{"id":76586,"date":"2025-02-21T19:22:54","date_gmt":"2025-02-21T18:22:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/euronews.al\/en\/?p=76586"},"modified":"2025-02-21T19:22:54","modified_gmt":"2025-02-21T18:22:54","slug":"constitutional-court-rejects-the-dps-appeal-against-durres-tourist-port-project","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/euronews.al\/en\/constitutional-court-rejects-the-dps-appeal-against-durres-tourist-port-project\/","title":{"rendered":"Constitutional Court Rejects the DP\u2019s Appeal Against Durr\u00ebs Tourist Port Project"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n

The Constitutional Court has decided to reject the lawsuit filed by Democratic Party (DP) deputies regarding the Durr\u00ebs tourist port project, arguing that there were no sufficient constitutional grounds to annul the law and the decisions of the Council of Ministers (VKM).<\/p>\n

In their lawsuit, opposition deputies claimed that the project developer was selected without competition, thus harming fair competition. However, the Court dismissed this claim, reasoning that the investor was chosen as part of an international agreement with the United Arab Emirates, which was approved by law.<\/p>\n

The Court also found that the management of public spaces by the strategic investor remains at the discretion of the local government. Regarding the fiscal incentives granted for the project, the decision states that they do not provide the investor with an unfair competitive advantage, as the state holds 33% of the shares and benefits proportionally from dividends.<\/p>\n

In its ruling, the Constitutional Court determined that while it had jurisdiction to review the law, it did not have jurisdiction over the VKMs approved in the framework of the project, considering them as individual acts.<\/p>\n

After analyzing the claims presented by the opposition, most of them were dismissed as they were deemed to lack sufficient legal basis or did not fall under constitutional jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

By a majority vote, the Constitutional Court decided to reject the request, allowing the project to proceed. The reasoned decision is expected to be published within the legal deadlines.<\/p>\n

This is the second time the Constitutional Court has rejected an appeal by opposition deputies on this issue. Previously, on June 16, 2023, it had dismissed a similar request submitted by 37 opposition deputies, who opposed the agreement signed between the Albanian Government and the United Arab Emirates for the construction of the tourist marina.<\/p>\n

Full Announcement<\/h3>\n

On February 21, 2025, the Constitutional Court concluded its review of the case filed by at least one-fifth of the Parliament\u2019s deputies, with the following objectives:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    The annulment of Law No. 79\/2022, “On the approval of the framework agreement between the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Albania and Eagle Hills Real Estate Development, Albanian Seaports Development Company, sh.a., and NSHMI Development L.L.C. regarding the strategic investment project \u2018Durr\u00ebs Marina & Yachts.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    The annulment of VKM No. 861, dated 29.12.2021, \u201cOn the transfer of state-owned immovable properties to the fund for supporting strategic investments, for the development and implementation of the strategic investment project \u2018Durr\u00ebs Marina & Yachts,\u2019\u201d as amended by three other VKMs.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Initially, the Court reaffirmed its position that it has jurisdiction over the constitutionality of laws, including Law No. 79\/2022, as long as its jurisdiction is determined by the constitutional nature of the claims.<\/p>\n

    Regarding the claimants\u2019 allegations about the unconstitutionality of the four VKMs, in light of the relevant standards of constitutional jurisprudence, the Court, by majority vote, concluded that these (VKMs) are individual acts and, as such, do not fall under constitutional jurisdiction according to Article 131, paragraph 1 (c) of the Constitution.<\/p>\n

    The Court determined that the claimants had standing (ratione personae and ratione temporis) for all the claims raised concerning Law No. 79\/2022.<\/p>\n

    Furthermore, in assessing the substance and constitutional nature of the specific claims (ratione materiae), the Court, by majority vote, determined that the claimants’ arguments concerning:<\/p>\n

      \n
    • The violation of national identity and cultural heritage due to the development of the strategic project in the territory of the Durr\u00ebs port;<\/li>\n
    • Article 11\/2 of the Constitution, due to the state’s failure to protect this public property by placing it at the disposal of a private company (partially);<\/li>\n
    • The right to transparency due to (i) the lack of public hearings with interest groups, (ii) the failure to inform deputies about certain parts of the contract, (iii) the expedited approval procedure of the law, and (iv) uncertainties regarding the ultimate beneficial owner;<\/li>\n
    • Article 82\/1 of the Constitution, due to the absence of a financial impact report accompanying the draft law;<\/li>\n
    • The Constitution, the Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA), and the Albania-EU Visa Waiver Agreement, due to the creation of a “golden passport” type scheme;<\/li>\n
    • The principles of local autonomy, as the Municipality of Durr\u00ebs and its residents would be deprived of revenue from infrastructure impact taxes and the legal quota for social housing,<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      would not be reviewed, as the claimants failed to present constitutional arguments.<\/p>\n

      The Court also found that the claimants\u2019 argument regarding the violation of economic freedom in relation to competition and equality before the law\u2014due to the developer\u2019s selection without competition\u2014was not subject to review, as the developer\u2019s selection was stipulated in the international agreement between the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Albania and the United Arab Emirates, approved by Law No. 145\/2020, and not by the law under review. Moreover, the Court noted that competition among developers under the Strategic Investment Law occurs at the stage of obtaining strategic investor status.<\/p>\n

      Subsequently, the Court proceeded with an in-depth review of the following claims concerning:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. The violation of constitutional principles of decentralization and local autonomy due to Article 10.6 of the Framework Agreement approved by Law No. 79\/2022 (subject to review), which stipulates that the management of public spaces created through the implementation of the strategic project will be handled by the strategic investor;<\/li>\n
      2. The violation of economic freedom in relation to free competition and equality before the law, due to the exemption of the strategic investor from the obligation to pay the infrastructure impact tax and contribute to social housing (Articles 2\/1 and 10.12 of the Framework Agreement) and the allocation of public property to a private company without competition (Article 11\/2 of the Constitution).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Regarding the first claim, the Court, through a conciliatory interpretation of the contested provisions and Articles 13 and 113 of the Constitution, by majority vote, concluded that the management of public spaces by the strategic investor, as stated in Article 10.6 of the Framework Agreement, should be understood as an option, the implementation of which remains at the discretion of the local government.<\/p>\n

        Regarding the second claim, the Court, by majority vote, concluded that it was unfounded, as the exemption of the strategic investor from the obligation to pay these taxes\/financial obligations does not grant them a competitive advantage in the relevant market. This is because, despite the apparent exemptions, in exchange, the state has become a shareholder in the investment company with a 33% stake and will consequently participate in the distribution of dividends in the same proportion.<\/p>\n

        In conclusion, for the above reasons, the Court decided, by majority vote, to reject the request. The final decision will be published with full reasoning within the legal deadlines stipulated by Law No. 8577\/2000 and the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

        \n
        \n