purpose would be to determine whether the current model of organisation is the most functional model taking the most benefit from the existing resources.

We recommend that specific objective no. 5 be more concise, avoiding the repetition of specific objectives as well as the repetition of specific objectives already provided in the Strategy against corruption. The current formulation of specific objective no. 5, as we have also said above, makes it more difficult to fulfil the primary purpose of the Strategy, the comprehensiveness and consistency that Albania requires for justice reform.

317. Such as, for example, specific objective 5.1.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

LawS and SubordInate LegaL aCtS:Council of Ministers’ Decision no. 519, “On the approval of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy and its action plan”, 20.7.2011, published in Official Journal no. 116, 2011, p. 4579.

Council of Ministers’ Decision no. 1561, “On the approval of the Cross-Cutting Strategy for the prevention and fight against corruption and for a transparent government 2008-2013”, 3.10.2008, see http://www.qpz.gov.al/doc.jsp?doc=docs/Vendim%20Nr%201561%20Dat%C3%AB%2003-10-2008.htm

Memorandum of cooperation between the Minister of Justice and the Deputy Chairman of the High Council of Justice (HJC) “On the avoidance of overlapping of the competences in judicial inspection”, HCJ prot. no. 1387, 13.9.2012.

Memorandum of cooperation between the Ministry of Justice, represented by the General Directorate of Justice Issues, and the inspectorate of the High Council of Justice, “On the harmonisation of procedures of judicial inspection and the avoidance of overlapping of competences”, 5.12.2011.

Law no. 23/2012 dated 1.3.2012 “On some additions and amendments to law no. 7895 dated 27.1.1995, “The Criminal Code of the Republic of Albania”, amended, published in Official Journal dated 27.3.2012, entered into force 12.4.2012.

Joint order prot. no. 1628/4, dated 6.4.2012, of the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of the Interior and General Prosecutor: http://justice.gov.al/UserFiles/File/Urdhri%20i%20perbashket_formati%20i%20standardizuar_statistika_korrupsion%20&%20krimi%20i%20organizuar.pdf

MeetIngS/e-MaILS:Edlira Jorgaqi, director of studies, General Prosecutors’ Office, interview, 21 September 2012.

Helena Papa, department of internal anti-corruption control, inspector, e-mail of 5.09.2012, answer to “Request for information of the Open Society Foundation for Albania”, prot. no. 298/2012, 18.07.2012.

reportS:Ministry of Justice, Report 2011 to the department of internal administration and anti-corruption control (DIAAC).

Ministry of Integration, Report on the implementation of the action plan for meeting the 12 Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania, www.mie.gov.al

Report on implementation of the action plan about the recommendations of the Council of Europe, June-July 2012, http://mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2042

Compliance report for the third evaluative round for Albania: “Incriminations (ETS 173 and 191,

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E

GPC 2)” ; see http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoRC3(2011)3_Albania_EN.pdf

MedIa announCeMentS:Under the direction of Deputy Minister Kasmi, monitoring meeting for the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy, 2011 – 2013; http://wwww.justice.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=8006

Minister of Justice and Minister of Health, memorandum of cooperation for the medical institute for persons with mental problems who have committed criminal offences, see http://www.justice.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=7915

Programme for training of the judicial administration; see http://justice.gov.al/UserFiles/File/programi%20final%20per%20trajnimin%20e%20Adminstrates.pdf


NO.6

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

Strategic ObJectiVe 6Consolidation of the democratic state based on the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, improving the enforcement of judicial decisions, the rights of prisoners and pre-trial detainees as well as the rights of children (important).

1. ANALYSIS OF THE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE Strategic objective no. 6 is one of the objectives qualified as important. Its specific objectives are also part of the 12 Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania. This objective elaborates strategic priorities 9, 10 and 11 of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy and it consists principally of:

• consolidating the democratic state, based on the fundamental individual rights and freedoms, accomplishing the country’s integration into the EU through completely meeting European standards;

• improving the execution of judicial decisions and executive titles to a level similar to that of the EU and improving the performance of the state and private bailiffs’ service, as well as

• Improving the prison and remand systems, in the framework of guaranteeing the fundamental rights of individuals and the conversion of criminal imprisonment into a possibility of re-education.

Objective no. 6 is a comprehensive objective. It covers a range of fields and addresses a range of problem areas related to several fundamental rights, such as the right to a due legal process and, specifically, for the execution of final judicial decisions, the rights of individuals deprived of liberty and the rights of children.

In our evaluation, the strategic objective should have been more synthetic in its formulation, for example, “Consolidation of the democratic state by respecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals”, whilst it would have been sufficient for the other part of the title of this objective to be expressed in specific objectives, because in essence they only detail the ways in which this strategic objective is to be achieved.

2. ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES This strategic objective is elaborated in six specific objectives, three of which are characterised as “very important” and three others as “important”. The specific objectives have a logical link with and a direct effect on fulfilment of the strategic objective. Several of the specific objectives have been formulated concretely and clearly, whereas several others have been formulated broadly, which could have been avoided by including them as measures or specific actions drawn up for the implementation of those objectives.


6.1 Improving the execution of decisions (important)This objective covers one of the factors that contribute the most to increasing the efficiency and responsibility of the justice system, and it seems to have a stronger link to that than to the consolidation of the democratic state. Assuring the most efficient system possible for the execution of judicial decisions is an effective means for guaranteeing access to justice, because it is the execution of the decision that is the result sought by the individuals who use the judicial system. This specific objective has been formulated in a clear and concise manner.

6.2. Improving the rights of those who are isolated, through investments, security of the penitentiary system, treatment with food and medicine, training, employment, rehabilitation, strengthening judicial prosecutions for maltreatment and improving implementation of the recommendations of the people’s advocate (very important)This specific objective clearly addresses the problem area, also aiming at addressing the challenges identified in this area in the narrative part of the Justice Strategy. The extremely long formulation of this objective is striking, as it also includes the means of realisation, such as investments, food treatment, rehabilitation, implementation of the recommendations of the People’s Advocate and so forth. Several of the means defined for achieving this specific objective are functional duties of the institution and obligations of the state in cases of taking away the liberty of persons in pre-trial detention (remand) or who have been sentenced to imprisonment, which do not in themselves constitute means for reform in justice, unlike the security of penitentiary systems and treatment with food and medicine.

6.3 Increasing independence, responsibility, transparency and efficacy in the system of rehabilitation of those serving alternative sentences (important)This specific objective has been clearly expressed and contains all the priorities foreseen in the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy for alternative sentences. It has been seen as necessary to dedicate a special specific objective to this issue, because the system of alternative sentences is relatively new and a consolidated tradition is lacking among the institutions responsible for the rehabilitation of convicted persons through the use of alternative sentences. Also, the General Directorate of the Probation Service, the main institutional mechanism for supervision of the implementation of the alternative sentences, still needs to have its professional capacities strengthened and to consolidate its relations with the public, the courts, the prosecutor’s office, the police, the penitentiary system, the local authorities and NPOs for the best possible implementation of this system. The objective has a logical link with and an influence on the realisation of the strategic objective.

6.4 Increasing the sustainability of the level of execution of judicial decisions in conformity with European standards, as well as improving the quality of the bailiff ’s service (very important)This specific objective assists in consolidating the democratic state based on the fundamental individual freedoms and the right to due process.The provision of a special objective for increasing the sustainability of the execution of judicial decisions, together with measures that serve to address this objective, aid in strengthening the central institutions, such as the General Directorate of Enforcement and the National Chamber of Private Bailiffs. Since the division of the bailiff’s service into public and private ones is an innovation not only for our country, but also for most other European states, it requires special attention. The first part of this objective overlaps with specific objective 1, both of which concentrate on improving the execution of judicial decisions. This could have been avoided by

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

joining these objectives into one.

6.5 Extension of the ALBIS system and consolidating it in the private and state judicial bailiff ’s service (very important)This specific objective does not have a direct link to the strategic objective. It shows up partially as a measure for realisation of the above objective 6.4. The extension of the ALBIS system and its consolidation has a direct impact on improving the bailiffs’ service. This objective foresees several measures that have also been repeated in specific objective 6.4. This overlapping among specific objectives creates unnecessary confusion. It has resulted in several measures foreseen to be realised for specific objective 6.5 being analysed under specific objective 6.4; we refer, respectively, to measures 6.4.7 and 6.4.8. It would be better for this objective to be combined with the above objective 6.4.

6.6 Improving the rights of children (important)Starting from its formulation, this objective is general, without defining the category of juveniles to which it is addressed. The manner of formulation leaves the impression that this objective includes all categories of children and the whole gamut of their rights. But analysing the actions foreseen under this objective, it can be seen that this perception is wrong, because the category included is quite limited.

3. EVALUATION OF THE ACTIONS FORESEEN TO ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

In all, 71 measures have been foreseen for the implementation of strategic objective no. 6, making this the objective with the largest number of measures planned, compared to the other strategic objectives. The majority of the measures provided for this strategic objective aim at capacity-building through of investments for the reconstruction or construction of new institutions as well as training of the administration of the state institutions. A small number of measures are of a regulatory nature or improvements of the quality of services. Concretely, 10 measures are of a regulatory nature, 42 measures are for capacity building, three of which are routine functions of the respective institutions, and 19 measures aim at qualitative improvements. In addition, eight of the measures are routine duties closely related to the functioning of the implementing institution. The monitoring and evaluative mechanisms are divided into quantitative ones (45) and qualitative ones (26).

6.1 Improving the execution of decisions (important)This specific objective is made up of two measures, both regulatory. The formulation of those measures is clear and refers to the drafting of two instructions. We think that both measures are essential, but not sufficient to assure an improvement of the execution of decisions. The realisation of those measures will contribute to standardising the procedures for the executive of judicial decisions imposing monetary obligations on state institutions, but those measures will not necessarily have an effect on improving the execution of judicial decision where state institutions are a party, and even less when the debtor parties are private natural or legal persons.


6.2. Improving the rights of those who are isolated, through investments, security of the penitentiary system, treatment with food and medicine, training, employment, rehabilitation, strengthening judicial prosecution for court cases for maltreatment and improving implementation of the recommendations of the people’s advocate (very important)The measures provided for implementation of specific objective 6.2 are appropriate and concrete, notwithstanding that some of them constitute functional or routine duties of the state institutions, such as food and medical treatment of convicted persons and so forth. The actions provided for implementation in this objective are related more to the construction of new institutions, their security and training of prison staff, actions that do not fulfil all the expectations of this objective. More special attention should have been paid to planning measures related to rehabilitation and social programmes, treatment of persons with medical conditions and conditions for putting them into a specialised institution, handling of juveniles with medical conditions and children under the age of criminal responsibility.

In addition, it is noticeable that several measures are repeated within the same specific objective, such as tendering the project and tendering the construction of institution no. 313 “Jordan Misja”, which has also been provided in measures 8 and 13 of specific objective 2. Compared to the action plan of the Albanian Government for the implementation of the 12 Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission for 2012, the time periods defined in this document are different from those in the action plan of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy, especially concerning the construction of new prisons such as the remand institutions of Fier, Shkodër and others. Since those two strategic documents contain the same measures, consistency and planning those measures in a realistic and uniform manner is of primary importance.

6.3 Increasing independence, responsibility, transparency and efficacy in the system of rehabilitation of those serving alternative sentences (important)The measures foreseen for implementation of specific objective 6.3 are appropriate and have a logical link to this objective. In most cases, they refer to measures provided in the Twinning Project supported by the European Union. They are principally of a capacity-building nature and in a very few cases, qualitative improvements. The measures foreseen for this objective should better address issues that have to do not only with opening new offices of the probation service, but also with adding personnel, for the purpose of increasing the effectiveness of its activity.

Among such issues, we can mention reducing the number of persons under supervision by one employee, addressing infrastructure questions better, preparing strategies and action plans to increase the budget and obtain funds from other donors, including measures for implementation of the law “On electronic supervision in the criminal field” and others.

6.4 Increasing the sustainability of the level of execution of judicial decisions in conformity with European standards, as well as improving the quality of the bailiff ’s service (very important)For realising specific objective 6.4, twelve concrete measures are foreseen, of which two have a regulatory nature, eight are for capacity building and two are for qualitative improvements. All the measures are related to the specific objective and aim at realising it. The measures with a capacity building nature, which consist both of improvements in physical infrastructure of the bailiffs’ offices

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

and of strengthening the professional capacities of state and private bailiffs, contribute to improving the quality of the enforcement service and should also serve to assure a sustainable increase in the execution of judicial decisions.

6.5 Extension of the ALBIS system and consolidating it in the private and state judicial bailiff ’s service (very important)Four measures, clearly and concretely formulated, have been provided in this objective, with a direct link to the specific objective. Three measures aim at capacity-building and only one measure is classified as qualitative improvement. As mentioned above, the measures foreseen under this objective are repeated with measures of specific objective 6.4.

6.6 Improving the rights of children (important)Of the ten measures foreseen for this objective, three are of a regulatory nature, two are for capacity-building and five measures aim at qualitative improvement. Several measures should be formulated more precisely and clearly, since they are expressed more as objectives and not as concrete actions, such as, for example, measure 6.3 “Improving the adoption service”; or they are general, abstract formulations such as measure 6.8 “Effective implementation of Hague Conference obligations”.

The measures planned in this objective address several problem fields related to respecting the rights of children, such as the rights of adopted children, the rights of children in remand detention, their right to food and so on. However, we judge that in this specific objective, room should have been found for additional measures related to the approval and implementation of a criminal justice strategy for juveniles, such as measures for the handling of children under the age of criminal responsibility who commit criminal offences; measures for the creation and functioning of implementing and monitoring mechanisms for the Hague Conventions for child support; measures for increasing alternative sentences for juveniles, and others.

4. QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF THE IM-PLEMENTATION OF EVERY ACTION/MEASURE

Specific objective 1: Improving the execution of decisions

6.1.1 Drafting an instruction of the Council of Ministers “On defining detailed rules for holding an auction”Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Finance Deadline for implementation: 2011Status: Not implemented

In the absence of information from the responsible institutions, notwithstanding requests318, and also in the absence of official data on the web pages of these institutions and the Council of Ministers about the approval of the instruction “On defining detailed rules for holding an auction”, the measure is considered unimplemented.

318. Letter of the Soros Foundation (OSFA) prot. no. 288/2012, dated 13.07.2012, “Request for information” to the Ministry of Justice; letter of the OSFA, prot. no. 290/2012, dated 13.07.2012, “Request for information” to the Ministry of Finance.


The budget has been determined in an appropriate manner as operating expenses, because drafting an instruction, in general, does not require additional expenses. The institutional responsibility and the time period have been defined accurately. The monitoring mechanism is quantitative and expressed in a concrete and measurable manner.

6.1.2 Drafting an instruction of the Council of Ministers “On defining the manner of execution of monetary obligations of the budgetary institutions in the treasury account”Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Finance Deadline for implementation: 2011Status: Implemented

The draft instruction was approved on 18.8.2011319. It can be found on the web page of the Council of Ministers. The approval of this draft instruction marks the realisation of the measure, referring to the definition of the manner of execution of monetary obligations of state institutions that have been declared to be debtors by judicial decisions; it will assist in resolving the problem areas met with in this connection.

The instruction obliges the units of general government to forecast every year budgetary funds for expenses to be paid by the institution for the execution of final judicial decisions. The instruction recognises the bailiff’s right to have the account sequestered if the unit does not perform voluntary execution.

Notwithstanding the above, starting with an analysis of the content of that instruction, its point 7, letter “d”, which provides for “.....the lifting of the measure of sequestration by the director of the treasury branch at the moment of submission of a payment schedule for the judicial decision and the partial satisfaction of the obligation, if the debtor unit does not have sufficient funds in the line of operating expenses for the current budgetary year....” is, in our legal opinion, openly in conflict with these norms:

a. constitutional law. Two decisions of the Constitutional Court, nos. 48 and 49 of the year 2012320, on a due legal process within a reasonable time period, define the payment by debtors in instalments in bailiff’s practices as not legal. Those decisions of the Constitutional Court are not specified in that instruction, but they speak clearly of the concept of payment in instalments as a concept that is contrary to the concept of a reasonable time period;

b. the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which also has considered, as a fundamental part of the right to a due legal process, the trial and execution of a judicial decision within a reasonable period of time. Based on the CoM instruction, the execution of a judicial decision where state institutions are the debtor party may be satisfied part by part over many years; and also

c. articles 517, 529 and 581 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because the competence to determine instalments is only that of the court, whereas the instruction gives that attribute to the debtor institution.

319. Decision of the Council of Ministers “On determining the manner of execution of the monetary obligations of budgetary institutions in treasurty accounts”. For more, see:http://www.km.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=15332320. Decision no. 48 dated 26.7.2012 and decision no. 49 dated 26.7.2012.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

From this point of view, we consider that because of the problem areas mentioned above, this instruction creates conflicts between the legal norms and comes up against the constitutional norms and those of civil procedure as well as the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which will make problematic the qualitative result that should be reached in fulfilling this measure.

The time period for realisation of the measure is sufficient and realistic. The institutional responsibility has been determined accurately. The budget has been defined in an appropriate manner, as operating expenses, because additional expenses are generally not needed for drafting an instruction. The monitoring mechanism is a quantitative one, expressed in a concrete and measurable way.

Specific objective 2: Improving the rights of those who are isolated through investments, security of the penitentiary system, treatment with food and medicine, employment, rehabilitation, strengthening judicial prosecutions for maltreatment and improving implementation of the recommendations of the people’s advocate

6.2.1 Construction of remand centre, Elbasan*Responsible institution: Delegation of the European Union (EUD), Ministry of Justice (MoJ), General Directorate of Prisons (GDP). Deadline for implementation: 2010 – 2013Status: Implemented (before the time period foreseen)

A remand centre was constructed in Elbasan with EU funds in the framework of IPA 2007, the national programme for Albania. The construction of this institution has finished, and it was inaugurated on 2 October 2012321. According to the documents accompanying the procurement announcement322, this institution will accommodate 120 pre-trial detainees, men, women and juveniles. The area of the institution is about 7,000 m2. The construction project has undertaken to construct all the equipment related to water, electric energy connection, telephone and so forth, with the aim of being ready to work immediately for the beneficiaries323.

The construction term was 16 months, followed by a 12 month period for correcting defects, up to the final issuance of the certificate of acceptance324. In addition to construction, a series of tender procedures for the supervision of the works by an Italian company was also supported by EU funds325.

Although considered a measure that has been implemented, the institution has not yet been populated with detainees. The Elbasan district includes a number of cities, and the institution will lower the overpopulation such as that caused by pre-trial detainees in the Peqin institution.

This remand institution has been constructed to contemporary parameters and was built with two

321. Press announcement of the Ministry of Justice http://www.justice.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=8016&gj=gj1322. Procurement announcement no. 129129. The call for applications and procurement for the construction of this institution was published on 28.9.2009 and closed on 2.12.2009.323. EU Delegation in Tirana,https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/europeaid/online-services/index.cfm?do=publi.welcome&nbPubliList=15&orderby=upd&orderbyad=Desc&searchtype=RS&aofr=129129324. The winner of the tender was announced on 2.12.2009, and contract no. 2009/228-751 was entered into. The implementing company is Alba Construction sh.p.k.325. Opened as a tender on 18.7.2009, reference no. Europeaid/128837/C/SER/AL, and closed on 21.09.2009 in the framework of IPA 2007. The winner for supervision of this construction is Societa Italiana di Monitoraggio S.p.a – Gico branch, contract no. 2009/235-562, with a total fund of 176,900 euro. For more information, see https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/europeaid/online-services/index


heating and cooling systems at the same time, in order to avoid the problems encountered in other penitentiary institutions.

Concerning the time period for realising this measure, generally it is realistic. However, it should be noted that this time period is not the same at that foreseen in the Government’s action plan326 for addressing the 12 Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission. For the same measure, that document provides as the time period of completion March 2012 and not 2013, as in the currently monitored action plan. Institutional responsibility and financial resources have been accurately determined. The monitoring and evaluative mechanism is expressed in a general manner, as a qualitative improvement more similar to an objective. In this case, the centre itself and the number of new remand places that its functioning will bring would have served as a realistic and measurable indicator.

6.2.2 Construction of remand centre and prison in Berat*Responsible institution: EU Delegation, Ministry of Justice and General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: 2010 – 2013Status: Partially implemented

The construction of the remand centre and prison in Berat has not yet finished. It is being realised with funds of the European Union, according to the IPA 2008 national programme for Albania. The call for tender327 was published on 3.3.2010 and closed on 5.5.2010. This construction was planned to accommodate about 100 pre-trial detainees, men, women and juveniles. The area of the building is about 7000 m2. The exterior engineering remand network will be with funds of the state budget (of the GDP)328. The institution will bring an improvement of conditions for pre-trial detainees in the Berat district, because the current institution in function is an old building where the infrastructure and physical conditions are very bad, worn out and damp329.

The time period of realisation of this measure is realistic. However, as also mentioned for the measure above, this time period is not the same as that foreseen in the action plan for addressing the 12 Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission. For the same measure, that document provides December 2012 as the time period of completion and not 2013, as in the current measure.

Another noticeable element is that the measure foresees the year 2010 as the initial time period, that is, one and a half years before the approval of the Strategy. As a rule, a strategy should foresee measures that extend in time after its approval. It is therefore suggested that the action plan contain planning that is as realistic and accurate as possible, identifying concrete measures with time periods that are well-defined.

Institutional responsibility and financial resources have been accurately determined. The monitoring and evaluative mechanism is expressed in a general manner, as a qualitative improvement more similar to an objective. In the instant case, the remand centre and the number of new remand places

326. Ministry of Integration, “Action Plan addressing the recommendations of the European Commission Opinion for Albania”, approved by the Council of Ministers on 21.3.2012. Accessed at http://www.mie.gov.al/, p. 262.327. Reference is made to Europeaid/129782/L/WKS/AL. For more, see https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/europeaid/online-services/index328. The tender was published by the GDP with a deadline of 14.9.2011, and a total sum of 28,920,627 lek. For more, see www.app.gov.al329. Albanian Helsinki Committee, Monitoring report “On the situation of respect for human rights in Albania for 2011”, April 2012, page 31.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

that its functioning will bring would have served as a realistic and measurable indicator.

6.2.3 Construction of remand centre and prison in Fier*Responsible institution: EU Delegation, Ministry of Justice and General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: 2011 – 2013Status: Partially implemented

The construction of a remand centre and prison in Fier is still in process. It is being realised with EU funds, according to the IPA 2007 and IPA 2010 programmes330. The tender to build the remand centre and the prison of Fier was published on 6.2.2010 and closed on 31.8.2010, with the winning company Trema engineering 2 sh.p.k331. The institution was constructed as a single complex in which about 160 pre-trial detainees will be accommodated, including men, women and juveniles, as well as 600 convicted persons.

Procedures are still in process of tendering for the external engineering network of the remand centre/prison, announced by the GDP332. Since the new institution in Fier will accommodate both pre-trial detainees as well as convicted persons, it is expected that construction of the centre will improve conditions for both of these categories.

The time period, institutional responsibility and financial resources have been determined in an appropriate manner. So far as concerns the evaluation of the monitoring mechanism, the same reasoning is valid as for the measures above. In the concrete case, the remand centre and prison in Fier, as well as the number of new places for remand brought by the functioning of this institution, would serve as real and measurable indicators.

6.2.4 Construction of remand centre and prison in Shkodër*Responsible institution: EU Delegation, Ministry of Justice, GDPDeadline for implementation: 2012 – 2013Status: Not implemented

Construction of this centre is still in the tendering process. It has been foreseen that the construction of the remand institution and the prison of Shkodër will be covered by financing from the European Union’s IPA 2011 programme. The process of tendering for the institution was opened on 27.4.2012 and closed on 22.10.2012333.

