By Isa Myzyraj, Journalist and Chairperson of the Association of Journalists of Albania (AJA)
For more than a decade, dozens of journalists and media outlets in Albania have been dragged through the country’s criminal courts, accused mainly of defamation and insult. At first glance, these are provisions that protect individual reputation. In practice, they have been transformed into instruments of pressure and intimidation against the media.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, criminal lawsuits have not been initiated by ordinary citizens seeking protection from defamation, but by politicians, high public officials, and companies with economic power. The purpose has not been justice, but punishment and intimidation – a clear message to journalists: “Do not touch our interests.”
Criminal pressure as a tool of fear
Articles 119 and 120 of the Criminal Code of Albania, which provide for penalties for “insult” and “defamation,” have for years been the subject of criticism from domestic and international organisations. Under the current legislation, these offenses are punishable by fines of up to 30,000 euros – amounts unaffordable for the majority of journalists in Albania.
In a country where the average salary of a journalist is modest and often insecure, criminal proceedings for defamation are accompanied not only by financial risk, but also by serious professional and psychological consequences. The very existence of a criminal sanction creates a chilling effect, leading journalists to self-censor.
International recommendations
The continuous reports of OSCE/ODIHR and the annual recommendations of the European Commission within the framework of the Progress Reports on Albania have clearly emphasised the need for the decriminalisation of defamation. European standards are clear: reputation must be protected through civil mechanisms and not through criminal prosecution.
The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights has also been consistent in its position that criminal penalties for defamation are disproportionate, especially when applied to journalists who address matters of public interest.
In many European Union countries, defamation has been shifted from the criminal sphere to the civil one. Even if a journalist is found guilty in a civil court, he or she faces obligations for compensation, but not criminal liability and stigmatisation as a “convicted” person.
The parliamentary initiative and the broken hope
At the end of 2025, a Parliamentary Committee on Media, chaired by opposition MP Jorida Tabaku, initiated discussions on removing Articles 119 and 120 from the Criminal Code. For the first time in many years, a climate of cooperation was created among journalists, civil society organisations, and political representatives.
For months, work was carried out on a consensual draft that would be submitted to Parliament for a vote. Until January 21, everything seemed to be on the right track. Unusually, even the Socialist Party – which holds 83 out of the 140 seats in Parliament – expressed agreement with the initiative.
But one week before the vote, the agreement was unilaterally broken. The ruling party declared that there would not be full decriminalisation of defamation, but only an exemption for “journalists.”
“Registered journalists” – a dangerous precedent
The new draft proposed by the majority provided that only “registered journalists” would be exempted from criminal prosecution for defamation. On the surface, this might have seemed like protection for the media. In essence, it was an attempt to place the profession within a framework of administrative control.
In Albania, there is no official register of journalists. The profession is not regulated by law, and precisely this freedom is one of its guarantees. The creation of a “database” or official register would mean that the state assumes the competence to determine who is and who is not a journalist.
This is a dangerous precedent. If today the register is used to exclude someone from criminal liability, tomorrow it may be used to exclude someone from the right to practice the profession.
Media organisations reacted immediately. The argument was clear: decriminalisation must be universal. Criminal law cannot be used as a tool to differentiate between citizens based on profession. Otherwise, what we have is not decriminalisation, but categorisation and control.
Moreover, organisations and journalists emphasised that by decriminalising defamation only for journalists, politics is sending a bad message: What happens to activists? To whistleblowers? To freelance workers? This was not a decriminalisation of defamation, but a way to control journalists.
Despite massive opposition from the media community, the law was adopted around 03:00 in the morning on January 27 with 85 votes. The time of the vote is symbolic: a decision that affects freedom of expression was passed in the darkness, without consensus and without real reflection on the concerns raised.
4 years in court, a personal story that explains why decriminalisation must be total
I was sued in the Elbasan Court, about 40 kilometers from Tirana, in April 2022 by the former Chief Prosecutor of Tirana, Elisabeta Imeraj, who was dismissed through the vetting process of judges and prosecutors in Albania.
So far, 37 court hearings have been scheduled, of which 19 have been held and 18 have been postponed – mainly at the request of the plaintiff and sometimes also due to the court.
This process, up to now, has cost me around 7,000 euros in legal fees, not including 37 lost working days, transportation costs, and the emotional damage that accompanies a criminal process that lasts for years.
But the greatest cost is not financial.
The real cost is the time taken away from journalistic work. It is the energy spent defending oneself.
When a high official sues a journalist in criminal court, even if in the end the case is dismissed, the chilling effect has already occurred. The process itself becomes punishment. The years spent in courtrooms are a real form of pressure.
Precisely for this reason, the decriminalisation of defamation is not a theoretical or academic debate. It is an issue that affects the professional, economic, and psychological lives of real journalists, with names and surnames.
If criminal law remains like a sword over the head of the media, then freedom of expression remains formal. It exists on paper, but not in practice.
Source: EFJ
