The Venice Commission has accepted a request from the Albanian Parliament to provide an opinion on the relationship between parliamentary representative democracy and the obligation to implement decisions of the Constitutional Court. This matter is slated for discussion during the Commission’s plenary session on December 6-7.

Why is this important: The Venice Commission’s upcoming review is significant as it tests the constitutional frameworks that govern the balance between Albania’s legislative authority and judicial oversight. This review highlights the critical nature of maintaining democratic norms and the rule of law, especially in cases where the balance between parliamentary decisions and court decisions is unclear.

Background on the Request: The Venice Commission is reviewing a case involving the Albanian Parliament’s refusal to adhere to a Constitutional Court directive. The court had ruled for a reassessment of an MP’s mandate due to alleged conflicts of interest, but the Parliament, with 65 Socialist MPs abstaining, did not comply. The Socialists insisted that the Constitutional Court cannot tell MPs how to because MPs are independent in their voting decisions and obliging the Court would run counter to the separation of powers that is fundamental to democracy. This defiance sparked a constitutional debate and led the Socialist Party to submit a request for an advisory opinion from the Venice Commission to define the legal responsibilities and limits of the Parliament in such scenarios.

Context of the Dispute Following the Parliament’s decision to ignore the court’s directive, the situation was further politicized. The Democratic Party, which had initially petitioned the Constitutional Court, condemned the Socialist majority’s response as unconstitutional. The EU and US representatives in Albania also reacted with concern stressing the fact that the decisions of the Constitutional Court must be respected.