The measure foresees the construction of a single complex, which will accommodate 120 pre-trial detainees, men, woman and juveniles, as well as 600 convicted persons. The total surface area is planned to be about 30,000 m2334. After the contract is signed, according to the tender notification335,

330. Referring to the call for tender Europeaid/129579/C/wKS/AL.331. For construction of the remand centre, the time period is 16 months, followed by 12 months of supervision from the entering of the contract; for construction of the prison, it is 24 months followed by 12 months of supervision. The contract for the first lot with the winning company is no. 2012/255-963 with a total contract value of 4,031,985.73 euro. For the second lot, the contract is no. 2011/264-516 for 8,463,641.47 euro. For more, see https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/europeaid/online-services/index332. The tender was initially announced with the deadline 7.3.2012 and for a total amount of 55,595,993 lek, but it was later annulled. For more, see www.app.gov.al333. htps://webgate.ec.europa.eu/europeaid/online-services/index.cfm?do=publi.welcome&nbPubliList=15&orderby=upd&orderbyad=Desc&searchtype=RS&aofr334. The information is referenced in the publication of the tender, 132940/C/WKS/AL335. Tender notice dated 17.7.2012.


the winning subject will have a time period of 24 months, followed by a 12 month time period of supervision for defects. This institution will significantly ease the load on the institution at Shën Kolli, Lezha, especially because of the conditions that it will offer for juveniles in remand detention.

The time period for realising this measure is not realistic, because the tendering procedures, the construction and then the following of defects extend for more than two years. Considering the procedures so far, we think that the construction of this institution will take much more time than that foreseen.

The institutional responsibility and financial resources, on the other hand, have been defined appropriately. Concerning the evaluation of the monitoring mechanism, the same reason is valid as for the above measures 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. In the concrete case, the remand centre and prison in Shkodër would serve as a realistic and measurable indicator, as well as the number of new places for prisoners and pre-trial detainees that the functioning of this institution will bring.

6.2.5 Disbursement of VAT funds and local cost for construction of new prisons (Fier, Elbasan, Berat) in the framework of the agreement of the Albanian Government and the European Union*Responsible institution: EU Delegation, Ministry of Justice, GDPDeadline for implementation: January – December 2011; January – December 2012; January – December 2013Status: Implemented

Based on the framework agreement between the Albanian Government and the EU Commission on the rules of cooperation in the framework of financial support of the government and the implementation of assistance from the IPA programme336, the Albanian state has disbursed VAT funds and local costs for the construction of the new institutions that were built with EU funds. According to article 26/2 of the agreement, all goods and services that are part of the financing in the framework of the IPA programmes should be exempted from all financial, customs and tax obligations, including VAT337. The VAT disbursement has been made for the three new institutions of Fier, Elbasan and Berat.

The time periods of realisation and the financial resources for this measure have been defined clearly and separated by year. In addition, the institutional responsibility and the monitoring mechanisms have been expressed in a concrete and measurable way.

6.2.6 Projecting for future investmentsResponsible institution: General Directorate of Prisons (GDP)Deadline for implementation: March – December 2012 Status: Implemented

Every year the GDP makes plans and projections for future investments of the coming year, including reconstruction of buildings and premises as well as other investments for various institutions that contribute to improving the treatment of pre-trial detainees and convicted persons.

336. The agreement was signed on 18.10.2007 and ratified by the Assembly of Albania by law no. 9840 dated 10.12.2007, which was published in Official Journal no. 177 dated 31.12.2007. For more, see http://www.qpz.gov.al/botime/fletore_zyrtare/2007/PDF-2007/177-2007.pdf337. For more, see http://www.minfin.gov.al/minfin/pub/framework_agreement_1493_1.pdf

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

For the year 2011, the GDP tendered for reconstruction of the premises of the institution of Tropoja, which has already completed338. In addition, improvement of the infrastructure of the IECD in Lezha was projected339, which is continuing to be implemented. Another initiative taken during 2011 is projects to eliminate dampness in the IECD in Vaqarr, no. 302 and the GDP itself340, which have been tendered and the respective investments realised. For 2012, investments have been projected for the IECD “Ali Demi”, no. 325 and no.302, as to which the investment fund has not yet been opened.

In projecting future investments, the GDP might also have taken into account for investment the report of the Committee for Prevention of Torture (CPT) for Albania341. Based on recommendation 51 of the report, it is recommended that measures be taken for investments in existing institutions, putting windows in every cell for the purpose of letting in as much natural light as possible. However, implementing the recommendations of the CPT has not been foreseen as a constituent part of this objective. In addition, the CPT has given recommendations for measures to put shelters in the remand facility of Kukës. Although the Ministry of Justice responded that those infrastructure improvements will be realised soon342, they have not been planned in the projections for investments 2011 – 2012.

The time periods of realisation and the financial recourses for this measure have been defined clearly and are separated by year. The responsible institution has been accurately defined. The monitoring and evaluative mechanism has been expressed in general terms, as a qualitative improvement that is more similar to an objective. In the instant case, the types of concrete investments to be realised would better serve as real and measurable indicators. In the current formulation, this indicator is difficult to evaluate and measure.

6.2.7 Tender of project for central heating in the Peqin IECDResponsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: March – May 2011Status: Not implemented

6.2.7/1 Tender of investment for central heating in the Peqin IECDResponsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: May – December 2011Status: Not implemented

From information received from the GDP, the project and investment for central heading in the IECD in Peqin have not been tendered yet343. In addition, no information shows up when the Internet page of the Public Procurement Agency for 2011-2012 is checked344. An investment for central heating would improve the conditions of the persons in that institution. Furthermore, this is a relatively new institution, having been built in 1993, but its infrastructure leaves much to be desired.

338. The tender for the reconstruction was opened on 7.7.2011 and won by Armandi sh.p.k on 25.7.2011, in the amount of 4,256,731 lek. For more, see www.app.gov.al339. It was opened as a tender on 7.6.2011, with the winner Liqeri VII for the amount of 12,550,817 lek. For more, see www.app.gov.al340. The GDP tendered for the elimination of dampness in the GDP building by call for tender Re. 49354-05-09-2011. The company Sinder AB was the winner, with a contract amount of 1,285,977 lek. It was realised in fact. For more information, see Public Procurement Agency, www.app.gov.al341. The response of the Albanian state, based on the report of the CPT (Commission for the Prevention of Torture of the Council of Europe), after their visit to Albania on 10 – 21 May 2010, Strasbourg, 20 March 2012. For more, see http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/alb/2012-11-inf-eng.pdf342. Blerina Gjerazi, General Directorate of Prisons, head of the office of foreign relations and the press office, interview, 21.9.2012.343. Id.344. www.app.gov.al


The responsible institution, time period of realisation and financial resources have been defined in an appropriate way; the last two elements have at the same time been separated into concrete phases. The same monitoring mechanism has been designated as for the prior measure. In addition to being formulated as an objective, the second indicator defined has no relation to the respective measures.

6.2.8 Tendering and preparation of the project for new construction of prison 313, TiranaResponsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: March – May 2011Status: Partially implemented

6.2.8/1 Tendering of investment (phase I) for new construction of prison 313, TiranaResponsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: March – May 2011Status: Not implemented

During 2011, by order of the GDP, the duty was assigned for a defined staff to prepare the project345, but because of the absence of funds, the tender for investment has not yet been opened. The GDP has, however, opened the tender for consultancy346 services for the new building 313 for remand, which is still active. The actions for tendering for the investment to build a new prison 313 in Tirana are repeated in measure 6.2.13.

Lateness in realising the tendering and the construction of the new institution no. 313 in Tirana bring consequences to the rights of convicted persons, since the existing institution is extremely worn out, lacking toilets and drinking water in the cells of all three sections, has damp premises overpopulated with prisoners, inappropriate cells, is not sufficiently illuminated and has other problems347.

The responsible institution, the time period for realisation and the financial resources have been defined appropriately. The last two elements have also been divided by concrete phases. The monitoring mechanism is the same as that for the prior measure. In addition to being formulated as an objective, the second indicator has no relation to the respective measures. In the instant case, the types of concrete investments that are to be realised, if formulated as quantitative indicators, would serve as real and measureable indicators. In the current formulation, as has already been noted for similar measures, the indicator cannot be measured.

6.2.9 Tendering and realisation of works for sewage treatment canals in the Korça IECDResponsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: March – December 2011 Status: Not implemented

A few actions have been done for this measure, such as defining the duty for the respective projecting and budgeting and requesting the Ministry of Justice for funds, which still have not been allocated. The measure is expected to be realised during 2013.

345. Id. note 26.346. Tender with ref. no. 52060-07-13-2011, www.app.gov.al347. European Institute of Tirana (EIT), “Report of monitoring visit to the IECD “Jordan Misja” (313), Tirana, http://iet-eit.org/al/pdf/Raport%20313.pdf

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

From information received from the GDP348, it turns out that the tender has been opened but was later suspended because of a change of procedure, by instruction of the Minister of Finance, in connection with reconstructions from funds of the state budget. The investment in the Korça IECD will bring a visible and necessary improvement in this new institution, which started to function in 2008349.

The responsible institution, the time period and the financial resources have been identified in an appropriate and concrete manner. The weak and imprecise formulation of the monitoring and evaluative mechanisms is again a problem; see measures 6.2.6 to 6.2.14.

6.2.10 Tendering funds and realisation of contracts for special electric lines for IECDs – electric line 2 in Fushë-Kruja, DurrësResponsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: March – December 2012 Status: Not implemented

The situation with the implementation of this measure is the same as the above one. It is expected to be realised during 2013350. The duty of preparing the project, which has been procured by order of the General Director of Prisons prot. no. 250 dated 10.6.2010, was realised in September 2010351. The respective investments will bring improvements in both institutions, especially in winter.

Based on the monitoring done during 2011, it has been observed by various organisations that the institution of Fushë-Kruja suffers from an absence of energy for long hours because of energy interruption from the line of supply of the zone. This is also accompanied by a failure to furnish water. Some other institutions have solved the problem with generators, but the institution of Fushë-Kruja does not have any.

The evaluation about the time periods, institutional responsibility, financial resources and indicators is the same as for measure 6.2.9.

6.2.10/1 Reconstruction of the electrical network in Lushnja*Responsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: March - December 2013 Status: Outside the monitoring time period

6.2.11 Tendering of funds and realisation of contracts for wells, water reservoirs and water lines for the IECD in KrujaResponsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: March - December 2012Status: Not implemented

For this measure too, the with that above, the duty for projecting and budgeting has been prepared

348. Blerina Gjerazi, General Directorate of Prisons, head of the office of foreign relations and press office, interview, 21.9.2012.349. http://www.GDPsh.gov.al/?fq=brenda&gj=gj1&kid=79350. Id. 351. www.app.gov.al


as well as the respective requests for funds to the MoJ, but the funds have not yet been provided. The measure is expected to be realised during 2013352. The extremely worn out infrastructure of this institution has led to continuous problems for some time with water, heating, dampness and other problems353. The earliest possible realisation of this investment is necessary to resolve some these many large and urgent problems.

Concerning an evaluation of the provisions made for the responsible institutions, the time periods, financial resources and monitoring mechanisms, all the arguments above for measure 6.2.9 apply.

6.2.11/1 Tendering of funds and realisation of contracts for reconstruction of the water line in Burrel*Responsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: March – December 2013 Status: Outside the monitoring time period

6.2.12 Tendering of funds and realisation of contracts for the reconstruction of buildings 1, 2, 3 in Rrogozhina; phase 1Responsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: March - December 2012Status: Implemented

The tender has been realised and the implementation of the first phrase of reconstruction has ended. This measure was accomplished by the GDP354. The reconstruction of the IECD in Rrogozhina is an investment that is more than essential, considering the extremely bad conditions of the current institution.

So far as concerns the evaluation of the provisions made about responsible institutions, time periods, financial resources and monitoring mechanisms, all the arguments cited for measure 6.2.9 are applicable.

6.2.12/1 Tendering of funds and realisation of contracts for reconstruction of the women’s building, Rrogozhina; phase 2*Responsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: March - December 2013 Status: Outside the monitoring time period

6.2.13 Tendering of funds and realisation of contracts for the construction of the new prison “Jordan Misja”Responsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: March – December 2012Status: Not implemented

352. Blerina Gjerazi, General Directorate of Prisons, head of the office of foreign relations and the press office, interview, 21.9.2012.353. See AHC, Monitoring report “On the situation of respect for human rights in Albania for 2011”, April 2012, p. 31.354. Tender with reference no. 46117-04-04-2011; for more, see www.app.gov.al

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

6.2.13/1 Tendering of funds and realisation of contracts for the construction of the new prison on “Ali Demi” streetResponsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: March – December 2012 or March – December 2013355

Status: Not implemented

The duty for protecting for construction of the prison “Jordan Misja” has been prepared, but because of the absence of funds, the tender has not been opened. As with measure 8, the tendering for construction of the project is still in process356. The implementation of the measure for construction of the new “Ali Demi” prison is in the same situation, although the duty of making the project was done in April 2011 by the staff of the GDP, pursuant to order no.113 of the General Director dated 29.3.2011357.

The construction of new institutions as soon as possible at “Jordan Misja” and “Ali Demi” was recommended by the CPT in its last report on Albania358. Although the GDP said in its official response to the CPT that the projects for construction of those institutions and the tender procedures had been ready since 2011 and the funds would be allocated in 2012, this has not yet occurred359.

The time period for realisation of this measure cannot easily be identified, because of the inclusion in a single measure of three separate unconnected actions, whilst only two time periods have been defined and it is difficult to understand which measure they belong to. The same is true for the financial resources. The responsible institution has been designated appropriately. The indicators are incomplete and not accurate.

6.2.13/2 Tendering funds and realising contracts for reconstruction of the GDP offices*Responsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: March – December 2013Status: Outside the time period of monitoring

6.2.14 Tendering of funds and realisation of contracts for heating systems in IECD*Responsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: March – December 2013Status: Outside the time period of monitoring

6.2.15 Tendering and realisation of the contract for blocking cellular waves*Responsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: March – December 2011; March – December 2013Status: Not implemented

355. The period of implementation in the action plan of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy is not very clear. See CMD no. 519, 18.08.2011, published in Official Journal no. 116/2011, OPC, Tirana.356. www.app.gov.al357. The tender for consultancy – services for construction of a new prison in “Ali Demi” continues to stay open. The maximum amount is 14,166,666 lek. For more, see www.app.gov.al358. CPT (Committee for the Prevention of Torture), Report on Albania, based on the visit to Albania of 10 – 21 May 2010, Strasbourg 20 March 2012. For more, see http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/alb/2012-11-inf-eng.pdf359. Id.


Based on information received from the GDP360, the tender was held by the Ministry of Justice, but it was not possible to realise the contract because the fund become unavailable. From the information received, it turns out that initially, the respective equipment was brought by an Israeli company that won the tender, but the contract was later suspended because of the absence of funds. The implementation of this measure is very important, because it will help raise security for persons who have been convicted or are detained in remand. The measure partially overlaps with the actions of measure 6.2.16, cited below.

The time period of realisation and the financial resources have been defined in a clear and concrete manner for each of the sub-phases of the measure (tendering and realisation of the contract). It is difficult to determine whether the amount designated or the time periods set for realisation of the measure are appropriate. However, it is important to emphasise that they have been concretely defined and not left evasive. The institutions and indicators have also been defined appropriately.

6.2.16 Tendering of funds and realisation of contracts for focused antennas; lightning rods; a camera system and perimeter protection; blocking cellular waves Responsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: March – December 2012Status: Partially implemented

According to information from the GDP361, the supplying of cameras and perimeter protection is in process for the entire penitentiary system. Currently, the process has concluded in eight remand institutions and IECDs: Kavaja, Vlora, Durrës, Fushë-Kruja, 313, 302, 325 and Vaqarr. It is on-going in the institutions of Saranda, Tropoja, Kukës and Tepelena.

Lightning rods and focussed antennas were acquired before the end of the time period set for this measure. The measure has not been implemented so far as concerns equipment to block cellular waves.

The GDP has made several tenders and entered into contracts in connection with the mMaintenance of technical equipment for the monitoring system in criminal institutions362 and maintenance of the analogue and digital trunk system in IECDs363.

The action plan should avoid repeating the same measures. It should also address in a precise and updated manner the plans of the GDP for projects and investments.

The time period of realisation is realistic and provided to be within one calendar year. The institutional responsibility and financial resources have been concretely defined. The monitoring mechanisms are lacking for this measure. The indicators of the measure should have been a listing of the investments planned to be made in the respective institutions.

360. Blerina Gjerazi, General Directorate of Prisons, head of the foreign relations office and the press office, interview, 21.09.2012.361. Id.362. Tender ref. no. 59034 – 5 – 07 – 2012, winning company Coratel; for more, see www.app.gov.al363. Tender ref. no. 45161 – 93-24-2011, winning company Coratel; for more, see www.app.gov.al

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

6.2.17 Securing food treatment for prisoners*Responsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: March – April 2011, March – April 2012, March – April 2013Status: Implemented

Supplying food for convicted persons and pre-trial detainees is a routine duty of the GDP, and therefore, it should not have been included in this action plan. The state has the obligation to furnish food and health care to persons who are kept in isolation and to provide them with humane treatment and to respect for their rights.

The GDP has an annual budget for food for the persons who are in the penitentiary system. Since 2007, based on the joint order of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health no. 205/3 dated 27.7.2006, according to the categories of persons who are in penitentiary institutions (prisons and remand), the food norms are as follows:

2.615 k/cal for unemployed persons and juveniles 3.033 k/cal for employed persons3.345 k/cal for ill persons

Regardless of the daily food norm established for implementation by the penitentiary institutions for convicted persons and pre-trial detainees, a considerable number still receive food from their families364. From observations performed by various organisations, it has turned out that in some institutions, especially those that are new investments, the conditions of the kitchens and the cooking are very good365 and there is a large amount of food, notwithstanding that it has turned out from the interviews that persons staying in those institutions raise claims against the institution’s food366.

The time period of realisation has been defined in a continuous manner for the three years covered by the action plan. The responsible institution and financial resources have been appropriately and concretely defined. The monitoring mechanism has been formulated unclearly and does not have an obvious connection to the measure itself. The indicators that should have been planned are the reduction of the number of convicted persons who receive food from their families or the evaluations of the convicted persons themselves about the quality and amount of food obtained from the institutions.

6.2.18 Securing medication for prisoners*Responsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: March – April 2011, March – April 2012, March – April 2013Status: Implemented

Securing medical drugs for convicted persons and pre-trial detainees is a routine duty of the GDP and not an action that aims to fulfil a visionary and strategic objective for reform in justice. Such measures should not be part of an action plan like this.

364. Albania, Progress report 2012, European Commission, p. 17, 10.10.2012, Brussels. For more, see http://www.mie.gov.al/ 365. EIT, “Report of monitoring visit to the Tropoja IECD”, 2012 , http://iet-eit.org/al/pdf/Raporti%20Tropoje%202012.pdf366. EIT, “Report of monitoring visit to the Lezha IECD”, http://iet-eit.org/al/pdf/Raporti%20Lezhes%202012.pdf


In order to implement this measure, the GDP has a designated budget, both for medical supplies and for medicine. From information received from the GDP367, the budget expended for 2011 was 27,900,000 lek, whereas during the first six months of 2012, it was 11,000,000 lek, which has constantly been reduced in comparison with the provision and the expenses incurred during the prior year. This has happened because of their inclusion in the social insurance scheme and because of the joint order.

An innovation in this field, which has lowered budgetary expenditures for medical expenses, is the approval of the May 2012 joint order of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health “On the inclusion of convicted persons in the social insurance scheme”. Initially, the implementation of this order was applied to three persons who were in penitentiary institutions in Albania and who, because of their extremely expensive medical treatments, were using up a considerable part of the respective budget of the GDP for medications368. During 2011, 1,000 persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty received treatment for such diseases as tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis and others369.

Notwithstanding the above, considering the observations made by monitoring organisations, problems and deficiencies are still noticed, such as the absence of an ambulance in the remand centres of Vlora and Korça370, the absence of drugs for medical therapy for mentally ill persons in the “Ali Demi” institution, the absence of medicine and dental service equipment in the Lezha institution371, poor medical service in the Tepelena institution372 and so forth.

The time period of realisation has been determined as continuous for the three years covered by the action plan. The financial resources have been defined concretely for each year. The institutional responsibility has not been defined as it should, because the Ministry of Health, and specifically the Social Insurance Institute, should also have been included. The monitoring mechanism has been designated appropriately, as a qualitative indicator.

6.2.19 Approval of the draft decision of the Council of Ministers for the inclusion of convicted persons and pre-trial detainees in the category of persons who are not active economicallyResponsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Implemented

The draft decision provided in this measure was approved by CoM decision no. 337, dated 6.4.2011. It provides that the regional directorates of health care insurance of the respective regions shall enter into contracts with the doctors of the IECDs for the issuance of fully reimbursable prescriptions.

In addition, it has also brought the approval of the joint order of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health “On the inclusion of pre-trial detainees and convicted persons in the health insurance

367. Blerina Gjerazi, General Directorate of Prisons, head of the foreign relations office and the press office, interview, 21.9.2012.368. The level of health problems in the prison system, according to the clinics, is that 294 persons have heart problems, 100 neurological ones, 47 nephrological problems, 92 with rheumatoid arthritis, 31 with eye problems, three persons with multiple sclerosis, 108 persons with mandatory medication, 331 persons with mental health problems, 177 with gastric or hepatology problems, 145 with lung problems, three persons with AIDS, six with tuberculosis, one with syphilis, 14 with various handicaps and 174 drug users.369. Report of the GDP, 2011, published in April 2012, p. 17.370. AHC, “Monitoring report for the institutions of Vlora and Korça”, 3.7.2012, sent with letter dated 25.7.2012 to the Vlora director and 20 July 2012 to the Korça director.371. EIT, “Report of monitoring visit to the Lezha IECD”, http://iet-eit.org/al/pdf/Raporti%20Lezhes%202012.pdf372. EIT, “Report of monitoring visit to the Tepelena IECD”, http://iet-eit.org/al/pdf/Raporti%20Tepelene%202012.pdf

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

scheme”373, on the basis of which the Social Insurance Institute informs the GDP that: The doctors of the neurological service at the University of Tirana Hospital Centre (UTHC) who have contracts with the national Sii will visit persons diagnosed with “multiple sclerosis” to issue a reimbursable prescription for beta interferon which will be taken in the pharmacies of the UTHC “Mother Teresa”.

This means that for persons with multiple sclerosis374 for whom these extremely expensive drugs are purchased, those expenses will now be covered by the health insurance scheme. In addition, a bilateral contract has been drawn up to implement it, confirming the bases of activity of the documentary infrastructure and the implementation of the health insurance scheme in the entire prison system375.

The time period for realisation of this measure as defined in the action plan is realistic. The institutional responsibility has not been set at all. The Council of Ministers should have been designated as the responsible institution. The financial resources have been designated as operating expenses, appropriate for this measure. The monitoring mechanisms are only formal. The entry into force of the CoM decision is a concrete indicator for this measure.

6.2.20 Preparation of a work plan for staff training according to approved curricula*Responsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: 2011, 2012, 2013 (continuing)Status: Implemented

Every year, the GDP prepares a work plan for staff training according to approved curricula. By order of the General Director of Prisons, the action plan for trainings has been approved for 2012. The training centre at the GDP has taken into consideration, during preparation of the action plan, the duties and recommendations in the Progress Report of the European Commission and the legal and subordinate legal acts for the training of persons who are in pre-trial detention or who have been convicted. For 2011 it has been foreseen to hold 251 days of training for 1,054 employees and for 2012, 219 days of training with 1,317 employees of all levels.

The preparation of the work plan makes training of the staff more effective, which is also in the service of the treatment of persons who are in pre-trial detention or who have been convicted as well as coordination with not-for-profit organisations that give vital contributions in the training of prison staff.Since this is a functional duty of the GDP, the time period is realistic and repeated for every year. The institutional responsibilities are well defined. The financial resources have been designated as operating expenses, which is appropriate for this measure. The monitoring mechanisms have not been formulated clearly. The work plan for staff training and the concrete number of persons trained should have been defined as indicators for this measure.

6.2.21 Drawing up monthly rehabilitation programmes for convicted persons and pre-trial detainees and training of the educational staff about contemporary programmes of integration of persons whose liberty is restricted*

373. Joint order of the MoJ and the MoH, “On the inclusion of pre-trial detainees and convicted persons in the health insurance scheme”, 24.05.2012.374. One of the persons in the prison system who has multiple sclerosis is A. Grori.375. Blerina Gjerazi, General Directorate of Prisons, press sector, interview dated 21.09.2012.


Responsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: 2011 - 2013 (continuing)Status: Implemented

It is also a part of drawing up the work programme for training the educational staff to draft programmes of rehabilitation for convicted persons and pre-trial detainees. This is a functional duty of the staff of the penitentiary institutions. Part of the monthly rehabilitation programmes for convicted persons and pre-trial detainees are special programmes such as the management of anger and aggression376, suicide prevention377, various social activities for all persons378, especially those who suffer from mental health problems and those who have been drug users379, as well as individual programmes for convicted persons and pre-trial detainees.

