How to Stop Extradition from Albania: Grounds for Refusal, Appeals and Deadlines

Which Albanian authority can stop extradition?

Article 39(2) of Albania’s Constitution requires a treaty basis and a judicial decision. The Ministry of Justice handles routing and the final executive decision. Since 1 February 2023, one Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction has served the whole country.

The broader sequence is covered in the Albania country guide; if the document is a removal or deportation order rather than an extradition request, see the guide to the different legal routes.

Which refusal grounds must the court examine?

Article 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code sets out circumstances in which extradition may not be granted. Law No. 10193 of 3 December 2009 adds conditions that must be checked alongside the Code, while the 1957 European Convention on Extradition and any applicable bilateral treaty can change the analysis. The defence should identify the exact paragraph, explain how the facts meet its legal test, and attach the supporting material.

What does the treaty add to Article 491?

The European Convention on Extradition (ETS No. 024) has applied to Albania since 17 August 1998. Albania’s declarations are important: in conditions of reciprocity it declared no minimum sentence threshold for Article 2, and it refuses extradition of Albanian nationals—including dual nationals with Albanian citizenship—unless an international agreement provides otherwise. The Convention addresses political offences (Article 3), nationality (Article 6), limitation (Article 10) and the death penalty (Article 11). Albania is also party to the Second and Fourth Additional Protocols. Check the Treaty Office entry and the requesting state’s position before relying on a declaration. Albania is an EU candidate country, not an EU Member State; the European Arrest Warrant is therefore not the procedure for an extradition request from Albania.

Law No. 10193, Articles 31–33, adds offence/sentence thresholds, limitation under the requesting state's law, punishment assurances and an asylum timing rule. Article 32(a)–(b) refers to an offence punishable by at least one year and a final sentence or remaining term of at least four months, subject to the applicable treaty. The Ministry normally forwards a request within 10 days, extendable to 15 in complex cases; these are routing periods, not appeal deadlines.

The Supreme Court’s 22 May 2024 unifying decision (identified in the 2024 bulletin as no. 00-2024-1611 (125), and referred to as practice no. 275 in Bulletin No. 2-2026) and the official summary of Criminal College decision no. 00-2025-1911 (300), dated 11 December 2025, address limitation in extradition. The 2025 summary reports that, in an Italy case, Albanian limitation alone did not bar extradition while limitation had not run under Italian law; it also says the Ministry of Justice assesses reciprocity where the requesting state reserved against Article 10(2). A Constitutional Court judgment published in Official Gazette No. 41/2026 also discusses Article 491(ë) and the amended Convention Article 10 in an Italy-related case. Its complete reasoning and operative part must be checked against the applicable treaty, protocol, reservation and facts. Do not assume limitation automatically bars or permits extradition.

What deadlines matter, and when do they start?

Extradition files can move quickly. The table distinguishes a statutory time limit from a practical instruction. The safest approach is to obtain the written decision and proof of service immediately, calculate deadlines conservatively, and file before the earliest plausible expiry.

Can the High Court or Constitutional Court stop an extradition?

The High Court examines legal errors within Article 432 grounds, including material or procedural law errors and conflict with established Criminal Chamber or Joint Chambers practice. It is not a new trial on all facts. Article 462 recognises a High Court decision as final in extradition cases, but Article 498 expressly sets a 10-day appeal to the Court of Appeal; counsel should confirm the admissibility of any further recourse in the particular case and must not let it endanger the 10-day appeal.

In Constitutional Court decision no. 48 of 11 October 2023 (Kleant Keshi), the Court annulled a High Court decision in an extradition case because defective notification of the High Court review impaired the applicant’s ability to be heard and defend the case, and sent it back. Preserve notices and email records, keep counsel’s address current, and object promptly to defects in notice of the date, mode or panel. The decision does not require every extradition matter to be heard in a public oral session.

Judge Meeting decision no. 46 of 12 March 2024 was preliminary and did not decide the merits of Article 491(ë)’s constitutionality. It should not be read as settling the limitation issue. A Constitutional Court judgment published in Official Gazette No. 41/2026 also discusses Article 491(ë) and the amended Convention Article 10 in an Italy-related case. Its full reasoning and operative part must be checked before drawing a general conclusion; counsel should compare it with the applicable treaty, protocol, requesting state’s reservation and the Ministry of Justice’s reciprocity position.

The Supreme Court’s official Bulletin No. 2-2026 summary reports that the Criminal College set aside the appellate refusal in the Italy case and restored the first-instance decision allowing extradition. That is an important authority, but its facts and treaty context matter. Because the Constitutional Court judgment published in Official Gazette No. 41/2026 also addresses the limitation conflict, the full judgments and the applicable treaty/reservation should be checked before relying on Article 491(ë).

