The SafeJournalists Network expresses concern over some of the media-related provisions of the new Internal Regulation adopted by Albania’s Special Court of First Instance for Corruption and Organised Crime through Decision no. 49 of 17 July 2026, published on 31st July 2026, and which is scheduled to enter into force on 1 September 2026.
The Network recognises the Special Court’s responsibility to ensure security, protect all participants in proceedings, safeguard the integrity of the judicial process and ensure the orderly administration of justice. It also acknowledges the safeguards included in the regulation to promote transparency, equal treatment and reasoned decision-making.
At the same time, the combined effect of several provisions risks restricting journalists’ ability to observe proceedings, take accurate notes, communicate with their newsrooms and report promptly on cases of exceptional public interest.
We note that Article 90 establishes annual and personal accreditation, while Article 93(1) regulates access by accredited media representatives. The regulation does not clearly state whether a journalist without permanent accreditation may attend an otherwise public hearing as a member of the public. Annex 7 also requires freelance journalists to demonstrate professional activity during the preceding 12 months. This approach risks disadvantaging freelance, independent, early-career and newly assigned journalists. Accreditation may facilitate identification and equal access, but it should not become a gateway and an unnecessary condition for observing public proceedings.
The access procedure may also create an unnecessary administrative burden for journalists, particularly from small newsrooms or freelancers. When the special procedure under Article 93(2) is activated, journalists must normally request access at least 24 hours before the hearing and may also be required to confirm attendance. If audiovisual coverage is sought, a separate request under Article 95 is required. These procedures may be justified where courtroom capacity or a concrete security need requires advance planning, but they should remain exceptional and proportionate. They should not make ordinary access to public hearings dependent on repeated applications, particularly where hearings are announced at short notice, a reporter must be replaced, or a journalist is covering breaking developments.
We are concerned by Article 76 and Article 93(16), which prohibit journalists admitted only to observe a hearing from carrying or using mobile phones, laptops and other electronic devices. Preventing unauthorized recording or transmission is legitimate. However, a blanket ban also prevents silent note-taking, written reporting, communication with editors, verification of legal information and accessibility-related use. Less restrictive and workable measures should be considered, including silent or flight mode, designated press seating, restrictions on camera functions and case-specific directions by the presiding judge.
We also note that Article 95 specifically governs audiovisual coverage of judicial hearings, including filming, photography, audio recording and transmission. Prior judicial authorisation and restrictions on such coverage may be legitimate where necessary to protect witnesses, minors, privacy, evidence, courtroom order or the proper administration of justice. Any limitation should, however, be based on the circumstances of the particular hearing, be reasoned and proportionate, and consider less restrictive options before a complete refusal. Court-produced or pooled footage may support access where security or technical constraints exist, but should complement rather than routinely substitute for journalists’ independent presence in the courtroom.
Moreover, Article 96(3)(e)–(g) addresses artificial-intelligence manipulation, allegedly misleading material and publication of identifiable images where identification is considered unnecessary. Protection against false manipulation and unlawful disclosure is legitimate. However, editorial or post-publication conduct extending beyond the Court’s premises should not be regulated through accreditation. Such matters should be addressed through applicable law, judicial remedies, correction mechanisms and professional ethics.
Article 98 permits warnings, suspension of accreditation for up to six months and revocation. The regulation contains important safeguards for serious measures, including the need for concrete evidence, a reasoned order and an opportunity for the journalist or media outlet to be heard. Nevertheless, it does not identify a clear and expedited review mechanism capable of resolving an access refusal or accreditation measure before the journalistic value of the relevant hearing is lost.
The SafeJournalists Network calls on the Special Court to pause the implementation of the contested media-related provisions and undertake a focused review through meaningful consultation with journalists, media organisations, legal experts and civil society. The revised framework should ensure that restrictions affecting media access and reporting are lawful, necessary, proportionate, clearly defined and consistently applied; that journalists can work under practical and reasonable conditions; and that refusals, exclusions or sanctions are reasoned and subject to prompt and effective review.
The SafeJournalists Network will inform relevant national and international stakeholders about this matter and will continue to monitor the implementation of the regulation.
Pristina – Skopje – Sarajevo – Zagreb – Belgrade – Podgorica – Tirana, August 7, 2026
Association of Journalists of Kosovo
Association of Journalists of Macedonia
BH Journalists Association
Croatian Journalists’ Association
Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia
Trade Union of Media of Montenegro