During the month, consultative meetings are planned and held every day by the social work staff, on various themes such as how to face group pressure, how to exploit abilities to adapt to a new social life, to manage stress, do parenting at a distance and so forth380. For 2012, trainings with multi-disciplinary groups are planned on the prevention of discrimination and mistreatment. Trainings have also been planned with employees in the institutions where there are sections for juveniles, such as Vlora, Korça, Lezha and Tirana. Notwithstanding the drafting of monthly rehabilitation programmes for convicted persons and pre-trial detainees and the training of the educational staff, the difficulty is in fully implementing them. From the monitoring of various organisations, it turns out that in the Tepelena IECD, bad conditions and the absence of adequate premises or a material base make implementation of the planned monthly programmes difficult381.

The Burrel IECD does not have a special fund for services and activities of a social and educational nature. In the Korça IECD, social and educational programmes and professional courses are lacking. Often, the absence of educational staff according to the personnel structure in most of the penitentiary institutions also affects the failure to implement the respective programmes. In several other institutions (principally those for juveniles), such as the juvenile institution in Kavaja, in addition to the monthly programmes, daily rehabilitative programmes are also implemented382.

Since this is a functional duty of the GDP, the time period is realistic and repeated for every year. The institutional responsibilities are well defined. The financial resources have been designated as operating expenses, which is appropriate for this measure. The monitoring mechanisms have been formulated very precisely, and this is a model that should also be followed for other measures.

6.2.22 General training of the civilian staff and the uniformed staff on European standards of treatment of persons with restricted liberty*Responsible institution: General Directorate of Prisons

376. For 2011, from GDP data, every month on the average 236 young people aged 18 – 21 and 107 juveniles have been included as well as on the average, 121 convicted women and pre-trial detainees who are female.377. During 2011, 96 persons in all were trained. For more, see “The system of Albanian prisons”, second edition, published by the General Directorate of Prisons, April 2012, p. 25.378. During 2011, on the monthly average, persons with restricted liberty have been included in 100 hours of activity and 138 hours of social activities.379. For users of narcotics, cooperation agreements have been reached with the association Aksion Plus which provides for treating them with methadone. 380. http://www.GDPsh.gov.al/?fq=brenda&gj=gj1&kid=40381. See AHC, “Monitoring report on the situation of respect for human rights in Albania for 2011”, April 2012, p. 37.382. See European Institute of Tirana (EIT), “Monitoring report of the institution for juveniles, Kavaja”, 20 June 2012; for more, see http://www.iet-eit.org/al/pdf/Kavaja%20monitorim%202012.pdf

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

Deadline for implementation: 2011 –2013 (continuing)Status: Implemented

Training of the civilian staff and the uniformed staff goes on constantly, both in the training centre as well as by various international and local organisations383. During 2011, there were 251 days of training by the training centre and 1,024 employees were included in the prison and remand systems for all categories. In all 834 employees were certified for completion of the basic and medium programme, 373 of them in the basic role.

For 2011, 90 employees and security specialists were trained, based on the law “On the prison police”. Specific trainings were organised about preventing infectious diseases, training users and applying alternative sentences384. In addition, training sessions were planned and are in process for new staff members to be recruited for the institutions that will open in 2012 in Elbasan, Fier and Berat.

For 2012, it has been planned for there to be 219 days of training, with 1,317 employees of all levels trained; as of September 2012, about 1,143 employees had been trained. The main themes planned to be part of these training with staff of all levels are related to public procurements, procedures for requests and complaints, mental health, prevention of discrimination and protection of vulnerable groups, management and other subjects385.

Since it is a functional duty of the GDP, the time period is realistic and repeated for every year. The institutional responsibilities are well defined. The financial resources have been designated as operating expenses, which is appropriate for this measure. The monitoring mechanism has been designated appropriately, although a definition of the concrete number of persons trained would have been a more complete and accurate formulation.

6.2.23 Conducting planned inspections and taking appropriate measures in the penitentiary system*Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: 2011 - 2013Status: Not implemented

Planned inspections are a functional duty of the General Directorate of Justice Issues in the MoJ. The measure has been evaluated as not implemented because we have no information from the Ministry of Justice or other public data from official sources about its implementation.

Notwithstanding this, the CPT (Committee for Prevention of Torture) also performs planned monitoring visits386. In addition, continuous inspections are performed by the People’s Advocate and local organisations, which make concrete recommendations for improvement of the work and respect for human rights in those institutions.

Since it is a functional duty of the GDP, the time period is realistic and repeated for every year. The institutional responsibilities are well defined. The financial resources have been designated as

383. Several of the organisations that have an on-going cooperation with the GDP for staff training are the AHC, ARCT and EIT.384. GDP, based on information about holding trainings for 2011 by the training centre, GDP, B. Gjerazi, e-mail of 21.9.2012.385. GDP, training plan for 2012 of the training centre, GDP, information from B. Gjerazi, e-mail of 21.9.2012.386. The most recent visits of the CPT were in May 2010 and February 2011.


operating expenses, which is appropriate for this measure. The monitoring mechanism has been designated appropriately, although the number of concrete annual inspections and inspection reports should also have been designated.

6.2.24 Finalising the draf ting of and sending for approval the law “On the internal control service in prisons” Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011 Status: Partially implemented

A preliminary draft of this law has been prepared. After the institutions involved in the consultation complete their suggestions, the final draft law is expected to be sent to the Council of Ministers for approval387. However, we do not have information as to what phase the draft law is currently in. Up to November 2012, it had not yet been approved. The OSCE Presence in Tirana is assisting this directorate in amending and improving the internal rules, staff training and making the electronic supervision concrete in practice, as well as providing computer equipment for a limited number of convicted persons388.

The time period seems realistic, and the institutional responsibility, financial resources and indicators have been defined correctly.

6.2.25 Ef fective implementation of the rules for following cases of maltreatment of persons in isolation administratively and judicially*Responsible institution: Internal Control Service of the prisons, Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: 2011 – 2013 (continuing)Status: Partially implemented

This measure has been expressed in a general manner, and this makes it hard to evaluate it quantitatively or qualitatively. The cases of following these cases administratively or judicially are sporadic and in no way according to a specific system of reference. There are no precise or consolidated statistics concerning cases of maltreatment of prisoners and pre-trial detainees, either administratively or judicially.

Referring to official sources in the Ministry of Integration, according to data for 2011 and the period January – March 2012, there have been no cases of violence against prisoners in the penitentiary system389. Referring to data from the General Prosecutor’s Office about criminal proceedings for 2011, there has been only one denunciation under article 86 of the Criminal Code, which provides for the criminal offence of torture, whereas one case with two defendants, also for this provision, was carried over to trial from the prior period390. However, most of the denunciations related to maltreatment were classified by the prosecutor’s office under article 250, “arbitrary actions”.

387. See Ministry of Integration, “Report on the implementation of the action plan addressing the recommendations of the EC Opinion for Albania”, May 2012, http://mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2017388. http://www.osce.org/sq/albania/92320, announcement dated 20 July 2012.389. See Ministry of Integration, “Report on the implementation of the action plan addressing the recommendations of the EC Opinion for Albania”, June – July 2012, http://mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2042390. Referring to “Annual statistics of criminal offences for 2011” published by the General Prosecutor’s Office, www.pp.gov.al

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

The penitentiary system has been lacking electronic documentation or an analysis related to the following of cases of maltreatment and torture. The absence of data makes it more difficult to learn about the situation, to show the typology of the problems and to prepare recommendations for resolving them391.

Meanwhile, from information received from the internal control service in the prison system of the MoJ, it turns out that this service has forwarded investigative material to the prosecutor’s office of Tirana about the criminal offence provided in article 250/25 of the Criminal Code, “Commission of arbitrary actions against a juvenile in pre-trial detention”, charged against four employees of the basic role at the institution “Jordan Misja”392. But the internal control service does not have information about disciplinary measures taken by the GDP in this case.

In addition, on 26 April 2012 the People’s Advocate referred a case to the prosecutor’s office where it recommended the beginning of criminal prosecution against five employees of the prison police in the “Jordan Misja” institution for the criminal offence of torture393. The prosecutor’s office dismissed the case for the absence of evidence, rejecting the claim of the People’s Advocate about torture394.

Additionally, in implementation of this measure and in conformity with the Istanbul Protocol, in cooperation with the Albanian Centre for Rehabilitation of Trauma and Torture (ARCT), for the first time during 2011 the format and documentation were prepared as a unified document for cases of the exercise of physical and psychic violence, medical emergencies and knowledge about legality. This new format was sent to all the institutions to become part of their work activity during 2012395.

According to the last CPT report, during their visit to several institutions, such as the prison of Korça, the institution “Jordan Misja” no. 313 and the Durrës pre-trial detention centre, complaints and claims of the exercise of physical violence were submitted by prisoners and by several juveniles who were in the Korça institution396.

Meanwhile, even local organisations refer to different data in their monitoring reports about cases of maltreatment of those in isolation397. On the whole, taking into consideration the observations and suggestions of the various actors, we can conclude that in cases where violence is alleged, or inhumane and degrading treatment, the respective institutions do not act with speed to take appropriate measures to verify and reference them.

The time period, institutional responsibility, financial resources and indicators have been adequately specified.

391. ACRT, “ Alternative Report of the Albanian Centre of Rehabilitation against Trauma and Torture“, April 2012 (p. 11)392. Denion Meidani, ICSP, MoJ, director, letter “Answering your request” to the Soros Foundation (OSFA), prot. no. 591, 24.8.2012.393. Letter with document no. 2012/02/003/4 dated 16.5.2012, to the prosecutor’s office of the Tirana judicial district, made available by the Soros Foundation (OSFA).394. An answer from the prosecutor’s office of the Tirana judicial district was given by letter no. 2767 dated 4.7.2012. For more, see Ministry of Integration, “Report on the implementation of the action plan addressing the recommendations of the EC Opinion for Albania”, June – July 2012, http://mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2042395. http://www.GDPsh.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=shfaqart&aid=294396. Report on Albania in the framework in the visit dated 10 – 21 May 2010, CPT, published 20 March 2012, p. 22, http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/alb/2012-11-inf-eng.pdf. 397. ARCT refers to the negligence of the state structures in verifying cases of maltreatment. For more, see the Alternative Report of the Albanian Centre of Rehabilitation against Trauma and Torture (ARCT), April 2012 (p. 11).


6.2.26 Taking measures to ref lect the comments and recommendations of the People’s Advocate*Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: 2011 – 2013 (continuing)Status: Partially implemented

For 2011, the institution of the People’s Advocate has addressed 36 recommendations in all to the GDP, seeking that 165 measures be taken398. Of these recommendations, 23 or 63% of them have been addressed as to problem areas that came out of the inspections on the ground, whilst 13 recommendations or 37% were related to cases that began on initiative or on the basis of complaints399. In all, 165 measures have been proposed for prisons and remand institutions, of which:

• 92 measures or 56% have been completely implemented, • 34 measures or 20% have been partially implemented, and • 39 measures or 24% are unimplemented400.

For the period January – June 2012, the People’s Advocate monitored five IECDs and made 44 other recommendations, of which 26 have been implemented, six have not been realised and 12 are in process.

From an evaluation of the implementation of the recommendations of the People’s Advocate, it has mainly been seen that recommendations related to investments and the improvement of infrastructure have been implemented, but measures related to improving psycho-social programmes, health service, treatment of prisoners and pre-trial detainees, special treatment of categories of disabled people and similar ones have remained unimplemented or been only partially implements.

Measures relating to the following are the principal ones implemented: movement of funds for making investments to improve water supply in the cells; obtaining warm water for the cells and painting them; monitoring the quality of food; improving conditions for special meetings of convicts; improving the quality and the exercise of periodic health checks and controls of the prison kitchen in Fushë-Kruja; telephone access for prisoners and respect for privacy in institution no. 302, and improving conditions in the IECDs of Durrës, “Mine Peza”, Tirana and so forth401.

The time period, institutional responsibility, financial resources and indicators have been defined in an appropriate way.

6.2.27 Replacement of computer equipment and training of staf f*Responsible institution: General Directorate of PrisonsDeadline for implementation: 2012 – 2013 Status: Not implemented

The only planning done by the GDP for the period 2010 – 2012 in connection with this measure is

398. Institution of the People’s Advocate, “Special Report, Activity of the People’s Advocate and Level of Implementation of Recommendation 12 of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania”, April 2012, http://www.avokatipopullit.gov.al/Raporte/Raport%2012%20KE.pdf399. Special report, Activity of the People’s Advocate and Level of Implementation of Recommendation 12 of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania, published by the People’s Advocate, April 2012, p. 6, http://www.avokatipopullit.gov.al/Raporte/Raport%2012%20KE.pdf400. Id., p. 7.401. Id., p. 7.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

computerisation of the index cards with data about convicted persons, which was accomplished in 2010402. From information given in the action plan about this measure, there turn out to have been three projects foreseen by the IT sector, which are related to the full automation and computerisation of the prison system for 2012 and 2013. We have received no information from the GDP as to whether or not they have begun to be implemented. However, it should be mentioned that the measure still has time for being performed, up to 2013.

The time period, institutional responsibility and indicators have been defined appropriately. The financial resources have been clearly defined and divided according to years.

Specific objective 3: Increasing independence, responsibility, transparency and efficacy in the system of rehabilitation of those serving alternative sentences

6.3.1 Improving the functioning of the probation service through continuation of the Twinning Project with the probation service of the United Kingdom, in the framework of IPA 2009 (Albanian Twinning Project – Probation Service, AL 09 IB JH 01 “Support to the Albanian Penitentiary Reform”)*.Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of the Probation Service, Mission EURALIUS III Deadline for implementation: January 2011 – 2013Status: Implemented

The Twinning Project “Support for the creation of the probation service and alternative sentences”, with the main partners the Ministries of Justice of the United Kingdom and of Albania, is supported financially by the European Union. Its implementation began in January 2011, with a time period of 24 months.

This project403 conducts its activity intensively for improving the functioning of the probation service. From January 2011 up to the time of drafting this report, five detailed reports have been prepared for activities realised in the framework of improving the activity of the probation service, also including the respective achievements, challenges and recommendations for improving the situation. The support for this project consists of:

• implementation of the National Strategy of the Probation Service, • creation of a data base for registering information, • assistance in caseload management, • informing about intervention developments, • constructing a training strategy, • drafting training curricula and training the staff of the probation service offices, • creating probation offices in several districts of the country, • creating a public relations strategy, and so forth404.

It continues to be disturbing that the court gives the security measure of “prison arrest” to persons who are of little danger and to juveniles405.

402. Blerina Gjerazi, General Directorate of Prisons, head of the office of foreign relations and the press office, interview, 21.9.2012403. Project no. AL 09 IB JH 01 – Contract no .2010/259-265.404. Twinning Project, European Commission, “Quarterly report No. 5”, 21 June 2012.405. Albania, Progress Report 2012, European Commission, p. 17, published 10.10.2012, Brussels. For more, see http://www.mie.gov.al/


From the periodic analyses of the Twinning Project, also evaluating the needs of the institution itself, it has suggested:

• increasing the number of employees, because one employee has to supervise, on the average, 125 persons serving alternative sentences, whilst there is little possibility of transpiration406;

• re-categorising employees into a higher category, thus enabling an increase in staff pay;• increasing the budget for the probation service. Currently, the annual budget is approximately

500,000 euro, whereas that of the prisons is 30 million euro per year. The local offices, especially Tirana and Elbasan, have a very small area, which makes it difficult to meet with clients on probation. There is a need to reconstruct offices, increase budget, increase personal and increase local offices.

The time period of realisation of this measure is realistic, because it responds to the time periods of implementation of the project. The institutional responsibilities have not been well defined; the direct implementer of this measure is the Twinning Project in the General Directorate of the Probation Service. The Mission EURALIUS III has not foreseen in its work plan any action about this measure.

The financial resources have been defined in a concrete and accurate manner. The monitoring mechanisms have not been formulated as such, but are expressed more as actions. A better formulation of this indicator might have been periodic reports of the GDPS and monitoring reports of the Ministry of Justice.

6.3.2 Amendment of the structure and personnel chart of the probation serviceResponsible institution: Council of Ministers, Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of the Probation Service (GDPS)Deadline for implementation: 2011Status: Implemented (beyond the time period foreseen)

By order no. 2 of the Prime Minister dated 11.1.2012 “On the approval of the structure and personnel chart of the probation service”, a change of the structure and personnel was defined, not only that of the General Directorate of the Probation Service but also a change to 12 regional offices407 from the eight408 that were in function before the order. The number of employees, according to that order, will rise from 58 to 68409.

Notwithstanding the change of the structure and personnel of the probation service, the relationship of the number of employees to the cases they supervise is becoming more and more problematic. The workload is growing quickly, reaching, on the average, 120 cases for a specialist for 2011 and 125 for 2012410. This level is about three times higher than in the majority of European countries. The caseload of the probation service will continue to increase even more with the beginning of implementation of the system of electronic surveillance of convicted persons, which is expected to start very soon.

From a simple comparison of cases with alternative sentences, it can be seen that:

406. GDPS, “Intermediate quarterly report of the twinning project, no. 1”, e-mail from Roza Çakëri, director of inspections and community services, 07.09.2012.407. Tirana, Durrës, Shkodër, Lezha, Elbasan, Korça, Fier, Mat, Gjirokastër, Vlora, Berat and Kukës.408. Tirana, Durrës, Shkodër, Lezha, Elbasan, Korça, Fier and Gjirokastër409. Decision no. 140 of the Prime Minister dated 1.7.2010“On the approval of the structure and personnel chart of the probation service”; see www.km.gov.al410. Intermediate quarterly report no. 1, June 2012, of the Twinning Project, e-mail, Roza Çakëri, director of inspection and community services, GDPS, 07.09.2012

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

• in 2009 there were about 705 cases in total; • in 2010 2,348 cases were registered; • in 2011 3,658 cases were dealt with; • on the other hand, just up to June 2012, we can count about 4,000 cases, a high number for this

number of employees411.

The time period provided is realistic. The institutional responsibilities and financial resources have been clearly defined. The monitoring mechanism is not appropriate; the number added to the personnel chart, concretely defined, and the new approved structure of the probation service would have been a fuller indicator.

6.3.3 Drafting and approval of a new order of the Minister of Justice “On defining the territorial competences of 14 new local offices” Responsible institution: Council of Ministers, Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of the Probation ServiceDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Partially implemented

On 20 June 2012, order no. 3369/3 of the Minister of Justice dated 18.6.2012, “On determining the location and territorial competences of the local offices of the probation service”, was issued. This order defined the competences of the 12 local probation offices at the district courts, respectively, Tirana412, Shkodër413, Durrës, Fier414, Lezha415, Elbasan, Korça416, Gjirokastër417, Mat418, Berat, Vlora and Kukës419. The definition of territorial competences makes it possible to divide the workload of the big cities as well as eliminating long distance travelling for persons under supervision. However, it is to be recommended that probation offices be opened in all the judicial districts, for higher efficacy of the alternative sentences.

The time period, institutional responsibility, financial resources and monitoring mechanisms have been defined in an appropriate manner and are easily measured.

6.3.4 Creation of suitable premises for the 14 new local offices of the service*Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of the Probation Service, OSCE, Mission EURALIUS III, UNICEFDeadline for implementation: March – June 2011; March – June 2012; March – June 2013Status: Partially implemented

Up to June 2012, eight local probation offices were functioning. In the meantime, since the approval in June of the CoM decision to open four more offices, appropriate premises are being created for them.

The time period planned for this measure is concrete, designated for each year. The institutional

411. The information refers to the action plan for the probation service for 2012. E-mail, Roza Çakëri, director of inspection and community services, GDPS, 07.09.2012.412. With territorial competence for Tirana, Kavaja, Kruja.413. With competence for Shkodër and Puka.414. Fier and Lushnja.415. Kurbin and Lezha.416. Korça and Pogradec.417. Gjirokastër, Përmet, Saranda.418. Mat and Dibër.419. Kukës and Tropoja.


responsibility was been broadly defined, also including bodies that do not have responsibility for implementing this measure, such as EURALIUS III. It is the General Directorate of the Probation Service and the Twinning Project that are implementing the measure directly.

The financial resources have been defined correctly. So far as concerns the indicator, in addition to the periodic reporting of the respective directorate, the reconstructed premises of the 14 new offices might also have been designated.

6.3.5 Training the new employees of the new local offices of the probation service and further training of current employeesResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of the Probation Service, OSCE, EURALIUS III, UNICEFDeadline for implementation: 2011 – 2013 (continuing)Status: Implemented

According to the Twinning Project, in the period July 2011 – July 2012, in all, 35 training sessions several days long were held, in which about 307 employees were trained420. The trainings primarily concentrated on themes related to planning the supervision of persons with alternative sentences, the national strategy of the probation service, the strategy for public relations, themes about narcotics and alcoholic beverages, work ethics, registration of cases and collection of data, management questions and so forth421.

The OSCE Presence in Tirana has also given a special contribution to increase the capacities of the management and inspection staff of the probation service. In addition, the OSCE has undertaken to train the staff of the new recently opened offices422. Those trainings will be also be expanded to the social workers of the municipalities and communes of the Lezha and Kukës districts, to encourage cooperation between local government and the probation service. The OSCE has published a “Training manual for probation employees”, which includes the legislation and practice of European countries, international standards and the Albanian legislation in force. Another publication is “Work guide of the probation service for judges and prosecutors”, which aims at sensitising judges and prosecutors about the application of the system of alternative sentence measures423.

Another initiative that is being undertaken in this field by the OSCE Presence in Tirana is the opening of a master’s programme in “Administration of the social institutions in the justice system”, which aims at educating and training current and future professionals, experts and volunteers who will work with persons serving alternative sentences. The master’s programme was accredited in December 2011 and work is currently proceeding to register students424.

420. Referring to the Twinning Project “Support for the Albanian Probation Service”, List of trainings, Roza Çakëri, director of inspection and community services, GDPS, 07.09.2012421. Roza Çakëri, director of inspection and community services, GDPS, e-mail of 07.09.2012.422. For example. the training in July 2012 with new employees of the four new probation offices in Kukës, Mat, Berat and Vlora. For more information, see http://www.sherbimiproves.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=shfaqart&aid=48423. Id.424. Alba Jorganxhi, OSCE, e-mail of 28.09.2012.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

Notwithstanding the continuous training of staff, the treatment of practical cases for the implementation of alternative sentences to imprisonment also remains essential.

The time period for realisation of this measure is continuing and realistic. The institutional responsibility has not been correctly defined; the responsible institutions should be the Director of the Probation Service and the Twinning Project. In addition, the OSCE should be added, as a partner institution. Neither the EURALIUS III project nor the Magistrates’ School has planned any intervention concerning this measure. The confusion in defining institutional responsibility has also been followed in the determination of financial resources, such as expenses of EURALIUS III. A monitoring mechanism is lacking completely.

6.3.6 Creation of an electronic register for the probation service at the central and local levelResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of the Probation Service, National Agency for the Information Society (NAIS), EURALIUS III, Council of Europe, OSCEDeadline for implementation: June – December 2011Status: Not implemented

The probation service does not have an electronic register, and case data are kept manually. According to information from the General Directorate of the Probation Service, a request has been submitted to the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for this kind of register425. Because of the absence of information from the MoJ, it is difficult to evaluate the phase of implementation of this measure. In addition, the measure coincides with one of the purposes of the Twinning Project, which has not yet been finalised426.

It is extremely essential that an electronic register be in function, considering the increase of the number of cases with alternative sentences. The time period does not seem to be entirely realistic. The creation and installation of an electronic register for the probation service and the central and local level will, we think, take more than the six months provided in the action plan. Also, there is no clear division between the responsible institutions and the partner institutions. This is seen in fact for all the measures planned for this strategic objective, although in the case of this measure, it is especially important to set clear institutional responsibility.

The financial resources have been clearly designated. Those expenses also include consolidation of the data base (6.3.7) and training the employees to use and administer the system (6.3.8). It would assist in clarifying this measure if it were known whether the financial resources pertain to the Twinning Project or to another donor. The monitoring mechanism is not complete; the functioning of the electronic register in the central and local offices should also have been designated.