A constitutional complaint may be relevant after effective remedies are exhausted, but it must identify a direct constitutional injury, be timely and explain the remedy sought. Fair procedure, file access, interpretation and an adequately reasoned risk assessment may matter; mere disagreement with the ordinary court is not enough.

When can Strasbourg or a UN body provide urgent protection?

Albania is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights. A real risk of death, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment should be raised in domestic proceedings. After effective domestic remedies are exhausted, an application may be made to the European Court of Human Rights within four months of the final domestic decision. A Rule 39 request is exceptional and requires imminent risk of irreparable harm; state the risk, expected transfer date and domestic steps already taken. Filing alone does not stay transfer unless the Court indicates a measure. The Albanian Helsinki Committee's report of 18 February 2025 says that, in a Russian citizen's case, a Constitutional Court suspension was issued at 17:15 and emailed to the responsible directorate at 17:53, after handover at 16:45. The Committee criticised the delay; its report is not a binding judgment. Confirm receipt of any measure by each transfer authority. The Strasbourg complaint would concern Albania’s own transfer decision, not the requesting state’s conduct; the requesting state’s ECHR membership status alone does not determine Albania’s obligations.

Albania acceded to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 4 October 2007; it entered into force for Albania on 4 January 2008. A communication to the UN Human Rights Committee and a request for interim measures may be possible if the individual-complaint procedure applies and all admissibility requirements are met, including exhaustion and any duplication rules. Neither filing guarantees a stay. For Strasbourg procedure, see the Strasbourg application guide.

What evidence should the defence assemble?

The court needs evidence tied to a legal test. Prepare a compact, indexed bundle containing:

• the full extradition request, warrant, foreign charge or judgment, foreign-law extracts and supplements;
• identity, every citizenship, residence and dates of earlier proceedings;
• a chronology of request receipt, arrest, judicial validation, service, hearings and file receipt at each court;
• Albanian case records, amnesty material and limitation calculations;
• for a rights claim, individual medical evidence, threats, current reliable country information and a clear link to the person;
• for an in-absentia case, notice/service records and the exact retrial guarantee;
• for asylum, the application receipt, date and proof of notification to Albanian authorities; and
• Albanian translations and a list explaining what each exhibit proves.

For each ground, ask counsel to state the provision, fact to prove, exhibit, likely counterargument and exact order requested. General country reports without an individual-risk analysis are weaker than a smaller, current and well-explained bundle.

What practical mistakes can defeat a strong objection?

• Waiting for the Ministry’s final act: the judicial appeal period may already be running. Calculate the 10-day period immediately.
• Relying on a Red Notice alone: obtain the domestic request and court documents; an alert is not the extradition decision.
• Calling a case political without proof: link motive to documents, conduct and timing.
• Using general rights reports without an individual link: explain why this person faces the risk and why assurances would not remove it.
• Ignoring treaty declarations: the applicable treaty and bilateral agreement may change the domestic-text analysis.
• Assuming every missed administrative deadline requires refusal: identify the specific legal consequence.
• Confusing release with refusal: expiry of detention may end a measure without ending the extradition case.
• Signing consent without advice: consent to extradition, waiver of a hearing and surrender are distinct and may affect speciality.
• Assuming an appeal or international application automatically stays transfer: seek and confirm an express stay or applicable interim measure.

What should happen in the first 72 hours?

This is a practical plan, not a statutory 72-hour deadline.

1. First hours: request counsel, an interpreter, the arrest record and legal basis; do not sign a consent or waiver you do not understand.
2. At the first court review: check identity, citizenship and warrant; record objections and interpretation needs.
3. When the file is available: obtain the full request, foreign law, judgment, translations and supplements; start the Article 491/treaty analysis.
4. Before the hearing: file evidence-backed refusal grounds and any detention objection.
5. After an adverse decision: obtain the decision/service record and calendar the 10-day appeal.

Hypothetical example: An Albanian citizen is arrested on a request from a state with a treaty exception relevant to nationals. The defence should identify the treaty, test the exception, raise Article 491(e) and prove citizenship before the court decides. A credible risk of ill-treatment is a separate Article 491(b) argument requiring separate evidence.

Because extradition deadlines and treaty effects depend on the actual record, obtain prompt advice from a lawyer authorised to practise in Albania. The request, court decision, proof of service and procedural chronology are useful starting documents; they can be sent through the request form.