The Albanian Helsinki Committee (AHC), pursuant to its mission to defend fundamental rights and freedoms, became aware through publications in the media and was informed by the company “Focus Media News” on the event of 09.08.2025, whereby the premises of this media company were surrounded by forces of State Police.
Representatives of the company “Focus Media News,” in their complaint claimed that State Police officers had not made available to them any prior notice, court ruling, or any other documentation on the legal procedure pursued on 09.08.2025. Furthermore, they shared concern about the infringement of journalism sources and freedom of expression because, during this police intervention, files from journalists’ offices, containing sensitive information, had been sequestered.
Based on the above claims and to be informed in a more complete and legally documented manner about the above actions, pursuant to article 3, law no. 119/2014 “On the right to information,” addressed the General Directory of State Police through two requests for information, namely on 22.08.2025 and 04.09.2025. AHC shared the concerns of the company “Focus Media News” and requested:
- Information on the procedures pursued by the institution of State Police, the documentation maintained and drafted by representatives of the institution on this case, as well as the legal causes that led to the need for intervention into the premises of this company in reference to provisions of the law no. 82/2024 “On State Police.”
- Information on the procedure pursued to sequester files or other working equipment (in case such an intervention had been carried out), as well as sharing of proving documentation.
On 16.09.2025, the General Directory of State Police, by e-mail,” informed us that “The local Directory of Police in Tirana,” based on the standard operating procedure “For cooperation and institutional support that the State Police provides to other state institutions,” approved by order of the General Director of State Police no. 255, dated 15.3.2017, drafted a plan of measures and assisted the state-owned shareholding company “KAYO”, based on this request.”
The information provided to us was shallow, which does not clarify the actions undertaken, in order to conclude whether they were legal. On 07.10.2025, AHC exercised the right to administrative complaint with the Commissioner for the Right to Information and Personal Data Protection (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner’s Office), in keeping with provisions in law no. 119/2014 “On the right to information.”
Following the intervention of the Commissioner’s Office, on 24.10.2025, again by e-mail, the General Directory of State Police made available to us Order no. 1838/3, prot., dated, On the approval of the standard operating procedure “On institutional cooperation and support that State Police provide to other state institutions.” The order in question is a standard procedure used by the institution of the State Police to support every state institution and, again, in AHC’s assessment, does not provide a full and concrete response to the request for information in the official letters of 22.08.2025 and 04.09.2025.
Per the above, by e-mail, on 04.11.2025, AHC informed the Commissioner’s Office that it sought from this institution the further review of the complaint and the making of a decision in accordance with provisions of Chapter VI, of law no. 119/2014 “On the right to information.”
By an e-mail on 20.11.2025, the Commissioner’s Office considered the review of the complaint complete, as the Public Authority (General Directory of State Police), through the e-mails of 24.10.2025, 17.11.2025 provided a response on the possessed information. It results that the Commissioner’s Office did not make a decision in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5, article 24 of law no. 119/2014 “On the right to information,” in order to not accept the complaint, accept it, or reject it partially or fully, although AHC stated clearly that it was seeking the assessment and decision-making of this institution.
Although the decision of the Commissioner’s Office is possible to appeal in Court, AHC considers that pursuing the legal route in the conditions and problems that the system is faced with (prolongation of reviews, court backlog, staff vacancies) would create harmful delays, which would not serve the respect for the right to information and public transparency.
In these circumstances, in the interest of the public, AHC considered to make a public pronouncement on the matter. The police officers acted in a hasty manner, not in accordance with law no. 82/2024 “On State Police,” which have to do with control, freedom of the press, and sources of information. These violations have been highlighted also in the statements or declarations of the European Federation of Journalists[1] and Safe Journalists.[2]
AHC considers that the General Directory of State Police did not respect the requirements of the law no. 119/2014 “On the right to information,” as the requested information was not made available in a full manner, while it was not included in any of the instances of the restriction of the right to information envisaged in article 17 of the law.
In closing, AHC emphasizes the importance of freedom of expression and the confidentiality of the sources of journalists. Their protection has also been addressed in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which emphasized in the decision Goodwin vs. United Kingdom, that journalistic sources find protection under article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and that interfering with them may only be justified in the case of protection of public interest.
[1] https://europeanjournalists.org/blog/2025/08/12/albania-urgent-answers-needed-on-focus-media-group-blockade-and-journalists-right-to-work/
[2] https://safejournalists.net/incident/attacks-on-media-outlets-and-organizations-news24-balkanweb-panorama-and-gazeta-shqiptare-09-08-2025-tirana/