6.3.7 Consolidation of the data base through automating the systemResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of the Probation Service, NAIS, EURALIUS III, Council of Europe, OSCEDeadline for implementation: 2011 - 2013 (continuing)Status: Partially implemented

425. Roza Çakëri, director of inspection and community services, GDPS, e-mail of 07.09.2012.426. In the Twinning Project’s quarterly report for the period January - April 2011.


The probation service is in the process of creating a model for receiving data427. The GDPS has a manual system for registering data, which is periodically updated, with reporting on a monthly basis to the Ministry of Justice. Currently, the Twinning Project has completed a more advanced data base, which produces full statistics.

From the manual data kept by the probation service, it turns out that from the creation of the service up to November 2011, the total number of persons under supervision has been 4,453 convicted persons, 393 of whom violated their obligations during supervision428. If we make a statistical analysis of the year 2011, we see that 2,117 persons were under supervision429. For the period January – July 2012, there were 4,367 persons under supervision, 3,754 of them because of the application of article 59 of the Criminal Code, suspension of sentence430.

The time period does not seem realistic with a length of three years. In order to create the necessary analyses for improvement of the probation service, based on solid data, this measure should be realised in a shorter time period. The arguments related to institutional responsibility, financial resources and indicators are similar to those cited for the above measure 6.3.6.

6.3.8 Training of specialists of the local offices on the manner of using and administering this registerResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of the Probation Service, NAIS, EURALIUS III, CoE, OSCEDeadline for implementation: 2011 - 2013 (continuing)Status: Not implemented

Because this register has not been created, no staff has yet been trained in connection with its use and administration.

The time period of realisation is continuing and seem realistic, especially taking into account that this measure depends on the implementation of measure 6.3.6, an increasing number of personnel spots in the chart of the probation service and the local offices because of the time extension over a three year period.

The arguments related to institutional responsibility, financial resources and indicators are similar to those cited for measure 6.3.6 above. A better indicator would have been the training plan on an annual basis and the concrete number of persons trained for each year.

6.3.9 Conducting and implementing a Strategy for public relations and informing judges, prosecutors, the police, the prison system, local authorities and NPOs in connection with the probation service Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, GDPS, Twinning Project, EUDeadline for implementation: 2011 - 2013 (continuing)Status: Partially implemented

427. Roza Çakëri, director of inspection and community services, GDPS, e-mail of 07.09.2012.428. See Probation Service, Bulletin No. 2, 2011, Tirana 2012, p. 15.429. General information on statistics, Roza Çakëri, director of inspection and community services, GDPS, e-mail of 07.09.2012.430. Based on the annual statistics of the probation service, e-mail, Roza Çakëri, director of inspection and community services, GDPS, 07.09.2012.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

The Probation Service is in the process of preparing a public relations strategy, assisted by the Twinning Project431. But regardless of the process with this document, several joint roundtables have been held for the purpose of strengthening cooperation with various actors of civil society, thanks to the support of the Twinning Project and the OSCE432. A number of memoranda of cooperation have been signed with the Centre for Integrated Legal Practices and Services (CILPS)433, the association “Aksion Plus” and the foundation “Resolution of Conflicts and Conciliation of Disputes” (RCCD), and other organisations that offer their services in assisting primarily in the implementation of alternative sentences434.

In all, 125 memoranda of cooperation have been signed between the Probation Service and the organs of local government, concretely, with six regional councils, 27 municipalities (five of which are Tirana municipal units) and 87 communes.

The Probation Service has also worked closely with the courts for the preparation of evaluation reports in connection with requests for alternative sentences by convicted persons serving prison sentences435.

The development and implementation of a strategy for communication with the public and informing judges, prosecutors, police and other actors is one of the objectives of the work of the probation service. The rehabilitation of convicted persons and those who have obtained an alternative sentence requires comprehensive cooperation. Cooperation agreements entered into with organisations, communes, municipalities and so forth play a great role in this. For this reason the OSCE has organised trainings for social workers in communes and municipalities, respectively, in Tirana, Gjirokastër, Korça, Burrel and Vlora436.

The time period, institutional responsibility, resources and indicator have been defined in an appropriate way.

Specific objective 4: Increasing the sustainability of the level of execution of judicial decisions in conformity with european standards, as well as improving the quality of the bailiff ’s service (very important)

6.4.1 Exercise of controls by the inspection sector at the General DirectorateResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice Deadline for implementation: 2011Status: Implemented

This measure serves to realise the specific objective, which has the purpose of increasing the sustainability of the level of execution of judicial decisions, because a detailed control with a well-defined agenda contributes to identifying the problem areas of the enforcement service, as well as to

431. Quarterly report no.2, Twinning Project, supported by the European Union, e-mail of 7.09.2012.432. Quarterly report no. 3, December 2011, Twinning Project, supported by the European Union, e-mail of 07.09.2012.433. In the framework of the agreement, CILPS has assisted about 130 individuals for the period January – September. The assistance of CILPS was done with social workers and had in its focus the application of alternative sentences, especially sentences with public interest work. CILPS offers in the framework of financial support and legal and psychological counselling for the application of alternative sentences. For 2012, 150 cases were handled.. Orinda Gjoni, director of projects, and Naureda Bajraktarin, CILPS, interview, 21.09.2012.434. Roza Çakëri, director of inspection and community services, GDPS, e-mail of 07.09.2012.435. For 2011, the Probation Service sent 618 reports to the courts evaluating the social circumstances of those sentenced to prison who sought conditional release or to stay at home. For 2011, the Probation Service sent 365 reports to the prosecutor’s offices evaluating persons under investigation/defendants. For more, see http://www.sherbimiproves.gov.al/?fq=brenda&gj=gj1&kid=6436. Alba Jorganxhi, OSCE, e-mail of 28.09.2012


resolving them. We understand that the purpose of this action plan is, among other things, defining full and effective procedures for the Strategy itself, but on the other hand, inspection is a process that is an ordinary competence of the Ministry of Justice, a routine activity.

Therefore, it is unnecessary to single out this measure in this action plan, since it is understood in the specific objective itself. We suggest that a formulation of the measure that provided for an increase in the number of inspections would be more worthwhile, both linguistically but also for the efficacy of the plan. That would include both a quantitative increase in the number of inspections as well as their increased rigorousness.

This measure has been evaluated as implemented despite the absence of information from the Ministry of Justice. Looking at the data collected on the web page of the institution, we can see that the inspections have been carried out continuously437.

The time period of realisation should have been continuing, we think, since it is a continuing activity. Particular financial resources have not been defined, again since it is a routine activity. The institutional responsibility is well defined, considering that the inspection of the bailiff’s service is a direct competence of the Ministry of Justice.

The monitoring mechanism for this measure includes two indicators, both of a quantitative nature: “Preparation of reports on enforcement activity” and “Increase of the number of executive titles to the level of 10%”, the latter of which also entails an increase of quality.

6.4.2 Training employees of the state enforcement serviceResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of Enforcement, EURALIUS III, Magistrates’ SchoolDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: Implemented

Based on information supplied by the General Director of (State) Enforcement438, it can be seen that several different trainings have been performed for the state enforcement service. This includes the following:

• on 28-30.3.2011, a three day seminar was held on the subject “Progress of the judicial bailiff services and changes in the Code of Civil Procedure’s”, with the participation of two specialists of the General Directorate and 20 judicial bailiffs. This training was organised by EURALIUS III;

• in the months of October and November 2011, the IT specialists were trained;• on 12-15.12.2011 a seminar was held “On monitoring and controlling enforcement activity”, with

the participation of the specialists of this directorate;• on 5-6 November 2012, it has been planned to have another training with the specialists of this

directorate, by the project EURALIUS III439.

437. http://www.justice.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=7989;http://www.justice.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=7962; 438. Interview with the director of the State Enforcement Service, Pal Metaj, and the director of inspection, Plator Bilibashi, 23.09. 2012; a concrete list was not made available to us, but they mentioned names of state bailiffs; trainings conducted by EURALIUS III in January-February 2011 – this training does not fit within the period of our monitoring, which was July 2011 – July 2012.439. E-mail from Edlira Gjonaj, General Directorate of (State) Enforcement, answer to e-mail requesting information, 01.11.2012.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

Since the main problem for the execution of final decisions is concentrated in the state enforcement service, we judge that training state bailiffs is more than essential. Attention to realising this measure would bring an improvement of work under this measure, which is for capacity-building.

The measure has been formulated clearly and is for the benefit of fulfilment of the specific objective to increase the level of execution of judicial decisions. So far as concerns the time period, it has been well defined as a continuing one, because it deals with trainings. The financial budget has been defined as coming from planned expenses of the EURALIUS III project. The institutional responsibility has been correctly designated. No monitoring mechanism has been provided for this measure.

6.4.3 Training private judicial bailiffsResponsible institution: EURALIUS IIIDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: Not implemented

The difficulties in the execution of final judicial decisions, also shown as such by the European Court of Human Rights in many cases, has led to the creation of a private enforcement service. The creation of the private service seems to give a fresh, somewhat liberated breath to this problem. Consequently, more and more, the state enforcement service is being reduced, with more and more priority being given to the private services as a more effective system.

The private bailiff model is a new model, not only for our country but also for the region, created according to the French and German models. Private bailiffs were organised into a National Chamber of Private Bailiffs in October 2010. From the beginning of November 2010 until now, over 100 private bailiffs have begun to function in the entire country, licensed by the Ministry of Justice.

Nevertheless, this measure has not been realised, because the infrastructure that permits the good functioning of this service is still being constructed. The Ministry of Justice and the Mission EURALIUS III have prepared a programme to strengthen and advance the activities of the private bailiffs440.The time period, extended over two years, is essential because the essence of the measure consists of training, which has to be continuous. The financial resource has been foreseen to come from the EURALIUS III project, but without being specified in the budget. On the other hand, the institutional responsibility has not been defined. In addition to the Ministry of Justice, the National Chamber of Private Bailiffs should also have been named as a responsible institution.

No evaluative indicator has been planned. The plan of annual trainings, the concrete number of persons to be trained each year, the thematic areas of the trainings or questionnaires evaluating them might have been indicators for this measure.

6.4.4 Reconstruction of the office of the state bailiff, TiranaResponsible institution: General Directorate of EnforcementDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Implemented

440. Annual Progress Report, Contribution of Albania, May – August 2012, Ministry of Integration, 1 September 2012, English version, p. 30.


From the visit made to the premises of this institution to interview the general director of the state General Enforcement Directorate, it was noticed that the offices of this directorate have been completely reconstructed and that they have separate, optimal premises for conducting work activity. The offices of the state bailiff of Tirana are also located in the same courtyard and have also been reconstructed.

Information of the type of a budgetary analysis for 2011 was not made available to us, and therefore, we evaluate the realisation of this measure only by means of findings of fact441. It was confirmed in the interview that this reconstruction was done in 2011, that is, within the time period provided by the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy442.

The measure was realised within the time period, since a realistic period was foreseen. The financial resources, institutional responsibility and monitoring mechanism have been defined in an appropriate manner.

6.4.5 Furnishing premises for the state bailiff ’s offices in the districts of Korça, Elbasan, Fier, Shkodër, Kukës, Gjirokastër and Dibër*Responsible institution: General Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Justice; local officesDeadline for implementation: 2013Status: Not implemented

Furnishing premises for the local enforcement offices of the state enforcement service has not yet begun. Thus, in most cases, in Shkodër, Kukës and Elbasan, the state bailiff’s office is at the courts of first instance, but in small areas that are not at all optimal. The state bailiff’s offices in Korça are located in an environment by itself, in the former officers’ home, but that was a situation going back to the years 2000443.

The time period provided for realisation, up to 2013, is essential considering the problems in furnishing the offices and the longer time needed for realisation of this measure. The monitoring mechanism has not been formulated in an appropriate manner from the formal side, because it refers to reconstruction of the bailiff ’s office in Tirana. We think that the institutional responsibility is defined correctly.

6.4.6 Reconstruction of the state enforcement of f ices in the districts*Responsible institution: General Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Justice; local officesDeadline for implementation: 2013Status: Not implemented

This measure is directly linked to the prior measure. In the districts, the bailiffs’ offices do not yet have separate premises, whereas it has been impossible to start reconstruction because of the basic absence of separate premises. In addition to the local Tirana office, which does have such separate premises and has been reconstructed, none of the local district offices have been

441. Interview with the director of the General Directorate of State Enforcement, Pal Metaj, 23.09.2012.442. Contract no.1107/17 dated 22.8.2011. The General Directorate of Enforcement has entered into a contract with the company “Euro Ndërtim 2000” for the reconstruction of the offices where it currently conducts its activity.443. The information source used for evaluating this measure is an interview with the general director of state enforcement, Pal Metaj.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

reconstructed. Thus, since they have not been supplied with separate premises up to November 2012, they have not been reconstructed either.

We emphasise this time period, because that provided for realisation of the reconstruction of the enforcement offices in the districts of Korça, Elbasan, Fier, Kukës, Dibër and Gjirokastër, as well as supplying them with premises, that is, measures 6.4.5 and 6.4.6, goes up to 2013, whilst we have no document from the General Directorate of Enforcement that would show measures concretely undertaken for the realisation of reconstruction or supplying premises for the enforcement offices.

The time period foresees for realisation, up to 2013, is essential considering the problems in furnishing the offices and the longer time needed for realisation of this measure. The monitoring mechanism has not been formulated in an appropriate manner from the formal side, because it refers to reconstruction of the bailiff ’s office in Tirana. We think that the institutional responsibility is defined correctly.

Deficiencies can be observed in the formulation of the monitoring and evaluative indicators for all of measures 6.4.4, 6.4.5 and 6.4.6, because despite the difference of object, the indicator is the same. The first measure is reconstruction of the Tirana office, whereas the latter two refer to the bailiff ’s offices in the districts. We propose that the indicator be re-formulated and that it be divided for each measure separately.

This is a capacity-building measure and its realisation would serve the realisation of specific objective 6.4, contributing to insuring the improvement of quality of the enforcement service.

6.4.7 Drafting, approval and implementation of a decision of the Council of Ministers for the electronic system ALBISResponsible institution: General (State) Enforcement Directorate, Ministry of Justice; National Chamber of Private BailiffsDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Implemented

At the initiative of the Ministry of Justice, a decision of the Council of Ministers has been approved, no. 443 dated 16.6.2011 “On the creation, registration, functioning, administration, interaction and security of the Automated Management System of Judicial Bailiff Cases (ALBIS)”.

ALBIS is functional for the largest part of the state and private enforcement service. As to the National Chamber of Private Bailiffs, notwithstanding that it has been functioning since October 2010, it still does not have access to this system as of today, despite repeated requests to the Ministry of Justice.

This also means that the chamber cannot collect information about the activity of its private bailiff members or function as a central body.

Through ALBIS, the production of precise statistics is assured, in real time, as is real time monitoring of the activity of the private judicial bailiffs444. This measure is complex in its formulation, including most

444. Report of the Ministry of Justice for 2011 to the DIAAC.


regulatory characteristics, the drafting and approval of a decision of the Council of Ministers, as well as qualitative characteristics, because the process of implementation requires genuine infrastructure.

The time period for realisation of this measure is concrete, since the measure is an essential precondition for realising other measures included in specific objective 6.5. We consider operating expenses to be sufficient as the financial resource for realisation of this regulatory measure. The institutional responsibility has been defined well.

The monitoring mechanism is not specific for this measure and it is difficult to measure its qualitative nature. In addition to this, periodic reports by the institutions responsible for the functioning of ALBIS, and updated data about the execution of final judicial decisions, might also have been provided here.

6.4.8 Implementation of the central electronic data system*Responsible institution: General Directorate of EnforcementDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013Status: Implemented

The implementation of a central electronic data system has already begun and is being monitored by the Ministry of Justice. The purpose of this measure is the production of accurate statistics and monitoring the activity of the bailiffs.

The Ministry of Justice performed a control in April 2012 of the use of the ALBIS system by 45 private bailiffs, for the purpose of showing the correct use of the ALBIS system and the implementation of data for every case in the system. From this control, it turned out that 12 private bailiffs who exercise activity in the Tirana and Korça districts had violations in the process of data entry into the system, and the Minister of Justice fined them 30,000 to 40,000 lek each, taking into account, nonetheless, that the system of private enforcement is in its initial steps.

Deficiencies in data entry into the ALBIS system by private bailiffs constitute a disciplinary violation sanctioned by article 52, letter “dh” of law no. 10031 dated 11.12.2008 “On private bailiffs”445. To evaluate this measure, we sought information in an official manner from the responsible institutions, such as the General Directorate of (State) Enforcement, the Ministry of Justice and the National Chamber of Private Bailiffs, but we were not able to obtain accurate information, because access to the state enforcement service is restricted; the National Chamber of Private Bailiffs does not have access to this system, and the Ministry of Justice itself did not answer a request for information. Notwithstanding, the measure is evaluated as implemented.

Since the implementation of ALBIS is a continuing process, we consider the time period 2011-2013 to be concrete and essential. The institutional responsibility, we think, would have been fuller if the Ministry of Justice had also been named, as it not only exercises the function of control over the GDE but currently has full access to this system. The monitoring mechanism foreseen for this measure, like that of the prior one and also of measure 6.4.9 below, is not measurable and this makes it difficult to evaluate the implementation of these measures.

445. Annual Progress Report, Contribution of Albania, May – August 2012, Ministry of Integration, 1 September 2012, English version p. 30.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

6.4.9 Training the IT staf f that will manage the electric systemResponsible institution: General Directorate of EnforcementDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Implemented

The IT staff of the General Directorate of Enforcement who will manage the electric system were trained during 2011, we learned in a meeting with the director of the General Directorate. The number of specialists trained was two. There was a continuing training, over a period of one month, with assistance by foreign experts from the Netherlands. The training was supported by the Ministry of Justice, with the IT specialists of the (State) Enforcement Directorate more involved in covering the procedural side.

The ALBIS system is now functional and although it is still in its beginnings, it is aiding state and private bailiffs as well as facilitating the monitoring of their activity by the competent institutions, increasing transparency.

The measure was realised within the time period foreseen. The time period, financial resources and responsible institution have been designated in an appropriate manner. The monitoring mechanisms provided for this measure and the prior ones, 6.4.7 and 6.4.8, are not measurable, which makes the evaluation of their implementation difficult because of their qualitative nature.

6.4.10 Informing the public about the enforcement service available*Responsible institution: General Directorate of Enforcement, National Chamber of Private BailiffsDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: Not implemented

Informing the public about the bailiff ’s services available in the Republic of Albania is of special importance, not only for educating the public and the possibilities available for the execution of judicial decisions, but also for becoming familiar with how these services function in general in the service of improving the execution of judicial decisions and respecting one of the more fundamental individual rights, access to justice. The creation of the possibility to use a private bailiff not only gives more access to the public, but insures that they will no longer be prey to the paradigm “justice delayed, justice denied” and also, in the final analysis, it significantly increases the efficiency of the enforcement system as a whole, encouraging “good competition” between the two central enforcement institutions, the state and private ones.

An indicator that would help in evaluating this measure is an increase of the number of clients that use each service and specific reports about the execution of cases. For the realisation of this measure, we think activities should first have been provided such as the publication of sensitising materials (brochures, leaflets, television spots or even posters in various institutions of the justice system such as prosecutors’ offices, courts and so forth).

Since the public has as an information source only the web page of the National Chamber of Private Bailiffs (http://dhkpp.org/) and the web page of the General Directorate of Enforcement (www.dpp.gov.al), both of which have very little information or, in the case of http://dhkpp.org/,


have been updated most recently at the end of 2011, we conclude that very little has been done for the realisation of this measure, not enough to consider it implemented. On the other hand, neither of the services offers data about the number of client who go to them nor do they give specific reports about the execution of cases.

Because a longer and continuing time is required for realisation of a measure dedicated to informing the public about the services of the private and state bailiffs, we think that the time period provided is realistic and essential. The financial resources have not been identified, although they are quite essential for realising such a measure, for example, promotion and informing the public which presuppose large expenses. The institutional responsibility is not complete. The Ministry of Justice, which has greater access to the public and more ways to approach it, should also have been provided. The monitoring mechanism is concrete and measurable.

6.4.11 Training and support for the National Chamber of Private Bailiffs*Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of Enforcement, EURALIUS III, Magistrates’ SchoolDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: Partially implemented

Continuous training and support for the private bailiffs is fundamental for improving the candidates who are actors in the field of execution of decisions, and it also helps then extensively to become familiar with enforcement procedures.

In the period 15 June – 15 December 2012, the Mission EURALIUS III foresaw support for the National Chamber of Private Bailiffs as well as the Magistrates’ School to secure a training plan for the purpose of strengthening the knowledge of candidates as well as for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the Council of Europe devoted to the enforcement service (Rec.2003.17).

From information collected from EURALIUS III, we conclude that for this measure, the initiative of starting initial and continuing trainings has been left to the Ministry of Justice and the National Chamber of Private Bailiffs (NCPB). This measure is considered partially implemented, because currently a memorandum of cooperation between the Ministry of Justice and the NCPS is expected by EURALIUS III.

Additionally, from information secured from the Magistrates’ School, no training for the private enforcement service has been planned for 2012. On the other hand, the most active responsible institution, which has begun to do trainings and concrete planning, is EURALIUS III.

The time period is well defined for a continuing activity like training. The financial budget has been calculated to be provided by the EURALIUS III project, as a project that supports the implementation of this measure. The institutional responsibility has been defined concretely. No monitoring mechanism is foreseen for this measure; mechanisms such as questionnaires, attendance lists and so forth might have been provided.

6.4.12 Drafting and approval of a decision of the Council of Ministers to implement the decisions of the ECtHR*

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: Implemented

We think that in addition to the Ministry of Justice, it would have been appropriate for the State Attorney’s Office also to have been provided as a responsible institution, since it is an organ with a direct interest in the realisation of this measure, representing the Albanian state at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

We also think that this measure is very important for having legal norms created for implementation of the decisions of the ECtHR rendered against the Albanian state. The implementation of those decisions has a vital contribution not only for respecting the international commitments of the Albanian state to the Council of Europe and the ratification of the European Convention of Human Rights, but also in the consolidation of the rule of law and respect for human rights. It should be mentioned that the Albanian state in fact has respected with great correctness the decisions of the Strasbourg Court so far as concerns the execution of monetary obligations to Albanian citizens.

However, the execution of measures of a general nature that the ECtHR has decided against Albania which, in general, require legal and structural interventions, is already a disturbing problem. The Strasbourg Court has rendered a considerable number of decisions dealing with the same violations such as failure to respect the right of property or the right to a due legal process.

Under those conditions, the Open Society Foundation for albania (Soros Foundation) has for some years called to the attention of the responsible institutions how essential it is to fill the legal gaps for the immediate execution of ECtHR decisions (not only monetary obligations) and their efficient exploitation for the better protection of the rights of citizens. In 2001, in cooperation with the Albanian Helsinki Committee, the Soros Foundation drew up a legal act for execution of the decisions of the Strasbourg Court, a copy of which was sent to the Ministry of Justice and the State Attorney’s Office446.

The monitoring mechanism for this measure is not accurate; the entry into force of the decision of the Council of Ministers would have been an appropriate indicator. The financial source is sufficient. Considering the manner of formulation of the financial source, the continuing time period and the indicator, we are led to understand that the measure should not have been the drafting and approval of the CoM decision, but the implementation of the decision “On execution of the decisions of the Strasbourg Court”. If the drafters had wanted to emphasise the implementation of the CoM decision, we think that it would have been essential to allocate a separate budget and not simply provide for the use of the government’s reserve fund for the execution of the decisions of the Strasbourg Court.

Specific objective 5: Extension of the ALBIS system and consolidating it in the private and state judicial bailiff ’s service

6.5.1 Training in applying the system by private judicial bailiffsResponsible institution: General Directorate of State EnforcementDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Not implemented

446. http://www.ahc.org.al/doc/Raporti%20Vjetor%202010%20_Shqip_.pdf


Continuous training and support of the private bailiffs is fundamental for improving the candidates who are actors in the field of execution of decisions and also highly assists them in becoming familiar with enforcement procedures.

From information obtained from the Magistrates’ School, no training has been foreseen for the private bailiff ’s service for 2012. We have no other information either to show that this measure has been realised.

The time period is not defined well for a continuing activity such as training, which is an on-going process. The institutional responsibility has not been defined appropriately. The National Chamber of Private Bailiffs together with the Ministry of Justice should have been provided as the responsible institutions. The monitoring mechanism for this measure is insufficient as well. The training plan and the number of persons trained should have been added as indicators for this measure. The financial budget is pre-determined.

