Founded in 2010 to turn protest into lasting legal change, Res Publica has since become Albania’s main legal defender of journalists, providing long-term protection through strategic litigation, FOI cases, and rapid legal support in an environment where reporters remain isolated, legally exposed, and under sustained political and economic pressure. Media Defence spoke to its Executive Director, Dorian Matlija, about the ongoing challenges facing journalists and those who represent them.
“Legally, freedom of expression in Albania is protected, but in practice it remains very fragile.” Dorian Matlija is a lawyer and the Executive Director and lead legal counsel of Res Publica, an Albanian human rights NGO specialising in the legal protection of fundamental rights.
Asked about his work and the state of press freedom in Albania, Matlija begins by highlighting the abyssal gap between the formal rights journalists enjoy and the reality on the ground for both reporters and their lawyers. This contradiction defines the country’s media environment, he says: rights on paper, but pressure and intimidation everywhere else.
Journalists in Albania operate in a landscape marked by concentrated media ownership and strong political influence, often intertwined with organised crime. This environment, Matlija explains, systematically produces self-censorship and discourages investigative reporting.
These pressures are compounded by the unstable contracts many journalists work under, which limit their independence and make it harder to access legal protection. “Journalists facing lawsuits are often left to defend themselves individually, and to absorb the pressure alone.”
When legal action is brought, journalists are frequently forced to decide whether to continue their work at all. And when they do choose to fight – sometimes with pro bono representation secured through donors or project-based support – the situation for their lawyers is often just as challenging. Defamation claims are frequently vague, with complainants failing to specify the allegedly defamatory material until deep into proceedings, making it difficult to structure an effective defence.
The impact of judicial reform
“Another structural challenge is the extraordinary length of trials, a consequence of the drastic reduction – by roughly half – of the judiciary following Albania’s vetting process,” Matlija explains.
These delays stem largely from the Albanian Vetting Law (Law no. 84/2016), adopted in August 2016 as the most extensive judicial reform since the end of communism. The law established a comprehensive re-evaluation process for judges and prosecutors, assessing professional competence, moral integrity, and financial assets, with the stated aim of strengthening the rule of law and restoring public confidence.
Around 800 judicial officials were reviewed, more than 200 of whom were dismissed or resigned.
While widely regarded as a necessary anti-corruption measure, the vetting process also had profound practical consequences. The removal of so many judges and prosecutors created severe staffing shortages across all levels of the judiciary. Courts were left unable to manage caseloads efficiently, leading to postponed hearings, reassigned files, and, in some cases, proceedings restarting entirely.
Ongoing institutional restructuring and appeals against vetting decisions further undermined continuity. As a result, despite its long-term goals, the reform has contributed in the short and medium term to growing backlogs and dramatically prolonged trials.
Even simple cases can now take years. “The process itself becomes a punishment,” Matlija says.
SPAK and the problem of power imbalance
A further complexity is the growing role of SPAK, the Special Structure against Corruption and Organised Crime, an independent body established in 2016 to investigate corruption and organised crime within Albanian society and government.
SPAK’s expanded mandate has had significant implications for press freedom, particularly for investigative journalists.
In late 2023, SPAK seized the professional and personal devices of Ora News journalist Elton Qyno after he published material related to a high-profile corruption case, seeking to compel him to reveal his sources.
Press freedom organisations widely criticised the action as a direct threat to source confidentiality – a cornerstone of independent journalism.
International organisations, including Reporters Without Borders and the European Federation of Journalists, formally urged SPAK to respect source protection and return the seized equipment. Following a complaint filed by Res Publica, the UN Human Rights Committee called on Albanian authorities to halt any further inspection or judicial use of the materials while the case is under review.
Albania’s Constitutional Court later ruled that the seizures violated press freedom and overturned the lower-court decisions. The episode nevertheless exposed the deep tensions between anti-corruption enforcement and journalists’ ability to investigate without fear of intrusive legal reprisals.
“Ensuring equality of arms against such a powerful body is a serious and ongoing struggle,” Matlija says.
Evolving threats
The pressures journalists face today differ markedly from those of the early 2000s, when Matlija started in this field of law, also working as a Legal Director for the Albanian Radio Television.
“Twenty years ago, the primary threats were criminal charges, defamation, and – not infrequently – physical assault,” Matlija recalls. Today, censorship operates in subtler, layered ways.
The first layer is economic co-optation. Media outlets owned by major business groups – often operating in sectors dependent on state permits – are “pacified through incentives, access, and preferential treatment.” When that fails, fiscal pressure follows: inspections, licensing problems, and regulatory warnings.
The second layer involves smear campaigns, SLAPPs, harassment, and cyber-attacks, including the leaking of private data. The result is a slow erosion of investigative journalism, achieved less through overt repression than through exhaustion.
“Seen from the outside, the decline in extreme incidents may give the impression of democratic progress. In reality, it reflects a strategic shift,” Matlija says.
A new generation of legal tools
Many of today’s pressures exploit exceptions contained in Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which allows restrictions on freedom of expression under certain conditions.
Copyright law is increasingly weaponised. “These claims are not about protecting creativity; they are about suppressing reporting,” Matlija says.
Reputation, data protection, and trade-secrecy laws are similarly repurposed to block information that is clearly in the public interest. So too is the principle of protecting criminal investigations, sometimes invoked to justify the seizure of journalistic devices.
One of the most disturbing developments, Matlija adds, is what he calls the “criminalisation of proximity.” Journalists covering organised crime are increasingly investigated as though they were participants. “The core ‘evidence’ is essentially their professional contacts and conversations with sources,” he says.
The implication is chilling: speaking to a source can be construed as complicity.
Politics, business, and organised crime
Reporters Without Borders, which ranked Albania 80th in its 2025 World Press Freedom Index – 19 places higher than in 2024 – identifies politics, business interests, and organised crime as the principal forces undermining press freedom.
Matlija agrees: “Editorial decisions are often influenced not by journalistic judgment, but by the economic interests of owners who cannot afford to antagonise political actors.”
Critical outlets risk losing advertising revenue or institutional access, facing inspections, or becoming targets of coordinated smear campaigns. When criminal groups become involved, intimidation often follows – quietly, but effectively.
“The mere knowledge that a story touches individuals with a reputation for violence is often enough to silence reporting before it begins.”
Although the overall number of lawsuits has decreased, their impact has intensified. “We may see fewer cases, but those that occur tend to involve higher financial claims, intrusive interim measures, and coordinated economic pressure.” The cumulative effect is exhaustion – and eventually, self-censorship.
Defending journalists and resisting structural pressure
Res Publica works simultaneously on individual defence and systemic reform. Much of its work involves rapid intervention in SLAPPs and disproportionate judicial measures.
“Once you remove the fear of the unknown, even SLAPPs become far less intimidating,” Matlija notes.
Journalists represented by Res Publica often do not need to appear in court at all, allowing them to continue reporting. “We remain the only organisation in Albania providing this kind of long-term, non-partisan legal shield for journalists,” he says.
At a systemic level, the organisation works through FOI litigation, legislative monitoring, cooperation with the State Police, and educational initiatives that help journalists navigate Albania’s increasingly complex legal environment.
“What has emerged is a sophisticated, layered model of censorship that allows the country to appear aligned with democratic standards while significantly constraining investigative journalism,” Matlija concludes.
Res Publica, he says, exists to push back against that reality – one case, one journalist, and one structural reform at a time.