6.5.2 Filling in the system af ter requests in the testing phase from private bailif fs (making the application modules precise)Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of EnforcementDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Implemented

The ALBIS system is a functional system that, after the training of the two IT specialists at the GDE, has been completed to a considerable extent by the private bailiffs themselves who have now been working for a year with this system. The system is quite rigid and requires the entry of all required data. With the passage of time, it is observed that the system is being utilised more and more by private bailiffs, although it remains an immediate necessity for training to continue.

Good access to this system as accomplished by means of a personal address for every pricate or state bailiff, whereas the Ministry of Justice has general access. The system has been constructed in such a way that every bailiff sees his files separately, without being able to see the files registered by other colleagues. Some private bailiffs claim that permitting access to files being handled by other bailiffs would save considerable time and would be in the service of all the bailiffs.

The time period provided for realisation of this measure is sufficient, although we anticipate that the daily work of the bailiffs might require updating even after 2011. But the main policies for the use and functioning of the ALBIS system have already been realised. The institutional responsibility has been divided in an appropriate manner on the basis of competences. The budget foreseen is a joint one with the following measures. The monitoring mechanism has been defined correctly, as a qualitative indicator.

6.5.3 Maintenance of the central unit so that the system will be on line at all timesResponsible institution: National Chamber of Private Bailiffs, chairmen of the bailiffs’ offices, Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of State EnforcementDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Implemented

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

the central unit of the ALBIS system is functional most of the time, being on-line and offering its service for all the end users. However, the users have raised claims in some cases that ALBIS has been constructed on the basis of very rapid Internet, which sometimes slows down its work. In addition, a significant part of the documents required by ALBIS have to be scanned, and this brings difficulties when there is a large workload. In conclusion, although the system still needs time to be improved, for the innovation that it represents and also as a great facilitation brought to the judicial enforcement system as a whole, we consider this measure to have been realised.

The time period is not sufficient, because we think that it should have been continuous, since the system’s being on-line is a permanent thing, and therefore maintenance has to be continuous. The institutional responsibility falls mostly on the Ministry of Justice, as the institution with the main responsibility. The budget foreseen for realisation of this measure is a joint one with the previous measure. The monitoring mechanism has been defined correctly, as a qualitative indicator.

6.5.4 Updating the cases already entered into the system (the data base now contains 14,500 enforcement f iles up to December 2010), in the f ramework of the private judicial bailif f ’s service taking the f ilesResponsible institution: National Chamber of Private Bailif fs, chairmen of the bailif fs’ of f ices, Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of EnforcementDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013 (continuing)Status: Implemented

Based on the reports of the Ministry of Integration, it turns out that during the inspections done by the Ministry of Justice in May, violations were found and seven private bailiffs were fined. Similarly, during an alternative inspection done by the Ministry of Justice in April, out of 45 private bailiffs, 12 of them, all from the districts of Tirana and Korça, had not entered their files wholly or in part447.

We have related those facts to demonstrate that the updating of cases has begun and is in process, but we are unable to supply the updated number of files because of the absence of information from the Ministry of Justice.

Another problem area to be taken into account in the evaluation is the fact that although the chairman of the National Chamber of Private Bailiffs and the director of the General Directorate of Enforcement have been foreseen as responsible institutions, they either do not have access at all or their access is limited to see a full picture of the situation of the updating and they thus cannot produce an overall report. However, considering information received on the ground from various bailiffs as well as the continuous pressure of the Ministry of Justice through frequent inspections, we judge that this measure has been realised.

The two-year time period is essential. The financial sources for realisation of this measure have not been defined, since the measure itself foresees routine activities of the bailiffs. The institutional responsibility should have been focussed on the Ministry of Justice. The monitoring mechanism is clear, concrete and measurable.

447. Annual progress report, contribution of Albania, May – August 2012, Ministry of Integration, 1 September 2012, English version, p. 30.


Specific objective 6: Improving the rights of children

6.6.1 Completion of subordinate legal acts for the law on the Albanian Adoption Committee Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, Albanian Adoption Committee (AAC)Deadline for implementation: First six months of 2011Status: Implemented

During the first six months of 2011, CMD no. 399 dated 1.6.2011 was approved “On the composition and rules of functioning of the commission of approval of foreign mediating agencies”, thus filling in the subordinate legal basis of the law “On adoption procedures”448. The decision creates a commission to approve foreign mediating agencies (middlemen) for the purpose of recognising and approving them to exercise activity in the field of adoption. The Commission will consist of three representatives from the Ministry of Justice and two from the AAC.

The mediating foreign agencies submit requests for recognition and approval [of adoptions] to this commission. Currently, the licensing of the agencies is in process, and the AAC is operating with those agencies on the basis of agreements entered into with them previously, which continue to remain in force449. In addition, the AAC has advised us450 that the Commission of Approval of Licensing has held its first meetings, and the agencies have been informed about submitting documentation for the procedures of licensing.

In the law “On adoption procedures and the Albanian Adoption Committee”, the legal procedures of adoption and the functioning of the AAC as a collegial organ are defined. According to article 33 of the law, it is defined that local mediating agencies should be licensed according to the legislation on licensing for a five year period.

Foreign mediating agencies are recognised and approved by the commission of approval of mediating foreign agencies at the Ministry of Justice for a five year period to exercise activity in this field within the territory of the Republic of Albania. There are about 10 foreign agencies with which the AAC operates in the field of multi-country adoptions. In addition, in order to create an equal standard, both for Albanians as well as for foreigners, the AAC has proposed to the Ministry of Justice that the tariffs be raised, because they are very low in comparison to other countries.

The time period for realisation defined for this measure is realistic and measurable. The institutional responsibilities have been well defined. The financial resources are operating expenses, appropriate for this measure. The monitoring mechanisms have been expressed unclearly and without relation to the concrete measure, but even more, to the specific objective. The entry into force of the subordinate legal acts would have been a better and concrete indicator.

6.6.2 Systematising children in adoptive families within and outside of the countryResponsible institution: Ministry of Justice, Albanian Adoption CommitteeDeadline for implementation: 2011 – 2013 (continuing)Status: Implemented

448. Law no. 9695 dated 19.3.2007 “On adoption procedures” was amended by law no. 10358 dated 16.12.2010.449. Marieta Zaçe, chairman of the AAC and G. Terpo, jurist of the institution, AAC, interview, 24.09.2012, and e-mail of 25.09.2012.450. Id.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

Systematising children in adoptive families within and outside of the country is the main activity for which the AAC was created. For this reason, since it is a routine activity, this measure does not have a place for being included in an action plan. The primary purpose of this institution is the protection of the highest interest of the child by creating a permanent family for children whose natural parents are unable or do not want to realise that responsibility.

For 2011, the AAC had 22 requests for adoption, 12 requests for local adoptions and seven requests for adoption to another country. Of those, 10 adoptions were realised by consent, 19 local adoptions from an institution, and seven adoptions to another country, whilst the number of abandoned children registered in the institutions is 40, and the number of sick children who have grown up adopted is four 4451. For the first six months of 2012, the AAC had five requests for local adoption, 18 requests for adoption from the institutions and 11 requests for adoption to other countries. Of those, 10 children were adopted by consent, 18 children were adopted by Albanian coups, and 12 children by foreign couples.

Since it is a routine activity, the continuing time period for realising this measure is realistic. The institutional responsibility and financial resources have been defined appropriately way. The monitoring mechanisms have been expressed unclearly and in a general manner; the number of children adopted within and outside of the country would have been a more precise indicator.

6.6.3 Improving the adoption service Responsible institution: Albanian Adoption CommitteeDeadline for implementation: 2011 – 2013 (continuing)Status: Partially implemented

This measure has been repeated in the form of an objective, making it difficult to evaluate it objectively; improving the service is considered a continuing challenge. The measure should have been more concrete, providing concrete measures to be taken to improve the adoption service. From the information provided by the AAC itself, it turns out that nothing specific has been plan that could be considered as a concrete measure to improve the adoption service452.

Although it is an objective and not a concrete measure, we judge that in general there is a positive tendency toward improving the adoption service. The legal framework recently completed is precisely for standardising and improving the adoption procedures in the service of protecting the highest interest and the rights of children. But since it is a continuing measure, and improvements still need to be made in the adoption service, we judge that this measure has been only partially implemented.

The time period, institutional responsibility, financial resources and indicators have been defined concretely and are sufficient.

451. www.komitetibiresimeve.com.al 452. Marieta Zaçe, chairman of the AAC and G. Terpo, jurist of the institution, AAC, interview 24.09.2012 and e-mail of 25.09.2012.


6.6.4 Ef fective implementation of the legislation on children in all phases of the adoption procedures*Responsible institution: Albanian Adoption CommitteeDeadline for implementation: 2011 – 2013 (continuing)Status: Implemented

The effective implementation of the legislation is a legal obligation and a functional duty of the AAC. This measure has been formulated as a specific objective and not a measure that contains in itself a concrete action. In order to be implemented, this measure requires elaboration in a series of other specific sub-measures, which makes implementation of the measure more difficult as a whole. It is suggested that such measures be avoided in the action plan to the extent possible.

In all the procedures and phases that it follows for the adoption of children, the AAC applies the legislation in this field effectively. On the basis of article 36 of the institution’s organic law, the personal data of the child are protected in adoption procedures, a protection that is rigorously respected by the AAC.

The time period of realisation of this measure is realistic, since it is a routine, daily operation of the institution. The institutional responsibility and financial resources have been defined accurately. The monitoring mechanism is unclear and formulated in a general way, starting from the very nature of the measure, which is general.

6.6.5 Training of the administrative staf f of the AAC on their function duties and European standards*Responsible institution: Albanian Adoption CommitteeDeadline for implementation: 2012 – 2013 (continuing)Status: Implemented

There were three trainings for 2012, with six staff persons being trained in all. However, the institution does not have a well-defined training programme from the beginning of the year.

The administrative staff of the AAC has trained on subjects related to their functional duties and European standards, specifically:

• Training “Adoption of children and problems of judicial practice in adoption proceedings”, 24-25 April 2012, organised by the Magistrates’ School and the Hans-Seidel Foundation.

• Presentation of music therapy for young children, 9 July 2012, organised by Bethany Social Service, Albania.

• Workshop “Public finances and budgeting reforms in the public administration”, organised by RESPA, Budva, Montenegro, 8 – 11 May 2012.

But notwithstanding what has been realised, the number of trainings performed is small and does not fill the needs of an institution that handles such a problem area.

The time period, institutional responsibility and financial resources have been defined

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

concretely and are sufficient. The monitoring and evaluative mechanism has been formulated superficially and insufficiently; the number of trainings, the number of persons trained each year and the thematic areas on which the trainings focus might have been fuller indicators.

6.6.6 Entry into force and implementation of the Hague conventions on obligations to supply food [ for dependents]Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011 (entry into force) and 2011–2013 (implementation) Status: Partially implemented

Because of the evasive formulation and the absence of information from the responsible institution, it is difficult to evaluate its implementation or to understand how many conventions are to enter into force and what they are. From an investigation in the Official Journal, it turns out that two Hague Conventions have been approved and have entered into force on obligations to feed, one in 2011 and the other recently. But we have no information about their implementation. Since the entry into force of those conventions has been realised, and because information is lacking about the second part of the measure, “implementation of the Hague conventions”, the measure is evaluated as partially implemented.

The Republic of Albania is a state party to The Hague Conference on International Law, having adhered to it in 2002 by law no. 8867 dated 14.3.2002 “On the adherence of the Republic of Albania to the charter of The Hague Conference on International Private Law”.

The time period of realisation of this measure is realistic; it has been divided into two time phases: the year 2011 was provided for the first phase for entry into force and another for implementation of the conventions, which has correctly been designated as applicable. The institutional responsibility and financial resources have been defined well. The monitoring mechanism has been expressed correctly, reports on the implementation of the conventions, but those reports are not public and as such, they make it difficult to perform a real evaluation of this measure.

6.6.7 Draf ting and approval of a law “On ratif ication of the Convention ‘On the International Recovery of Child Support and other forms of support for other members of the family’ ”Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011 Status: Implemented (beyond the time period provided)

This convention was approved on 23 November 2007, in the 21st session of The Hague Conference on International Private Law, although it only recently entered into force. It was ratified by the Albanian Parliament with law no. 63/2012 dated 31.5.2012453. The time period, institutional responsibility, resources and indicators have been defined in an appropriate manner.

453. This convention was approved in principle by Council of Ministers Decision no. 385 dated 25. 5.2011.


6.6.8 Ef fective implementation of the international Hague Conference obligations*Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011 – 2013 (continuing)Status: Not implemented

The Hague Conference on International Private Law is an organisation that operates in the field of international private law. It was founded in 1893, with the objective of realising a unification of the rules of private international law, for the purpose of encouraging the resolution of conflicts of laws in various cases within international private law. So far, of the 39 conventions of The Hague Conference, the Republic of Albania has adhered to 10 of them, although from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it turns out that only nine Hague conventions have entered into force in Albania.

The time period is realistic and continuing as per the nature of such a measure. The financial resources have been designated as operating expenses, which is also appropriate for the measure. The indicators have been designated appropriately, but the failure to publish reports of the implementation of the obligations that derive from the conventions does not permit the measure really to be evaluated and measured. The institutions have been defined evasively, leaving it open for any interested institution to be responsible.

6.6.9 Training the staf f of the Ministry of Justice and other actors involved in the process of the international abduction of children and international recovery of child support obligations*Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, Magistrates’ SchoolDeadline for implementation: 2011 – 2013 (continuing) Status: Not implemented

During 2011 – 2012, the Magistrates’ School has realised seven training sessions in its programme for the continuing formation of judges and prosecutors with themes bearing on various issues involving juveniles. However, it is to be stressed that the Magistrates’ School has not had specific trainings with the staff of the Ministry of Justice and other actors dealing with the abduction of children and the international recovery of child support obligations454.

The time for realisation does not seem very realistic, because of the long (three-year) period foreseen for the implementation of this measure. The action plan should include measures that have well-defined time periods and as few continuous measures as possible continuous, except when such a time period is imposed by the very nature of the measure. The institutional responsibilities have been properly defined. The financial resources have been defined as operating expenses. Taking into account the difficulties met by the Magistrates’ School for the financial coverage of its entire training programme, we think that concrete financial costs for this measure could very well have been planned. As with the above measures, the indicator is insufficient; the number of persons trained and the number of trainings for every year would have been a fuller monitoring mechanism.

6.6.10 Planned thematic inspections by the directors of inspecting judges and prosecutors (of the

454. Mariana Semini, Magistrates’ School, director, letter to the Soros Foundation (OSFA) “Returning an answer to your request for information” no. prot 875 dated 10.9.2012.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

44%

21%

35%



PARTIALLY IMPLENTED

NOT BEEN IMPLENTED

Ministry of Justice) in courts and prosecutor’s of f ices to verif y implementation of the law in the case of juveniles in remand Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011 Status: Not implemented

In the absence of information or published data in official sources, the measure has been evaluated as not implemented. Notwithstanding this, a work group has been created by order of the Minister of Justice455 to draft a “Strategy of justice for juveniles” and the respective action plan. The work group should have finished this document by September 2012. It is not understandable why such a measure should be implemented only in one particular year and no further. We accept that the time period is concrete, definite and easily measurable, but such a measure is a routine activity, an ordinary operation of the responsible institutions, and we think it should be continuing rather than limited in time. The responsible institution, resources and indicators have been formulated in a clear and appropriate manner.

5. CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE PROGRESS ACHIEVEDFrom monitoring the progress of implementation of the 71 measures planned for the realisation of strategic objective no. 6, we conclude:

• 44% measures are evaluated as implemented (29), among which 17 measures have a continuing time period beyond the time of monitoring (2013), two measures were implemented late and one measure was implemented ahead of time.

• 21% measures were evaluated as partially implemented (14), among which 10 measures have a continuing time period beyond the time of monitoring (2013).

• 35% measures were evaluated as unimplemented (23), among which 12 measures still have a time period for being performed in 2013.

• 7% measures were not evaluated (5), because their time periods start in 2013, beyond the time periods of this monitoring.

455. Order no. 131 of the Minister of Justice dated 2.4.2012 “On some amendments to order no. 6609 dated 27.9.2011”.


From an evaluation of the time periods of realisation of the concrete measures, it turns out that 56 measures have realistic time periods, whereas 10 measures have unrealistic time periods. It is notable that for this strategic objective, only two measures have been implemented late. This is because a majority of the measures provided have an implementation time period of three years or are continuing measures. Another particularity of this objective is that several measures have been planned with different time periods in this action plan compared to the time periods provided for the same measures in the action plan of the Albanian government for addressing the 12 Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission. This is especially noticeable in the measures for building new remand institutions and prisons, such as Fier, Elbasan and Shkodër (6.2.1, 6.2.3 and 6.2.4), but also those measures that contain the implementation of actions that are functional, routine duties. Eight measures have been planned in this way, and therefore the time period of implementation is continuing. The drafters should avoid planning such measures as much as possible which are functional duties of the state institutions and are routine, ordinary activities.

From the evaluation of the institutional responsibility, in 52 measures they have been identified appropriately and concretely. In only 14 measures have the institutional responsibility been designated more broadly than it should to institutions without responsibility for such measures or main institutional or partner institutions have not been included, depending on the measure. On the whole, the responsibilities of the institutions have been accurately determined for this strategic objective, except for the separation of responsible and partner institutions, such as the international projects that assist in this field. If we analyse the distribution of institutional responsibility, we notice that the Ministry of Justice, as well as several of its dependant institutions, rightly occupies the central role.

From the evaluation of the financial resources foreseen, it turns out that in the 66 measures evaluated, in 60 of them the financial expenses have been defined concretely and appropriately. Only in six measures have the financial resources not been defined properly. This is a positive indicator that directly assists the implementation of those measures. The provision of financial resources for measures that aim at professional capacity-building or infrastructure improvements is essential, because the partial or full realisation of the concrete measure depends on that element. When the monitoring and evaluative mechanisms are assessed, it turns out that in 39 measures the indicators have been expressed in a merely formal, general and insufficient manner, and in several cases, without a logical link to the specific measure. Only in 27 measures have the indicators been defined clearly and concretely. Of 71 total measures, in 45 cases the monitoring mechanisms are quantitative and 26 are qualitative.

The formulation of the monitoring and evaluative mechanisms is not precise and is often superficial and incomplete. In many cases, evaluative mechanisms are the same or similar for different measures. In addition, qualitative indicators have been designated for several measures that should have had quantitative indicators. Furthermore, some indicators have been expressed as objectives. Because of those formulations, the evaluation and monitoring of realisation of the measure, and reference to the supporting documentation, becomes even more difficult.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS We would recommend that the strategic objective be improved by formulating it more simply and taking out the part containing ways to reach the objective, which in fact are specific objectives. Such a better formulation might be: “Consolidation of the democratic state through the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals”.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

For the formulation of the specific objectives, we would suggest:• Specific objective no. 2 should be formulated without mentioning the means for achieving it. More

concretely, it might have been expressed: “respecting the rights of persons convicted or in remand detention as well as improving their treatment”.

• Specific objectives 6.1, 6.4 and 6.5 should be collected in a single objective, because all three have the same focus, improving the execution of judicial decisions and the quality of the bailiff’s service. This would avoid the repetition of several measures in different objectives at the same time.

Concerning the formulation of several of the measures provided, we suggest the following:

• Measure 6.2.6 should have concrete projections for future investments, avoiding clichés and generalities.

• Since measure 6.2.13 repeats measure 6.2.8, they should be combined.• Measure 6.2.15 should be removed, because it repeats measure 6.2.16.

Several recommendations for the addition of measures are:

1. in objective 6.2, we would suggest these measures be addedi. Planning and taking measures for the implementation of educational social programmes. We

propose a time period of one year. The responsible institution would be the GDP. As indicators, quantitative indicators would serve, such as the number of programmes held, and quantitative ones such as the humane treatment of convicted persons and those in remand detention.

ii. Conducting obligatory teaching in penitentiary institutions and monitoring its implementation. The time period of implementation would be 2012 – 2013. The institutions responsible for implementation would be the GDP and the Magistrates’ School. The number of persons attending the lesson would be a relevant quantitative indicator.

iii. Building a psychiatric institution for persons with medical measures. The time period of implementation would be 2012. The responsible institutions for implementation would be the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Health. The capacity of the new institution would be a relevant quantitative indicator.

iv. Building an institution for juveniles who have committed criminal offences but are under the age of criminal responsibility, for the implementation of education measures by the court. The time period of implementation would be 2012. The institution responsible for implementation would be the Ministry of Justice. The capacity offered by the new institution would be a relevant quantitative indicator.

2. in objective 6.3 we would suggest the following measure be added:i. Implementation of the law on electronic supervision. The time period of implementation would

be 2013. The responsible institutions would be the Ministry of Justice, the Probation Service and the Twinning Project. The number of persons under electronic supervision would be considered a quantitative indicator.

3. in objective 6.6 we suggest the following measure be added:i. Approval and implementation of a criminal justice strategy for juveniles. The time period of

implementation would be 2012 – 2013. The responsible institution would be the Ministry of Justice, with UNICEF and other actors as partner institutions. The approval of the Strategy would serve quite well as a measurable indicator.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

LawS and SubordInate LegaL aCtS:Council of Ministers Decision no. 519 dated 20.7.2011 “On the approval of the cross-cutting Justice Strategy and its action plan”, Official Journal no. 116/ 2011, p. 4579.

Council of Ministers Instruction dated 18.8.2011, “On determining the manner of execution of the monetary obligations of budgetary institutions in treasury accounts”, http://www.km.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=15332

Law no. 63/2012 dated 31.5.2012 “On ratification of the convention “On international recovery of child support and other forms of support of other members of the family”, published in Official Journal no. 72/2012, 28 June.

Order no. 140 of the Prime Minister dated 1.7.2010 “On the approval of the structure and personnel chart of the probation service”; see www.km.gov.al.

Order of the Minister of Justice, no. prot 3369/3 dated 18.6.2012 “On determining the location and territorial competences of the local offices of the probation service”.

doCuMentS/offICIaL LetterS froM tHe reSponSIbLe InStItutIonS:B. Gjerazi, GDP [General Directorate of Prisons], Plan of the training centre for trainings for 2012, e-mail of 21.9.2012.

Denion Mejdani, Director of the Internal Control Service of the Prisons, director, letter “Response to your letter of 19.7.2012 “Request for information – implementation of the action plan of the Cross-Cutting Justice Strategy for the period July 2011 – 2012”, no. prot 591 dated 24.8.2012, to the Soros Foundation (OSFA).

Ministry of Justice, letter to the AAC [Albanian Adoption Committee] “On some additions and amendments to order no. 4763/1 dated 8.6.2009 “On approving the internal rules of the Albanian Adoption Committee”, no. prot. 50/1 dated 3.2.3012.

Ela Qokaj, Magistrates’ School, chancellor, letter to the Soros Foundation, no. prot 875 dated 10.9.2012.

MeetIngS/e-MaILS:B. Gjerazi, GDP, press sector, information about trainings of the training centre held in 2011, meeting and e-mail of 21.9.2012.

Roza Çakëri, GDPS [General Directorate of the Probation Service], director of inspection and community services, information about the Twinning Project “Support for the Albanian Probation Service”, e-mail of 7.09. 2012.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

Pal Metaj, director of the State General Enforcement Directorate and Plator Bilibashi, director of inspection, meeting, 23.09.2012.Edlira Gjonaj, General Directorate of the State Bailiff ’s Service, e-mail of 1.112012.Helena Papa, coordinator at the Department of Internal Administrative and Anti-Corruption Control (DIAAC), e-mail of 3.09.2012.

Marieta Zaçe, Albanian Adoption Committee [AAC], chairman of the AAC and G. Terpo, jurist of the institution, meeting, 24.09.2012.

G. Terpo, AAC, jurist of the institution, e-mail of 25.09.2012.

Alba Jorganxhi, OSCE Presence in Tirana, e-mail of 28.09.2012.

Orinda Gjoni, CILPS [Centre for Integrated Legal Practices and Services], director of projects, and Naureda Bajraktari, interview dated 21.09.2012.

JudICIaL deCISIonS:Constitutional Court Decision no. 48 dated 26.7.2012, applicant Ilir Shijaku, interested subjects Ministry of the Economy, Trade and Energy, private bailiff ’s company EPSA sh.p.k., General Directorate of the Treasury, http://www.gjk.gov.al/templates/NEModules/kerkese_list/konsulto.php?id_kerkesa_vendimi=1248&language=Lng1

Constitutional Court Decision no. 49 dated 26.7.2012, applicant Pëllumb Qeska, interested subjects Municipality of Korça, bailiff ’s service of Korça sh. p. k, General Directorate of the Treasury,http://www.gjk.gov.al/templates/NEModules/kerkese_l ist/konsulto.php?id_kerkesa_vendimi=1249&language=Lng1

reportS:Ministry of Justice, Report 2011 to the Department of Internal Administrative and Anticorruption Control (DIAAC).

Ministry of Integration, Annual Progress Report 2012, Albanian contribution, 2012 Report, - Input II, May – August, September 2012.

Ministry of Integration, Report on the implementation of the action plan for meeting the 12 recommendations of the opinion of the European Commission for Albania – October 2012, http://www.mie.gov.al/

Ministry of Integration, “Report on the implementation of the action plan addressing the recommendations of the EC Opinion for Albania”, June – July 2012, http://mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2042

Ministry of Integration, Report on implementation of the action plan for meeting the 12 recommendations of the opinion of the European Commission for Albania – April 2012, http://www.mie.gov.al/


Ministry of Integration, “Report on the implementation of the action plan addressing the recommendations of the EC Opinion for Albania”, May 2012, http://mie.gov.al/previewdoc.php?file_id=2017Albanian Helsinki Committee, Annual Report of Activity for 2010, http://www.ahc.org.al/doc/Raporti%20Vjetor%202010%20_Shqip_.pdf

People’s Advocate, “Special report, activity of the People’s Advocate and level of implementation of the 12th Recommendation of the Opinion of the European Commission on Albania”, April 2012. http://www.avokatipopullit.gov.al/Raporte/Raport%2012%20KE.pdf

EU Twinning Project, “Quarterly reports no. 1 – 5”, supplied by e-mail, 21.06. 2012 from the General Directorate of the Probation Service.

Albanian Centre for Rehabilitation against Trauma and Torture (ACRTT), “Alternative Report of the Albanian Centre for Rehabilitation against Trauma and Torture”, April 2012.

Ministry of Integration, “Action Plan addressing the recommendations of the European Commission Opinion for Albania” approved by the Council of Ministers on 21.3.2012. Accessed at web site http://www.mie.gov.al/

General Directorate of Prisons, “The Albanian prison system”, second publication, April 2012,http://www.GDPsh.gov.al/?fq=brenda&gj=gj1&kid=40

Albanian Helsinki Committee (AHC), “Monitoring report about the situation of respect for human rights, 2011”, published April 2012.

Ministry of Justice, “Response of the Albanian state, based on the CPT [Commission for Prevention of Torture of the Council of Europe] report from its visit to Albania on 10 – 21 May 2010”, published in Strasbourg, 20 March 2012, http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/alb/2012-11-inf-eng.pdf

European Institute of Tirana (EIT), “Report of monitoring visit to the IECD on “Jordan Misja” St. (313), Tirana, http://iet-eit.org/al/pdf/Raport%20313.pdf

EIT, “Report of monitoring visit to the IECD, Tropoja” http://iet-eit.org/al/pdf/Raporti%20Tropoje%202012.pdf

EIT, “Report of monitoring the institution of juveniles, Kavaja”, 20.06.2012; for more seehttp://www.iet-eit.org/al/pdf/Kavaja%20monitorim%202012.pdf

EIT, Monitoring report, 2011, http://www.iet-eit.org/al/pdf/Raporti%20i%20Monitorimit%202011.pdf

General Prosecutor’s Office, “Annual statistics according to criminal offences for 2011”, accessed on the web page www.pp.gov.al

Official Publication Centre (OPC), Official Journal no. 116 dated 18 August 2011 “Action plan for the cross-cutting justice strategy”, CoM decision no. 519 dated 20.7.2011, Tirana.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

GDPS, “Intermediate four month report of the Twinning Project, no. 1”, e-mail, Roza Çakëri, director of inspection and community services, 7 September 2012.Probation Service, bulletin no. 2, 2011, GDPS, Tirana, 2012.

notIfICatIonS:European Delegation in Tirana, tender procedures for construction of the Elbasan institution, https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/europeaid/online-services/index.cfm?do=publi.ëelcome&nbPubliList=15&orderby=upd&orderbyad=Desc&searchtype=RS&aofr=129129

Public Procurement Agency, announcements of tender procedures, www.app.gov.al

Summary of main developments in the prison system during 2011/2012, web page of the General Directorate of Prisons http://www.GDPsh.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=shfaqart&aid=294

Training with new employees of the probation service, web page of the probation service http://www.sherbimiproves.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=shfaqart&aid=48

General statistics, web page of the Albanian Adoption Committee, http://www.komitetibiresimeve.com.al/?fq=statistika

Minutes of a meeting of the commission of legal issues and human rights, meeting dated 23.5.2012, www.parlament.al

Agreement between the Albanian Government and the European Commission, announcement on the website of the Ministry of Finance http://www.minfin.gov.al/minfin/pub/framework_agreement_1493_1.pdf

Capacity building, AHC [Albanian Helsinki Committee], http://www.ahc.org.al/al.php?mid=4&type=39

OSCE Presence in Albania gives computers and trains the staff of the internal control service of prisons in the Ministry of Justice, Internet announcement, 20.07.2012, http://www.osce.org/sq/albania/92320

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, information about conventions, http://www.mfa.gov.al/dokumenta/konventat%20e%20hcch_copy_1.pdf

Ministry of Justice, press statement “Elbasan remand centre inaugurated”, 2.10.2012, accessed athttp://www.justice.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=8016&gj=gj1

Delegation of the European Union in Tirana,https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/europeaid/online-services/index.cfm?do=publi.welcome&nbPubliList=15&orderby=upd&orderbyad=Desc&searchtype=RS&aofr=129129


NO.7

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

7

OB

JEC

TIV

E

Strategic ObJectiVe nO. 7:good functioning of the system through investments in the infrastructure of the courts and the prosecutor’s offices, as well as working conditions (normal)

1. ANALYSIS OF THE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVETo reform the justice system with the final purpose of strengthening its independence, responsibility and efficiency, it is essential to improve and modernise the infrastructure, both in the aspect of equipment as well as information technology (IT). Especially current and of high priority is the implementation of measures to modernise functional aspects of the conduct of judicial activity, for appropriate infrastructure, working conditions, security, access of the public to the courts and so forth.

From this point of view, strategic objective no. 7 constitutes an important part of the commitment and support that is required in the framework of the importance that this process has to increase efficacy in the justice system. This objective summarises clearly the challenge for which there is a need for a real and effective improvement in the justice system.

In every component, as well as in every sector of the justice system, it can be seen that modernising the infrastructure has also been planned in other objectives. Specifically, modernisation of the infrastructure of the justice system is also mentioned in specific objective 3.8 (under strategic objective no. 3), which provides for “Improving the electronic infrastructure of the courts and prosecutors’ offices”, accompanied by the planning of concrete measures for the realisation of that objective.

Specific objective 3.8 provides for improving only one element of the whole infrastructure of the courts and prosecutors’ offices, that is, their electronic infrastructure, and it would be better for the major objective of improving all the infrastructure elements of the courts and prosecutors’ offices to be included in a single objective and not to be scattered among several specific objectives. This would make the objective easier to check, easier to manage and consequently, also with more efficacious results.

Improving the infrastructure of different sectors of the justice system has been scattered in several strategic objectives. Thus, in addition to this strategic objective no. 7 and specific objective 3.8 mentioned above, strategic objective no. 6 also contains many measures of an infrastructure nature for improving the penitentiary system and the bailiff’s offices. In this situation, it is judge more beneficial for all those objectives to be included in a single strategic objective, extending strategic objective no.7 so that it will cover, besides the courts and prosecutors’ offices, improving the infrastructure of the entire justice system.

Improving the infrastructure of all the sectors of the justice system aims at increasing the performance of the system as a whole. In this sense, the inclusion of all infrastructure measures in a single strategic objective is a better organisation of the work to reach the major objective, that of increasing the quality of the activity of the justice system.


2. ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES The specific objectives provided for the realisation of strategic objective no. 7 respond to the purpose of those who drafted the action plan, that is, the good functioning of the justice system through investments in the infrastructure of the courts and prosecutors’ offices. The specific objectives are clear and their realisation has a direct connection to the realisation of the strategic objective.

However, because the purpose of infrastructure improvements in the justice system is scattered among several strategic objectives, the measures to be undertaken need to be re-organised into a single specific objective. This will make it easier and quicker to manage and realise them, and consequently, it will be more efficacious.

It is noted in addition that several specific objectives have been formulated as measures. For example, specific objective 7.3 should have been more general; it has been formulated as a measure.

7.1 For investing further in the courts and prosecutor’s offices (normal)This specific objective is in conformity with and addresses the realisation of the strategic objective for infrastructure investments. It has been drafted in a general way, including investing in the improvement of several courts as well as in improving office furnishing and courtrooms in 40 courts.

That is, this specific objective has been provided precisely and concretely. But since specific objective 1, through the measures provided to be undertaken, is devoted entirely to investments in the courts, only investing in the courts, and not in the prosecutors’ offices, should be mentioned in its formulation. Investments in the prosecutors’ offices are included in specific objective 2.

7.2 For improving the working conditions and premises in the prosecutors’ offices (normal)Specific objective 2 provides for improving infrastructure in this sector of the justice system. It, as well, has been formulated concretely.

7.3 Constructing the administrative court (normal)Specific objective 3 provides for the construction of an administrative court. The construction of such a court is in conformity not only with the strategic objective for the good functioning of the system through infrastructure investments in the courts, but its construction comes at the proper time after the approval of the law “On the adjudication of administrative disputes”, thus creating real possibilities for the judicial power to handle administrative trials from the viewpoint of the physical infrastructure.

This objective has been provided by itself, apparently because of the importance with which the establishment and construction of the administrative courts has been evaluated, but we think that it could have been included in specific objective 7.1 and not left on its own. The inclusion of the construction of the administrative court in specific objective 7.1 flows naturally, since the putting the administrative court into function has been included in specific objective 1.4.

7.4 Improving working conditions in the courts (normal) Specific objective 4 provides for improving the working conditions in the courts. This specific objective

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

7

OB

JEC

TIV

E

as well addresses the aim of the strategic objective in an exact, clear and concrete way. Since this specific objective is expected to be implemented only by a measure that is the monitoring of the courts where audio registration of the judicial sessions is being done, it might have been included in specific objective 3.8, so that the entire electronic infrastructure might have been collected in a single specific objective. As also mentioned above, it would be better for all the planning for infrastructure improvement in the justice system to have been collected in a single objective.

3. EVALUATION OF THE ACTIONS PLANNED TO ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVESIn connection with the measures planned to be undertaken, it is observed that most of the measures planned under this strategic objective are measures of a capacity-building nature, in the form of infrastructure improvements (29 measures). Only one measure is of a regulatory nature, whereas all the monitoring and evaluative mechanisms are of a quantitative nature (30). The measures provided to be undertaken are generally in harmony with the specific objectives and respond to the need of realisation of those objectives.

7.1 For investing further in the courts and prosecutor’s offices (normal)The actions provided for the realisation of this specific objective provide for undertaking measures for further investments in the courts, thus projecting and aiming at improving the infrastructure of the courts and as a consequence the good functioning of the judicial system as a whole.

Those measures go from the drawing up of construction plans and the preparation of studies up to the furnishing of the courtrooms and judicial offices. The actions that are to be undertaken have been provided in a clear and concrete manner. All the measures are of a capacity-building nature (19 measures) and have a clear effect on achieving the specific objective.

7.2 For improving the working conditions and premises in the prosecutors’ offices (normal)The actions that are to be undertaken in implementation of specific objective 2 relate to the contraction of new buildings for several prosecutors’ offices of the districts and the re-construction of several other buildings of the prosecutors’ offices in the districts. Those actions as well respond to specific objective 2. Eight planned measures are of a capacity-building nature under this objective.

7.3 Constructing the administrative court (normal)The measures provided for realisation of this objective include the approval of a law and the completion of the subordinate legal framework as well as the realisation of the study projecting the administrative court. Referring to the strategic objective and the specific objective, it turns out that the measures proposed for the approval of the law and the completion of the subordinate legal framework do not directly address the aims of the strategic objective or the specific objective. Since strategic objective no. 7 foresees the improvement of infrastructure in the courts, then only the measure for realising the projecting study responds to this objective. On the other hand, putting the administrative court into function, which should also include the approval of the legal and subordinate legal framework, has been provided as part of another objective, no. 4, thus creating an unnecessary overlap. That is, only the realisation of the projecting study should be included in specific objective 7.3 and not the


completion of the legal and subordinate legal framework. One measure of a regulatory nature and one measure of a capacity-building nature have been provided in objective 7.3.

7.4 Improving working conditions in the courts (normal) Specific objective 4 provides, as a measure to be undertaken, the monitoring of the courts where audio recording of criminal sessions is being done, that is, the monitoring of the courts but without providing the courts where it will be realised or the time and length of this monitoring.

Only one measure, of a routine, capacity-building nature, has been planned under this objective.

The specific objective seems broader than the single measure provided to be undertaken in realising this objective. If the objective continues to be the improvement of working conditions in the courts, then more is required than the monitoring of several courts where audio recording of criminal sessions is taking place.

4. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF THE IM-PLEMENTATION OF EVERY ACTION/MEASURE PROVIDED

Specific objective 1: Investing further in the courts and prosecutors’ offices

7.1.1 Drawing up a project construction plan for implementation of new buildings of the High Court and the courts of the Berat, Fier and Kukës judicial districtsResponsible institution: Office of Administration of the Judicial Budget (OAJB) and the respective courtsDeadline for implementation: April 2011- October 2012Status: Not implemented

The construction plan for the courts of the districts has not yet been projected, whereas the High Court will be part of the Palace of Justice and consequently the time period for this building has been postponed456.

In connection with measure 7.1.1, the responsible institutions have been planned correctly, since on the basis of the legal framework, it is the office that administers the budget of the courts and the investments made in the court have to pass through it457. The financial resources for realisation of this measure have been defined concretely. It is difficult to determine whether the amount designated for realisation of the measure and the object of the measure are appropriate. But it remains important to emphasise that the financial resources have been determined concretely and have not been left evasive.

The time periods defined for realisation of the measure seem reasonable. A period of 18 months for projecting the construction plan for the planned court buildings seems more than sufficient. The monitoring mechanisms have been formulated as actions and not as indicators, and furthermore, they are not complete. That is, there might be more indicators that would assist in evaluating and monitoring the measure, such as, for example, dividing the monitoring into time phases, the

456. Telephone communication with Ms. Laerta Poda, head of budget sector in the OAJB, 29.09.2012.457. According to article 1 of law no. 8363 dated 1.7.1998 “On the creation of the office for administration of the judicial budget” the OAJB is created for the administration of the budget of the courts.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

7

OB

JEC

TIV

E

submission of periodic reports on the progress of drawing up the projects and so forth.

7.1.2 Drawing up a project construction plan for re-construction of the court buildings of the Lezha and Tropoja districtsResponsible institution: OAJB and the respective courtsDeadline for implementation: April 2011 – October 2012Status: Not implemented458

For measure 7.1.2, which is in the same form as the prior measure, the responsible institutions have been properly planned, since the management of the budgets for investments in the courts has been left mainly to the OAJB.

The financial resources for realisation of this measure have been defined in a concrete manner. It is difficult to determine the appropriateness for measuring of the amount designated for realising the measure, but it remains important to stress that the financial resources have been defined concretely and not left evasive.

The time periods defined for realising the measure seem reasonable. A period of 18 months for drawing up plans for court buildings planned to be built seems more than sufficient.

The monitoring mechanisms have been formulated as actions and not as indicators, and furthermore, they are not complete. There should be more guarantees for the successful management of the concrete measure. That is, there might be more indicators, such as, for example, dividing the monitoring into phases, the submission of periodic reports about the process of drawing up the projects and so forth.

7.1.3 Preparation of a feasibility study for the construction of a new court of Tirana Responsible institution: Delegation of the European Union Deadline for implementation: 2011Status: Not implemented

This building will be part of the Palace of Justice and therefore other time periods have been determined. More concretely, according to the action plan, the Palace of Justice will be finished in 2015459. According to the Minister of Justice, initially the court of first instance and the Tirana Court of Appeal will be placed in the Palace of Justice, as well as the administrative court of first instance and that of appeal of Tirana460.

The EU Delegation has been defined as the responsible institution for realisation of this measure as its financial support. Even in this case, the office that will administer the budget, regardless of the sources of financing, should be the OAJB. However, this depends on an eventual agreement between the Albanian government and the EU Delegation. The financial resources for realising this measure have been defined concretely, but it is not possible to determine whether the designated amount is appropriate for realising the measure.

458. Telephone communication with Ms. Laerta Poda, head of budget sector in the OAJB, 29.09.2012.459. The action plan for addressing the 12 recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania, 21 March 2012, p. 61, http://www.mie.gov.al/460. Based on information published in the media, http://www.top-channel.tv/artikull.php?id=223604


The time period determined for realisation of the measure seems not to be sufficient. Putting it only in one year (2011) and not a period of time within which this measure should be realised makes the time period unclear, all the more since the Strategy was approved in the second half of 2011. The monitoring and evaluative mechanisms of the project have been correctly determined, but nevertheless, they are simple and incomplete. There should be more guarantees for successfully managing the realisation of the concrete measure. For example, there could be more indicators such as the contract with the EU Delegation, the separation of monitoring into time phases, the submission of periodic reports about the process of the project drafting and so forth.

7.1.4 Construction of a new building for the High Court* Responsible institution: OAJB and the respective courts.Deadline for implementation: May 2012 – November 2013Status: Not implemented

As mentioned for measure 7.1.1, this building will be part of the Palace of Justice, that is, its construction has been postponed for other time periods.

So far as concerns the evaluation of the provisions made for the responsible institution, the time periods, the financial resources and the monitoring mechanisms, all the arguments cited for measure 7.1.1 also apply here.

7.1.5 Construction of a new building for the court of appeal, Shkodër*Responsible institution: OAJB and the respective courtsDeadline for implementation: April 2012 – November 2013Status: Not implemented461

Based on information received from the OAJB, this measure has not yet been implemented. However, there is still time for its realisation, up to November 2013.

The measures provided under specific objective 7.1 have the same nature: infrastructure improvements related to the construction of new buildings or reconstruction of existing buildings in various courts. Those measures have foreseen, in an almost identical manner, the same responsible institutions, financial resources, time periods and monitoring and evaluative mechanisms. To avoid repetition, the evaluations for those four elements (institutional responsibility, time periods, resources and monitoring mechanisms) will not be done measure by measure, but are the same as the evaluations for measure 7.1.1.

7.1.6 Construction of a new building for the Shkodër district court*Responsible institution: OAJB and the respective courtsDeadline for implementation: April 2012 – November 2013Status: Not implemented462

461. Telephone communication and e-mail with Ms. Laerta Poda, head of budget sector in the OAJB, 29.09.2012.462. Telephone communication and e-mail with Ms. Laerta Poda, head of budget sector in the OAJB, 29.09.2012.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

7

OB

JEC

TIV

E

Based on information received from the OAJB, this measure has not yet been implemented. However, it should be stressed that there is still time for realising it, up to November 2013.

7.1.7 Construction of a new building for the Elbasan district court* Responsible institution: OAJB and the respective courtsDeadline for implementation: April 2012 – November 2013Status: Not implemented463

Based on information received from the OAJB, this measure has not yet been implemented. However, there is still time for realising it, up to November 2013.

7.1.8 Construction of a new building for the Fier district court Responsible institution: OAJB and the respective courtsDeadline for implementation: April 2013 – November 2014Status:

The time period for this measure begins in April 2013, so its Deadline for implementation cannot be measured in the phase over which the monitoring period of this report extends.

7.1.9 Construction of a new building for the Berat district courtResponsible institution: OAJB and the respective courtsDeadline for implementation: May 2013 – November 2014Status:

The time period for this measure begins in May 2013, so its Deadline for implementation cannot be measured in the phase over which the monitoring period of this report extends.

7.1.10 Construction of a new building for the Kukës district courtResponsible institution: OAJB and the respective courtsDeadline for implementation: May 2013 – November 2014Status:

The time period for this measure begins in May 2013, so its Deadline for implementation cannot be measured in the phase over which the monitoring period of this report extends.

7.1.11 Full reconstruction of the building of the Vlora district courtResponsible institution: OAJB and the respective courtsDeadline for implementation: June 2010 – June 2011Status: Implemented464

Based on information received from the OAJB, this measure has been implemented.



7.1.12 Adaptation of the former building of the Officer’s Home for the new building of the court of the Pogradec judicial districtResponsible institution: OAJB and the respective courtsDeadline for implementation: March 2011 – November 2012Status: Implemented

The second phase has been concluded for the reconstruction of the Pogradec courthouse building. The contraction finished on time, and the Pogradec court was inaugurated at the beginning of December465.

7.1.13 Full reconstruction of the courthouse of the Gjirokastër district*Responsible institution: OAJB and the respective courtsDeadline for implementation: April 2012 – September 2013Status: Partially implemented

This court has announced the winner, and work is going on for the reconstruction466. Whilst this measure has been only partially implemented, it bears mentioning that there is still a time period left for finishing it completely, up to September 2013.

7.1.14 Full reconstructions of the courthouse of the Puka districtResponsible institution: OAJB and the respective courtsDeadline for implementation: April 2013 – November 2013Status:

The court of the Puka district has finished evaluating the bidders, and the announcement of the winner is expected.

Since the time period of this measure starts in April 2013, the time of its realisation cannot be measured in the phase over which the monitoring period of this report extends.

7.1.15 Reconstruction of the building of the Tropoja district courtResponsible institution: OAJB and the respective courtsDeadline for implementation: May 2013 – November 2013Status:

The time period for this measure starts in May 2013, and therefore, the time of its realisation cannot be measures in the phase over which the monitoring period of this report extends.

7.1.16 Reconstruction of the building of the Laç district courtResponsible institution: OAJB and the respective courtsDeadline for implementation: April 2013 – November 2013Status:

465. Telephone communication and e-mail with Ms. Laerta Poda, head of budget sector in the OAJB, 29.09.2012. For more information about the inauguration, see the press statement of the Ministry of Justice, http://www.justice.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=8055&gj=gj1 466. Telephone communication and e-mail with Ms. Laerta Poda, head of budget sector in the OAJB, 29.09.2012.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

7

OB

JEC

TIV

E

The time period for this measure starts in April 2013, and therefore, the time of its realisation cannot be measures in the phase over which the monitoring period of this report extends.

7.1.17 Addition to the building of the Lezha district courtResponsible institution: OAJB and the respective courtsDeadline for implementation: April 2013 – November 2013Status:

The time period for this measure starts in April 2013, and therefore, the time of its realisation cannot be measures in the phase over which the monitoring period of this report extends.

7.1.18 Furniture for the courtrooms and judicial offices, realising the necessary completions for 18 courtsFurniture for the courtrooms and judicial offices, realising the necessary completions for 13 courts Furniture for the courtrooms and judicial offices, realising the necessary completions for 9 courts*Responsible institution: OAJB and the respective courtsDeadline for implementation: January 2011 – September 2013Status: Implemented

We have been informed by the Office of Administration of the Judicial Budget that all those measures have ended. Thus, this measure has been concluded, before the time period established467.

The financial resources for the realisation of this measure have been defined concretely and are divided by years. It is difficult to determine whether the amount defined for realisation of the measure with its object is appropriate, but can be emphasised that the financial resources have been defined concretely and not left evasive.

The time periods defined for the realisation of the measure seem reasonable. The realisation has been divided into three years, probably depending on the budget provided by the Ministry of Finance.

7.1.19 Installation of security elements in seven courts*Responsible institution: OAJB and the respective courtsDeadline for implementation: January 2011 – September 2013Status: Implemented

According to communications with the Office of Administration of the Judicial Budget, all those measures have been completed. As with the measure above, we can say that the measure was concluded ahead of the time foreseen468.

For this measure too, the financial resources have been defined in an appropriate manner, divided into years. The defined time period seems reasonable. The realisation of this measure has been divided into three years, again, probably depending on the budget provided by the Ministry of Finance.



Specific objective 2: Improving the working conditions and premises in the prosecutors’ offices

a. New buildings:7.2.1. Construction of a new building for the prosecutor’s office of the Korça districtResponsible institution: Prosecutor’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Implemented (beyond the time period provided)

The building of the prosecutor’s office of Korça has been concluded, and delivery is awaited. This building was completed later than 2011, the time when its completion was planned469.

In connection with measure 7.2.1, the Prosecutor’s Office has properly been designated the responsible institution for realisation of the measure. The financial resources to realise the measure have been defined concretely, in conformity with the financial plans in the Medium-Term Budget Plan. The time period determined for realisation of the measure seems insufficient. Establishing only one year (2011) and not the period within which the measure should be realised makes the time period currently set unclear.

The monitoring and evaluative measures of the project are good and fuller than those for the prior measures, because reporting to the Ministry of Finance every three months has been planned.

7.2.2. Construction of a new building for the prosecutor’s office of the Shkodër districtResponsible institution: Prosecutor’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: 2011 – 2012 Status: Not implemented

The investment in constructing a new building for the Shkodër prosecutor’s office has not been planned for financing until 2015470.

The institutional responsibility, the financial resources and the monitoring mechanisms have been determined concretely and clearly. The time periods established for realising the measure seem reasonable. The time period should have been clearer, but evaluating it as a full calendar year, the time seems sufficient for building a new prosecutor’s office.

7.2.3. Construction of a new building for the prosecutor’s office of the Vlora district*Responsible institution: Prosecutor’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: 2012 – 2013Status: Partially implemented

a new prosecutor’s office for the district of Vlora will not be built, because an additional floor has been added to the existing building471.

The institutional responsibility, financial resources and monitoring mechanisms have been defined

469. E-mail from Ms. Edlira Jorgaqi, as representative for information from the Economic and Finance Directorate of the General Prosecutor’s Office, 21.09.2012.470. E-mail from Ms. Edlira Jorgaqi, as representative for information from the Economic and Finance Directorate of the General Prosecutor’s Office, 21.09.2012.471. Id.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

7

OB

JEC

TIV

E

concretely and clearly. In addition, so far as concerns the time period planned for realisation of this measure, the same argument as for the prior measure 7.2.2 is also valid.

b. Reconstructions:7.2.4 Buildings of the prosecutor’s offices in the districts of Gjirokastër, Fier, Mat, Lushnja, Kukës and the General Prosecutor’s OfficeResponsible institution: Prosecutor’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Partially implemented (beyond the time period provided)

The reconstruction of the prosecutors’ offices in the districts of Fier, Mat and Kukës has concluded. The reconstruction of the other prosecutors’ offices will not be realised until 2015, because the Ministry of Finance has not planned any funds for financing them472.

The institutional responsibility, financial resources and monitoring mechanisms have been defined in a clear and appropriate manner. The time period planned for realising this measure insufficient. It is unclear to have only one year (2011) and not a period of time for realising the measure.

7.2.5 Reconstruction of the archive of the prosecutor’s office in the Kukës districtResponsible institution: Prosecutor’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: 2012Status: Not implemented

The other prosecutors’ office will not be reconstructed until 2015, since no fund has been planned by the Ministry of Finance for this473.

The institutional responsibility, financial resources and monitoring mechanisms have been defined in a clear and appropriate manner. So far as concerns the time period planned for realising this measure, the same argument is valid as for the above measure 7.2.4.

7.2.6 Building a prosecutor’s office in the Kurbin districtResponsible institution: Prosecutor’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: 2012Status: Not implemented

For this measure too, the same argument is valid as for measure 7.2.5.

7.2.7 Building a prosecutor’s office of the Gjirokastër district*Responsible institution: Prosecutor’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: 2013Status: Not implemented

472. Op. cit., note 15.473. E-mail from Ms. Edlira Jorgaqi, as representative for information from the Economic and Finance Directorate of the General Prosecutor’s Office, 21.09.2012.


The other prosecutors’ offices will not be reconstructed until 2015, because the Ministry of Finance has not planned any funds for financing reconstruction474.

The institutional responsibility, financial resources and monitoring mechanisms have been defined in a clear and appropriate manner. So far as concerns the time period planned for realising this measure, it is insufficient. Having only one year (2013) and not a period of time for realising the measure makes the time period that has been set unclear. Under those conditions, with it being claimed that the beginning of realisation of the measure will be before 2013 (the time period established in the plan), this measure has been evaluated as not implemented, but it is noted that there is still time to realise it.

7.2.8 Building the prosecutor’s office of the Pogradec district*Responsible institution: Prosecutor’s OfficeDeadline for implementation: 2013Status: Not implemented

Reconstruction of the other prosecutors’ office will not be realised until 2015, since no fund has been planned by the Ministry of Finance for this475. The comments on institutional responsibility, time periods, resources and indicators are the same as for the above measure.

Specific objective 3: Constructing the administrative court

7.3.1 Approval of the law Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2011Status: Implemented (beyond the time period provided)

The law “On the organisation and functioning of the administrative courts and the adjudication of administration disputes” was approved by the Assembly of Albania in May 2012476. For more information about this measure, reference is made to strategic objective no.1 (measure 1.4.1) and no. 3 (measure 3.1.2).

This measure has been separated from the following measures (completion of the subordinated legal framework) notwithstanding that they have been put in the action plan as a single measure, because the time periods and budgets for each of them are separate. This confusion needs to be clarified by the drafters of the action plan.

In connection with measure 7.3.1, the responsible institution has been defined as it should be, that is, the Ministry of Justice has the authority and responsibility for drafting the legal framework for realisation of this measure. The financial resources have been defined in a concrete manner, notwithstanding that it is difficult to define whether those resources are appropriate for realising it. The time period has turned out to be insufficient (in fact, the law was approved in 2012). The monitoring of implementation

474. Up to the time of compilation of this report, the Ministry of Finance had not responded to give more detailed information about these measures. Letter with prot. no. 290/2012 dated 13 July 2012.475. E-mail from Ms. Edlira Jorgaqi, as representative for information from the Economic and Finance Directorate of the General Prosecutor’s Office, 21.09.2012.476. Law no. 49/2012 dated 3 May 2012 “On the organisation and functioning of the administrative courts and the adjudication of administrative disputes”.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

7

OB

JEC

TIV

E

of this measure would be simple if the time period were to have been divided into several sub-periods that corresponded to the different phases of the legislative process.

The monitoring and evaluative mechanisms are very broad and do not check the process of realisation of the measure. There should be more elements that show its progress, such as, for example, meetings of work groups for drafting the law, consultations by local and international consultants, the submission of different variants, final approval of the law and so forth.

7.3.2 Completion of the subordinate legal frameworkResponsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2012Status: Not implemented

The progress of establishing administrative courts and completing the respective subordinate legal framework is also related to, and is dependent on, the approval in the Assembly of the law “On the organisation and functioning of the High Court”. As also mentioned above, this measure has also been repeated in strategic objective no. 3, and for more information, reference is made to measure 3.1.2.

The arguments related to institutional responsibility, time period, financial resources and monitoring mechanisms of this measure are the same as those described in the above measure.

7.3.3 Realisation of the project study* Responsible institution: Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: 2013Status: Implemented

On the official Internet page of the Ministry of Justice, work for the construction of the administrative court is said to have begun and is expected to be completed by the end of 2012477. This means that the project study should have been completed. However, in the materials send from the Office of Administration of the Judicial Budget, there is no information about this measure478. Notwithstanding the absence of information from the Ministry of Justice, considering information made public, it is judged that this measure has been realised before the time period planned in the action plan.

The responsible institution for realising this measure has been determined to be the Ministry of Justice. However, in this case a better responsible institution would have been the OAJB, since the administration of the budget of the courts, including the realisation of the project study for the administrative court, is its duty.

The financial resources have been defined concretely, although it is difficult to determine whether those resources are appropriate for the realisation of this measure. The time period has not been defined correctly, because a single time, the year 2013, has been set, which is probably thought to be the ending period of the realisation of this measure. The lack of clarity in the time of starting implementation of the measure might bring confusion to the implementing institutions. The situation would be more efficacious and more manageable if more concrete time periods had been established for realising each

477. http://www.justice.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=8002 478. Luljeta Laze, OAJB, director, letter ‘Information about implementation of the action plan of Recommendation 7 of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania”, prot. no. 924/1, 31.07.2012.


phase of the measure.The monitoring and evaluative mechanisms are very broad and do not check the process of realisation of the measure. There should be more elements that show the progress of the measure, such as, for example, reports about the progress of drafting the study and so forth.

Specific objective 4: Improving working conditions in the courts

7.4.1 Monitoring the courts where audio recording of criminal sessions is being realised*Responsible institution: High Council of Justice (HCJ), USAIDDeadline for implementation: 2012 – 2013Status: Partially implemented

According to information received from the High Council of Justice479, the Ministry of Justice is the institution that will organise monitoring in the courts where the audio system has been installed. In the absence of information from the latter, and based on the periodic reports of the Ministry of Integration, we have information only about the progress of the project of installing that equipment in three courts, respectively: in Korça, Durrës and Lezha480.

However, according to reports of the JuST project of USAID, which is financing this project, as of the moment when this report was completed the court of appeal for serious crimes, the Durrës court of appeal and the court of the Kavaja judicial district began in the fall to implement the audio system in criminal proceedings. The technical equipment has been installed in those courts and the staff has been trained. Together with the district courts of Durrës, Lezha and Korça, as well as the Korça court of appeal, the project has been implemented in seven courts and 29 courtrooms. Up to the end of the year it is foreseen that the project will be realised in the jurisdiction of the Durrës and Korça courts of appeal481.

The institutions responsible for realising the measure have been determined to be the HCJ and USAID. Based on the above information, the inspection and monitoring of the courts with the audio recording will be done by the Ministry of Justice. This being the case, the Ministry of Justice and not the HCJ should be designated as a responsible institution. At the same time, the division between the responsible institution and the partner institution should be clarified, with USAID being a partner institution.

The financial resources have been defined as operating expenses. Since the monitoring and inspection of the courts is a functional duty of the inspectorate of the Ministry of Justice, it seems reasonable for the expenses to be operating expenses and not special ones.The defined time period is unreasonable, because the monitoring depends on the realisation of the project of audio recording of criminal sessions. In this sense, there should be a flexible and periodic time table, according to the progress of the technical project. The monitoring and evaluative mechanisms are broad and do not properly check the process of realisation of the measure. In addition to reports and recommendations, inspections performed, frequency of inspections and so forth should also be defined.

479. Valbona Vata, HCJ, chief inspector, e-mail, September 2012. 480. Ministry of European Integration, Periodic reports on the implementation of the action plan for addressing the 12 recommendations of the opinion of the European Commission for Albania, published on the web page of that ministry, www.mie.gov.al. 481. Albanian Justice Sector Donor Quarterly Newsletter.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

7

OB

JEC

TIV

E


The four groups of actions foreseen to fulfil strategic objective 7 and its strategic objectives consist of fundamental investments and planning for improving infrastructure in the justice stem. The realisation of those measures directly affects the quality of the rendering of justice, the solemnity of this important process, the impartiality of the system and an increase of belief in the system. The fact is to be brought out that the largest part of the planning and investments is concentrated on constructing new court buildings and less will go to adapting or reconstructing existing buildings. When a building a planned and built from the beginning as a court, it better serves the interest of rendering justice. Planning and constructing appropriate court rooms, thus increasing the solemnity of trials; having separate space for judges’ offices, thus avoiding contacts with the parties and increasing the impartiality of trials; avoiding contacts of the public with judges (ex parte contacts), thus improving the image of justice and increasing belief in it are all components of justice of quality made possible through the realisation of those measures.

Strategic objective 7 is presented as a component of the justice reform strategy difficult to realise fully and on time, especially for specific objectives 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3.

In connection with specific objectives 7.1 and 7.2, from the reports of the OAJB and the General Prosecutor’s Office, almost half of the measures planned to be undertaken are in the best case beyond the time periods established, or simply not implemented. What is most disturbing about those measures is the fact that in the budget for the next two years the Ministry of Finance has not provided the financing for the construction or reconstruction of a number of buildings. That is, in the budget for the years 2013-2015, no funds are provided for realisation of those measures482.

Delay in budgetary provision for improving infrastructure in several court buildings does not simply and only affect the time periods established in the action plan. It affects the realisation and success of strategic objective no. 7, and even more, of justice reform. A building that does not have appropriate working conditions for judges and prosecutors, that does not meet the standards of a judicial building with parameters guaranteeing solemnity and impartiality of the actors of the justice system, is a serious hindrance to the rendering of justice.

Another impediment that causes delay in realisation of these two specific objectives is related to the problem area of land sites and construction licences. This has led to the construction or reconstruction of several courts to exceeding the time periods established in the action plan.

In addition, according to information, measures and actions have been completed for furnishing of courtrooms and offices in the courts of the country, as well as the installation of security elements in seven courts.

In conclusion, for all the measures provided to be undertaken, the situation is the following:• Reconstruction of the district court of Vlora has been concluded. • The conclusion of the district court of Pogradec has just been inaugurated. • The reconstruction of the Gjirokastër district court is in process and on time.• Furnishing and security installations have been concluded according to the provisions of the plan.

482. Information based on e-mails received by the compilers of this part of the report from the Economic and Finance Directorate of the General Prosecutor’s Office on 21.09.2012.


On the other hand, other projects have either been provided for the year 2013 and thereafter or are beyond the given time periods because of failure to provide in the budget for all the measures foreseen. The measures provided for the construction of the Shkodër court of appeal and the Elbasan district court are beyond their deadline. Also beyond the deadline is the preparation of plans for the court buildings in Berat, Fier, Kukës, Lezha and Tropoja. Those courts were foreseen for 2013 and ongoing, but the drafting of the plans was foreseen for the period April 2011 – October 2012. For the High Court and the court of Tirana, it has been planned for both institutions to be included in the Palace of Justice, as to which work has begun for evaluating a project plan.

In connection with specific objective 3, an important accomplishment is the approval of the law “On the organisation and functioning of the administrative courts and the adjudication of administrative disputes”, that is, the approval of the legal basis for creating administrative courts. However, there are no developments yet in the progress of the process of creating those courts so far as the issuance of subordinate legal acts are concerned, and the creation of the courts is linked with the approval by the Assembly of amendments to the law “On the organisation and functioning of the High Court”.

On the other hand, there is little data from the OAJB about the construction of the administrative court, although according to an announcement from the Ministry of Justice, the building will be ready in November 2012483.

Presented in statistical data, of the 30 measures provided under strategic objective no. 7:• 30% measures were evaluated as implemented (seven), among which two measures were

implemented beyond the time period provided and three others were implemented before the end of the time period established (2013) in the action plan;

• 13% measures were evaluated as partially implemented (three), among which two measures still have time for being implemented, whereas one measure has been partially implemented, beyond the time period foreseen;

• 57% measures were evaluated as not implemented (thirteen), six of which still have a time period for being realised;

• 23% other measures were not evaluated (seven) because their starting time periods begin in 2013, beyond the period covered by this monitoring report.

483. http://www.justice.gov.al/?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=8002

30%

13%

57%



PARTIALLY IMPLENTED

NOT BEEN IMPLENTED

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

7

OB

JEC

TIV

E

In connection with the determination made for responsible and partner institutions, generally the measures have clear and appropriate determinations. Statistically, of 23 measures evaluated, the responsible institutions were defined properly in 21 of them; for one measure (7.4.1), the responsible institution should be changed; and for one other measure (7.1.3), the responsible institution could vary, but this depends on the agreement between with Albanian government and the EU Delegation. At the same time, the separation between responsible institutions and partner institutions needs to be defined clearly.

So far as concerns the time periods provided for the 23 measures evaluated, they are of normal parameters. That is, the time periods are generally sufficient and realistic for accomplishing the measures (respectively, for 10 measures). The evaluation of the measures under this objective concludes that if there were clearer determinations in the time periods established and furthermore if the time periods are respected, the measures would be able to be realised.

In 13 cases, the time periods are not clear, because only the end point has been determined when the measure should be implemented, or time periods have been established that are difficult to measure (for example, only full years), leaving unclear the time when the implementation of the measure should start or, when necessary, not setting intermediate time periods that correspond to the various phases of implementation of the measure.

Concerning the budgets defined for realisation of the planned measures, in general they are concrete. It is impossible to evaluate whether a budget is appropriate for the objective of the planned measure, but it remains important that the budgets are concrete and not evasive.

That is, of 23 measures evaluated, the budgets are concrete in 22 of them. Only for one measure have the expenses been calculated as operating expenses. But we think that for this measure it is an accurate determination, since monitoring the courts is one of the functional duties of the inspectorate of the Ministry of Justice and therefore it does not seem necessary for an extra budge to be provided to realise this measure.

The part about monitoring and evaluative mechanisms in the Strategy needs more clarity, more demonstrable indicators and more guarantees for checking and managing the realisation of the measure. In most cases, the monitoring and evaluative mechanisms are general and broad. In total, of the 23 measures evaluated, only in eight of them have the monitoring indicators been defined clearly (the measures of specific objective 7.2), whereas the 15 others need improvement.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTSSo far as concerns the formulation of the specific objectives, we would suggest that specific objective 7.1 include only investments in courts and not in prosecutors’ offices, since investments in prosecutors’ offices constitute specific objective 7.3.

Failure to provide for the construction or reconstruction of several courts of prosecutors’ offices in the budget of the two coming years, that is, until 2015, makes it necessary to reconsider once again the time periods established for the realisation of those measures as well as showing more exact and concrete time periods for the realisation of other measures.


In addition, in measure 7.4.1, the Ministry of Justice should be fined as the responsible institution instead of the HCJ, since it is the institution that will monitor the realisation of the audio recordings in criminal sessions. In measure 7.1.3, the changing of the responsible institution depends on the agreement between the Albanian government and the EU Delegation. If it is agreed for the management of the project to be done by the Albanian party, then it would be recommended that the administration be done by the OAJB.

The evaluative and monitoring mechanisms for realisation of the planned measures need improvement. To increase the efficacy of management of the respective measure, there is a need to more frequent data (through periodic reports), more concrete data (working group meetings, consultations, determination of work calendars and so forth) as well as more tangible products (submission of draft acts, presentation of the of the progress of drafting the plans for construction or reconstruction, and so forth).

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

7

OB

JEC

TIV

E

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LawS and SubordInate LegaL aCtSLaw no. 8363 dated 1.7.1998 “On the creation of the office of administration of the judicial budget”

MeetIngS/e-MaILS and teLepHone CoMMunICatIonSE-mail dated 21.09.2012 with Ms. Edlira Jorgaqi, as the representative of information from the Directorate of Economics and Finance of the General Prosecutor’s Office.

E-mail dated 29.09.2012 with Ms. Valbona Vata, chief inspector of the High Council of Justice.

E-mail and telephone communication with Ms. Laerta Poda, head of the budget sector in the Office of Administration of the Judicial Budget (OAJB).

doCuMentS/offICIaL LetterS froM tHe reSponSIbLe InStItutIonSResponse from the OAJB dated 31.7.2012, prot. no. 924/1, with the subject: “Information on the implementation of the action plan of Recommendation 7 of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania”.

reportSReports published by the Ministry of Integration on its web page, www.mie.gov.al, for implementation of the action plan of the 12 Recommendations of the Opinion of the European Commission for Albania.

Reports of the USAID project JuST, Albanian Justice Sector Donor Quarterly Newsletter.

Consultation with information published on the web page of the Ministry of Justice, www.justice.gov.al


NO.8

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

7

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

8

OB

JEC

TIV

E

Strategic ObJectiVe 8improvement of the law drafting process, including increasing capacities and their professional consolidation, and increasing attention to the acquis communautaire for the purpose of speeding up the process of approximation of legislation (normal).

1. ANALYSIS OF THE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVEStrategic objective no. 8 has been formulated clearly and includes the problem areas that it aims in essence at addressing. Objective 8 has included as an important element in its problem area the improvement of the law drafting process, which constitutes an important foundation stone in the efficacy of the activity of the justice system; it has also included the conduct of the legal framework in conformity with the developments of the country and the adaptation of this legal framework with the acquis communautaire, as an essential process in the steps of the country’s European integration, but also as a need that comes from development itself. That is, objective 8 summarises clearly this challenge to the actors and factors involved in improving the activity of the justice system.

However, elements of this objective also appear in other objectives. More concretely, “improving the drafting of legislation” is seen in strategic objective 3, which speaks of “Consolidation of the effectiveness of the judicial power...among other things, through improving the process of legislation”. In this framework, it us recommended that strategic objective no. 8 have a clearer formulation, that is, to define that it is a matter of improving the process of law drafting in the field of justice.

Improving the legislative process is also mentioned in strategic objective no. 5, which speaks of “Improving the legislative process and speeding up the process of approximation, with a focus also on anti-corruption rules”. However, in analysing the specific objectives of that strategic objective, we see that improving the legislative process is in the direction of increasing the trust of the public in the justice system.

2. ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVESThe process of reforming the justice system, and that of European integration, as well as increasing membership in international bodies and acts, makes it essential to have a dignified and professional process of drafting legislation with appropriate legislative techniques and also makes it necessary to learn about and become familiar with international law and, in particular, the acquis communautaire, the implementation of both of which is already a reality and an obligation.

Meanwhile, in the near future, this reality will find a place more and more broadly in the activity of the justice system, in a fair proportion with the process of fulfilment of the obligations of the country in the framework of the Stabilisation/Association Agreement (SAA), until full membership in the European family.


In this sense, the strategic objective, elaborated into specific objectives and concrete measures that are to be undertaken, has paved a road that aims precisely at improving the process of drafting legislation. The specific objectives, however, should be clearer, more concrete and more detailed. In this way, following the road laid out in the strategic objective would be simpler, easier to check and consequently also more efficacious and less time-intensive. In addition, the measures proposed to be undertaken does not explain what will actually and concretely be done for the realisation of the specific objectives, do not provide the manners of realisation, the responsible institutions, and the frequency or intensity of those measures. All this makes the strategic objective and the specific objectives unable to be measured and in the end with uncoordinated results.

8.1 Sustainability of a qualified staff through training and improving working conditions, to increase their abilities (normal)The sustainability of a qualified staff constitutes one of the elements guaranteeing the efficacy of activity of the actors involved in the process of law drafting and improving it. A prepared and qualified staff, trained in the legal developments or other fields related to the process of law drafting, as well as the assurance or improvement of conditions to increase the ability of this staff, should be seen as an important investment of state and society to fulfil the objectives for solid development based on professional planning rather than chance.

8.2 Strengthening inter-institutional cooperation and dialogue, including civil society (important)This objective too provides for the creation of an important possibility for a qualitative improvement of the process of drafting legislation. A drafting process cannot be successful and efficacious if it is closed and without the contributions of specialised organisations or institutions or those that have experience in the field to be regulated by a particular law. The coordination of those contributions and opinions has been included in the aim of this specific objective. Establishing clearer, more concrete rules would make the realisation of this objective more tangible and consequently more realisable, more manageable and easier to check.

8.3 Following specific policies according to the priorities and other strategic goals that are related to the legislative process (normal)This objective has been provided more as a measure/action to be undertaken and not as an objective. It aims at realising contributions in connection with other strategic priorities which need the legislative process. However, this objective is very broad and it is not clear that specific policies will be followed or how the giving of this contribution will be organised and what institution will coordinate the process.

In the three specific objectives mentioned above, there is room for making them more concrete, depending on the specific aims that have established. But jointly evaluating them, it can be seen that it is not clear whether an increase of attention to the acquis communautaire will be realised, how it is to be realised and how continuing contact will be kept with the acquis. That is, increasing attention to the acquis and the way of realising it could have been more present and more specific in these objectives.

Great attention should be paid to the acquis, because the challenges of including Albania in European developments makes it essential to have a deep knowledge of European trends and to be able to use

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

7

OB

JEC

TIV

E

8

OB

JEC

TIV

E

them with competence and professionalism. In the form presented in this action plan, attention to the acquis and the process of approximation of legislation has not been elaborated in the specific objectives. and there is a lack of correspondence between the strategic objective and the specific ones. The interest and need for the appropriate attention to the acquis communautaire could be accomplished if this element were converted into a specific objective on its own, elaborated in further measures.

3. OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE ACTIONS FORESEEN TO AD-DRESS THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVESEvaluating the specific objectives in relation to the actions that are to be undertaken, it is seen that the actions to be undertaken are mostly adapted to the first column of the action plan, that is, they are more in the nature of specific objectives than measures or actions to make the specific objectives concrete.

Thus, for example, if the specific objective is strengthening inter-institutional dialogue, also including civil society, then the actions that are to be undertaken should have been things like making concrete the idea of strengthening this dialogue by providing manners, forms and responsible institutions to coordinate realising and improving institutional dialogue. On the other hand, by presenting the improvement of the process of consultation or legislative and institutional consolidation of the justice system as actions that are to be undertaken, we are closer to the provision of a specific objective than to measures or concrete actions or measures.

The fact is positive that the majority of the measures planned under this objective are for qualitative improvements (three measures) and capacity-building (one measure), whereas only two measures are of a regulatory nature. Of the evaluative and monitoring mechanisms provided, four are of a quantitative nature and two of a qualitative nature.

8.1 Sustainability of a qualified staff through training and improving working conditions, to increase their abilities (normal)The actions planned for realisation of specific objective 1 foresee training in various legislative techniques and best practices. The single measure provided aims at capacity-building. This being the case, the measure is generalising and not concrete. It does not provided or specify the fields in which training will be done, what the legislative techniques and best practices are in which the staff will be trained, what institution will organise and provide the training in those fields or how this experience will be institutionalised, that is, whether there will be continuing training or will it be done at particular times in the career of the staff.

All those elements are necessary for being elaborated and clearly defined in the action plan, so that implementation will be assured and the progress achieved can be measured. In the manner in which it has been provided, implementation of this specific objective is difficult to monitor.

8.2 Strengthening inter-institutional cooperation and dialogue, including civil society (important)Specific objective 2 foresees the preparation of new legal acts as the measure to be undertaken, as well as


consultation and constructive legal criticism, improving the process of consultation and the legislative and institutional consolidation of the justice system. All these measures are not only general, but it is also unclear what they will realise. For example, the Consolidation of the Legislative and Institutional Justice System (CLIJS or EURALIUS III), which is a project supported by the European Union to assist our justice system, has been provided as a measure for this objective. It is senseless for this project to be provided as a ‘measure’ of action in the Justice Strategy. The measures should have been more concrete, providing what legal acts will be prepared, how consultation and legal constructive criticism will be realised, what concretely is included in ‘improvement of the consultation process’ and so forth. The monitoring and measuring of the progress of this measure are difficult to accomplish.

8.3 Following specific policies according to the priorities and other strategic goals that are related to the legislative process (normal)Specific objective 3 includes measures that have to do with the implementation of obligations that derive from other sector strategies, as well as with the strengthening of institutional dialogue between professionals, academics, judges and prosecutors in the justice system. Like the measures under the two other specific objectives, these measures also provide in a general and unclear manner for the implementation of obligations that derive from other sector strategies or the strengthening of dialogue among justice system actors. Nothing is said about the way of realising the measures nor has the institution responsible for coordinating and realising the objectives or the manner and mechanisms of realising them been specified.

4. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE EVALUATION ON THE IM-PLEMENTATION OF EVERY ACTION/MEASURE

Specific objective 1: Sustainability of a qualified staff through training and improving working conditions, to increase their abilities

8.1.1. Training in various legislative techniques and best practices*Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, EURALIUS III, PACADeadline for implementation: 2011 – 2013 (continuing)Status: Not implemented

In the absence of a response from the Ministry of Justice in connection with the implementation of this action plan, contacts were made with EURALIUS III, since this mission has also been in the group of institutions responsible for accomplishing this specific objective.

According to data from EURALIUS III484, in December 2011 a seminar was organised for representatives from various ministries in order to discuss raising quality in law drafting. Representatives from only a few ministries took part in this seminar, such as that of Integration and the Economy. The programme of the seminar was focussed on improving law drafting abilities.

However, although a process began with the training done in December 2011, the process seems unorganised and is not continuing. For this reason, the status for this specific objective

484. Meeting with Joaquin Urias, head of EURALIUS III, 13 September 2012.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

7

OB

JEC

TIV

E

8

OB

JEC

TIV

E

is considered not implemented. The measure is difficult to measure, all the more because the number of planned trainings, clear programmes and so forth have not been specified.

The Ministry of Justice, EURALIUS III and PACA have been named as the institutions responsible and partner institutions for the realisation of this measure. This definition of the institutions is not entirety correct. A division between the institutions responsible (such as the Ministry of Justice) and the partner institutions (such as the international projects PACA and EURALIUS III) should be clearly made. The Ministry of Justice is the institution that has the legal authority, but also the professional authority, to provide its assistance in training on various legislative techniques, which, in combination with the best practices consulted by EURALIUS III and PACA, will enable a full training process.

The financial resources for realisation of this measure have not been provided, that is, they are undefined. The resources provided by EURALIUS III and PACA should be more concrete, so as to be clear and so that the realisation of the measure is not left to chance, but can be concretely planned.

The time period set for realisation of this measure seems reasonable. The fact that, in addition to training over a two-year period, this process is continuing is also an indicator of reasonable time periods.

The evaluative and monitoring mechanisms of the measure are broad, general and insufficient. The evaluative and monitoring indicators should include the number of trainings, the number of trainees, the number of local and foreign trainers, the training programmes, the frequency of the trainings and so forth.

In an overall evaluation of this specific objective, the actions to be undertaken for realisation of the specific objective, that is, training in various legislative techniques and good practices, are measures that constitute a significant part of the process of improving work for law drafting. This process of improvement requires contacts, trainings and exchange of experiences with different techniques of law drafting and best practices of creating a legal framework; it requires continuous contact among the trainers or other forms of professional communication with the acquis communautaire. The measure proposed for trainings in various legislative techniques considerably affects the professional sustainability of the respective staff in the directorates of law drafting. However, the measures proposed to be undertaken might also have included other aspects that would assure not only continuous training of the respective staffs of the directorates of law drafting, but also guarantees that the investment in their professional improvement will have a long-term effect.

Specific objective 2: Strengthening inter-institutional cooperation and dialogue, including civil society

8.2.1 Preparation of new legal acts, consultation and constructive legal criticism Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice, EURALIUS IIIDeadline for implementation: 2011, 2012Status: Implemented


Pursuant to law485, the General Directorate of Codification in the Ministry of Justice gives an opinion on every draft law that passes the Council of Ministers, evaluating the quality of the law, the legality of form and content and the legal terminology. In addition, since besides the Ministry of Justice, EURALIUS III has also been put as a responsible institution/partner institution, every legal act passes for an opinion and expertise to that international project.

According to data from that Mission, the opinion and expertise of EURALIUS III has been taken into consideration in the majority of the cases submitted. However, it bears emphasis that this measure has been formulated unclearly. The purpose aimed at being achieved by this measure is confused, even more if we interpret the measure in the service of meeting the respective specific objective and the strategic objective.

The preparation of new legal acts and the provision of constructive legal criticism (oponenca) is a functional duty of the Ministry of Justice. Such routine measures, which are the responsibility of state institutions, should not be planned in such a strategy document. However, because of the provision of this measure in the action plan, its status is considered “implemented”.

The institutional responsibility, the time periods and financial resources have been, in general, defined in a clear and concrete manner, except for the division of the main responsibility as against that of partner institutions, a problem that is seen in the entire action plan. It is positive that this is considered a measure with a continuing nature. The financial resources have been defined in concrete numbers, but the lack of clarity that follows the purpose of the measure is also reflected in what this budget will be used for. The monitoring mechanisms are general and qualitative, difficult to measure.

8.2.2 Improvement of the consultation process* Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice and EURALIUS III Deadline for implementation: 2013Status: Partially implemented

In general, it bears emphasising that in order to give a really conclusive answer to the status of implementation of this specific objective, it is necessary not only to have more information, but also more precision about what is intended by the measures proposed for action, and which is the role of the actors involved in realising these measures. In this way, a clearer picture of the measure to be undertaken would be given, thus making it possible to evaluate the status of realisation of the specific objective. The drafts of this report do not contain general information about cooperation and inter-institutional dialogue or consultations performed with civil society for draft laws prepared during 2011 and 2012.

It should be emphasised that the Ministry of Justice has started to publish in its web page, more often in comparison with prior periods, particular draft laws, thus enabling the public to learn about and, eventually, give opinions about those drafts. But so long as only some draft laws are published, not

485. Article 6, point 3 of law no. 8678 dated 14.5.2001 “On the organisation and functioning of the Ministry of Justice”, amended, says that “the Ministry of Justice gives a specialised opinion on drafts of legal and normative subordinate legal acts of the Council of Ministers, the ministers and directors of other central institutions as well as for the realisation of reformation in general”. In addition, Council of Ministers decision no. 584 dated 28.8.2003 specifies in article 22 that all draft acts, without exception, are sent for an opinion to the Minister of Justice, who should give an expression about the legality of form and content, issues of the unified implementation of legislative technique and legal terminology of the draft act, also setting out, as applicable, the respective formulations.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

7

OB

JEC

TIV

E

8

OB

JEC

TIV

E

necessarily current and often without direct interest for the public or civil society, and so long as there is no way, procedure or concrete time period for obtaining the opinions of the public or civil society, in the case of specific objective 8.2, it is consequently considered implemented only partially.

In addition, this measure has not been provided as a concrete measure, but as an objective. It should have contained concrete steps and actions as to how the improvement of the process of public consultation in law drafting would be realised, for example, by providing for well-defined rules to be prepared or standards for subjecting this process to rules, their implementation by every state agency with responsibility for drafting legislation, the use of web pages, direct communications with civil society and so forth.

On the other hand, the need for improving inter-institutional dialogue and consultation with civil society in the law drafting process, as well as for greater transparency in the policy-making and decision-making processes, is a reflection of a problem area that shows up repeatedly in the progress reports of the European Commission about Albania486. It is worth mentioning that in recent years, as a result of growing consciousness, there have been good practices of cooperation and consultation of state institutions with various actors of civil society in the law-making process

However, regardless of the improvements in this connection, the process of consultation is not systematic, and often it is merely formal, something that is not indicative of real cooperation487. In this aspect, it also bears mentioning that the Albanian state has undertaken a commitment in the framework of participation in the Initiative “Partnership for Open Government (POG)” for drafting a specific legal framework that will regulate and standardise the process of public consultation with interest groups and various actors of civil society in drafting legislation and major public policies488.

For the realisation of this measure, the responsible institutions and partners have been defined to be the Ministry of Justice and EURALIUS III. Since the commitment for drafting a specific law on public consultation was taken only in April 2012, the action plan needs to be updated, not only to add this as a concrete measure, but also to define the Ministry of Innovation, Information Technology and Communication as a responsible institution along with the Ministry of Justice489.

So far as concerns the respective financial resources, they have been identified concretely, but, since the measure itself is unclear (it has not been elaborated in concrete actions), there is no way to understand what those resources are to be used for concretely.

The time periods established seem realistic and reasonable.

So far as concerns the evaluative and monitoring mechanisms, they remain the same as with the prior measure, broad and insufficient. There is a need for more control of the process of realising the measure through more concrete definitions about the manner of realising consultation, establishing specific, clear rules for consultation on draft laws, making them public at an appropriate time and so forth.

486. European Commission, Progress Report on Albania 2010, 2011 and 2012.487. European Commission, Progress Report on Albania, Brussels, published on 10.10.2012, p. 19, accessed at www.mie.gov.al 488. Republic of Albania, Action Plan, Initiative for Partnership for Open Governnent, April 2012, p. 4, accessed at http://www.mitik.gov.al/mitik/english/OGP/Plan_veprimi_OGP_english.pdf. The Open Society Foundation for Albania (Soros) has been one of the main partners who has advocated and supported the initiative for making norms for the process of public consultation with interest groups and civil society. 489. This is in conformity with the document cited above, footnote 489.


8.2.3 Legislative and institutional consolidation of the justice system (EURALIUS III)Responsible institutions: Delegation of the European Union, Ministry of JusticeDeadline for implementation: September 2010 – March 2013Status: Not evaluated

Based on information received490, every draft law goes for an opinion and expertise to the Mission EURALIUS III. According to data from this Mission, the opinion and expertise of EURALIUS III was taken into consideration in the large majority of instances. However, an assistance project of the European Union cannot be put in the Justice Strategy as a specific measure. It is senseless to provide it as such, and therefore the status of realisation of this measure has not been evaluated.

In general, specific objective 2 provides several actions that are to be undertaken in addressing this objective, which provide a considerable basis for strengthening inter-institutional dialogue. The preparation of new legal acts, the improvement of the process of consultation and legislative and institutional consolidation of the justice system create premises for increasing the possibilities for strengthening institutional cooperation and dialogue.

However, the lack of clarify in bringing out concrete aspects of this process of improvement of institutional dialogue makes it difficult to evaluate the direct impact of the proposed measures. The level of implementation of those measures is closely linked to the planning of concrete actions for the realisation of the specific objective. The clearer and more inclusive the range of measures to be undertaken is, the higher the scale of achieving the objective will be, with a consequent effect on the action plan.

Specific objective 3: Following specific policies according to the priorities and other strategic goals related to the legislative process

8.3.1 Implementing the obligations that derive from other sector strategies, in particular the anti-corruption strategy, the education strategy, the strategy of policies (through drafting, consultation and inter-institutional dialogue)*Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice Deadline for implementation: 2011 – 2013, continuingStatus: Not evaluated

In the absence of information from the Ministry of Justice, it is impossible to evaluate this objective. This is also, perhaps, a result of the lack of clarity in the formulation of the measures that are to be undertaken to realise this specific objective or the manner of realising them. In addition, it does not seem that it has much sense to include in this measure the products or outputs from other strategies, since this strategic objective and the specific objectives under it are devoted to improving the law drafting process in the field of justice. For these reasons, this measure is considered not implemented. As has also been mentioned above, it is recommended that the strategic objective itself address improving the law drafting process in the field of justice.

The responsible institution for this measure is stated to be the Ministry of Justice. Since the measure

490. Joaquin Urias, EURALIUS III, head of mission, interview, 13 September 2012.

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

7

OB

JEC

TIV

E

8

OB

JEC

TIV

E

itself is not clear as to the type and manner of realising concrete plans, it is difficult to determine whether the responsible institution has been designated appropriately. However, considering that the legal framework calls for the Ministry of Justice to be in the centre of giving opinions about draft acts submitted to the Council of Ministers, it may be considered that in this case too, that Ministry is the most appropriate institution for that measure.

Operating expenses have been provided as the financial resources for this measure. Such expenses remain an appropriate financial source, since the measures are functional duties of the Ministry of Justice.

The time periods established for this measure seem realistic and reasonable. However, since the measure remains unclear, the time periods should be evaluated as well, on the basis of the general formulations provided.

For this measure too, the provisions about evaluative and monitoring mechanisms are broad and insufficient. This also results from the lack of clarity in the measure. The clearer the measure becomes, the more concrete and capable of monitoring the process and its evaluation will be.

8.3.2 Strengthening institutional dialogue among professionals, academics, practitioners, judges and prosecutors in the justice system*Responsible institution: Ministry of Justice and other interested actorsDeadline for implementation: 2011-2013Status: Not implemented

In the absence of information from the Ministry of Justice, this measure also is difficult to monitor and evaluate. The measure has been formulated as an objective and is very general; it does not specify concrete actions that are to be undertaken to strengthen institutional dialogue.

The responsible institutions defined for the realisation of this measure are the appropriate institutions, because of their functions in this whole process. The financial resources provided are operating expenses, which are also justified for realisation of the measure, since it covers functional duties of the Ministry of Justice.

The time periods established are also reasonable, defining them as on-going activities. However, like other measures, this measure suffers from the absence of complete, clear and measurable monitoring and evaluative mechanisms. For example, calendars of activities, the frequency of the activities, the participants in them, the real products that are expected to result from the activities, and so forth, could have been provided.

In general, specific objective 3 provides for the implementation of obligations that derive from other sector strategies, such as the strengthening of institutional dialogue among professionals. The measures planned to be undertaken, especially strengthening institutional dialogue among professionals of the justice system, go in the direction of improving the process of drafting legislation. But in this case too, the absence of clearer planning about the manner of realising those measures and exact terms for the coordination of the activities and the exchange of contributions among those actors creates impediments for the fulfilment of the strategic objective, and consequently also for evaluating its realisation.


5. CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE PROGRESS ACHIEVED To fulfil the major objective of realising the action plan for reforming the justice system, the strategic objective are, and should be, in the service of building and consolidating a legal system that provides certainty and which is adapted to the challenges and developments; a system in which the fundamental human rights and freedoms are guaranteed; and a system that is at a high professional level and which is impartial.

Provided in more detailed specific objectives, the mission of consolidating the justice system in Albania includes a number of principles, objectives and measures, among which improving the process of drafting legislation constitutes one of the important strategic objectives for the success of this mission.

It is naturally important to develop and improve the legal relationships in society, embodies in legislation that is complete, understandable, dynamic and capable of being applied, adapted to changes and drawn up on the basis of technical rules and with language of a high professional quality, in a transparent process with the participation of interest groups. To fulfil reforms in justice successfully, legislative reform should enable a legal framework and juridical regulations that are as complete, clear and transparent as possible.

For this reason, in preliminary preparations to face this reality, a more intensive and frequent presentation of EU law, more intense informing and deeper knowledge of the curriculum of European and international law, the use of EU and international instruments, the judicial practice of the international courts and the respective literature should be in the focus of the measures to be undertaken in realising the strategic objective to improve the process of law drafting and increasing attention to EU law.

In this aspect, measures should be taken and supported to realise an increase and knowledge of foreign languages in the staff of the justice system actors, the provision of translated literature accompanied by the respective specialised services, the securing of institutional contacts and ways for getting full and necessary information about developments in EU and international law and judicial practice, including periodic or special publications.

It is perhaps for this reason that few results have been realised for this strategic objective and that they are only partially measurable and implemented. Those actions are more of a spontaneous nature and not very coordinated. Furthermore, they do not completely go in the direction of improving the law drafting process. The plan of measures should have had more frequent meetings, seminars or conferences on the process of law drafting and should have also specified contacts with EU law, not only through consultations with the Mission EURALIUS III but more with the possibility for trainings in EU law.

In a statistical evaluation, the realisation of strategic objective no. 8 appears as follows:

• 25% measure has been implemented (one)• 25% measure has been partially implemented (one) and there is still time for realising it in

2013.• 50% measures have been evaluated as not implemented (two), but each of them still has time

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

7

OB

JEC

TIV

E

8

OB

JEC

TIV

E

25%

25%

50%



PARTIALLY IMPLENTED

NOT BEEN IMPLENTED

to be realised. They are provided to be implemented in 2013, beyond the time period covered by this monitoring report.

• 33% measures have not been evaluated at all (two) since one of the measures (8.2.3) has to do with the implementation of an international project, that of EURALIUS III, and therefore it should not be been ‘planned’ in the Strategy, whereas the other measure (8.3.1) is unclear and confused.

The time periods put into the plan of measures to be undertaken are realistic (in the four measures evaluated), to the extent that the plan provides in a concrete way for activities to meet the strategic objective. Since, so far, the implementation of the specific objectives has not had the efficacy that was foreseen, the time period for implementation is an element to be looked at on a continuing basis.

In connection with the determination that has been made of the responsible institutions and partner institutions, it is judged that those institutions have been accurately and functionally determined, that is, the defined institution is able to perform the duty in an appropriate manner. In one of the planned measures, it is necessary for another responsible institution to be added (measure 8.2.2).

The same can also be said for the budgets provided. That is, there are cases (such as, for example, measure 8.2.1) where the financial resources have been concretely defined, notwithstanding the fact that it is impossible to evaluate the appropriateness of those resources for the objective of the planned measures. In other cases, those resources have been left either to the resources or donors or to operating expenses. In the case of the resources of other donors, there should be more accurate and concrete data, so that the measure could be easily manageable (measure 8.1.1). Of the four measures evaluated, for one of them (8.1), the budget requires a more concrete presentation, whereas for the three other measures, the financial resources are generally reasonable. However, the confusion of the measures foreseen is reflected at the same time in a lack of clarity as to the purpose of expenditure of those resources.

It is judged that for strategic objective 8, more data are needed about the monitoring and evaluative mechanisms. The measures planned to be undertaken cannot be monitored or evaluated with the mechanisms presented. This applies to all four measures evaluated. That is, the four measures need more concrete interventions.



Our suggestions for this strategic objective would be the following.

The strategic objective might have included EU law more. Instead of the formulation “increase of attention to the acquis communautaire”, more sustainable and frequent contact with EU law might be provided, aiming at “familiarisation with and use of the acquis communautaire”. In addition, the strategic objective should make it clear that it addresses the improvement of the process of law drafting in the field of justice.

So far as the formulation of the specific objectives is concerned, the three objectives provided need to be more concrete and more detailed in their descriptions.

Specific objective 1 should include the frequency of trainings, the institution that will coordinate, organise and perform them, what the working conditions are that will be improved and so on, that is: the Ministry of Justice or every other institution to be defined, periodic trainings once every three months or some other time period, the programme of the trainings, a description of the themes of the trainings and the best practices, the increase of international consultations or contacts with European developments in the field through publications or conferences and so forth.

In this sense, it would be important for specific object 1 also to include the creation of guarantees that the qualified staff would not be moved, as well as establishing rules or ways for the investments made for the training of this staff to serve the state and not momentary interests, in the service of the aim of sustainability of the qualified staff

Specific objective 2 should provide the manner in which this dialogue will be realised, through the organisation of frequent periodic meetings and the designation of a calendar for realising them; the eventual products that might be expected from those meetings (concrete consultations, opinions, suggestions and so forth); the channelling of the taking of opinions and contributions through meetings, seminars, coordination by a designated institution and so forth.

In addition, in order to have more clarity in the process of realising this objective, specific objective 2 should also include ways of cooperation among those institutions, establishing rules to realise this cooperation, the time frequency of this communication and so forth.

Specific objective 3 should be clearer as to what is meant by following specific policies according to the priorities and what connection or direct influence it has on the process of law drafting. That is, this objective should include how the exchange of experience will be done and how the priorities deriving from other strategies will be followed, and it should provide how the implementation of the objective will be organised, to what extent and how continuous this following of specific policies will be.

The three specific objectives have a joint need for the legal form to be defined in which all this activity will be brought to life. This would also make the activity more organised and better coordinated, but also more manageable.

The measures/actions provided to be undertaken should be more concrete, defining the field in

OB

JEC

TIV

EO

BJE

CT

IVE

OB

JEC

TIV

E

4

OB

JEC

TIV

E

5

OB

JEC

TIV

E6

OB

JEC

TIV

E

7

OB

JEC

TIV

E

8

OB

JEC

TIV

E

which the trainings will be performed, the institution that will perform the trainings, the time of their performance, their length and so forth.

Those measures should also provide how contact will be made with EU law and what ‘legislative and institutional consolidation’ means concretely as a measure/action, and what the role of the Mission EURALIUS III is in this connection: advisory, training, facilitating or something else. That is, there could be more contacts with European publications in the field, more contacts, meetings, exchanges of experience through various professional European networks and so forth.

The measures/actions that should be undertaken should also provide how the process of consultation and dialogue with justice system professionals will be done and whether it will be reorganised in the form of a permanent consortium at one of the justice institutions such as the Ministry of Justice. Those measures should also provide how the implementation of obligations that derive from other sector strategies will be performed.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

LawS and SubordInate LegaL aCtSLaw no. 8678 dated 14.5.2001 “On the organisation and functioning of the Ministry of Justice”, amended.

Council of Ministers Decision no. 584 dated 28.8.2003, amended.

MeetIngS/e-MaILSMeeting with Joaquin Urias, head of the Mission EURALIUS III in Tirana, 13 September 2013.

reportSEuropean Commission, Progress Report on Albania, Brussels, published 10.10.2012, accessed at www.mie.gov.al

European Commission, Progress Report on Albania of the years 2010, 2011 and 2012.

Republic of Albania, Action Plan, Initiative for a Partnership for Open Governance, April 2012, accessed at http://www.mitik.gov.al/mitik/english/OGP/Plan_veprimi_OGP_english.pdf

Open SOciety FOundatiOn FOr albania

Rr. Qemal Stafa, Pallati 120/2, Tirana, Albania

Tel: +355 4 22 34 621/ 22 34 223/ 22 35 856

Fax: +355 4 22 35 855

E-mail: [email protected]

Web-page: www.soros.al