HARMONISATION OF THE DOMESTIC LEGISLATION WITH THE EU ACQUIS ON PROTECTED AREAS AND THE CHALLENGES OF IMPLEMENTATION IN ALBANIA

HARMONISATION OF THE DOMESTIC LEGISLATION WITH THE EU ACQUIS ON PROTECTED AREAS AND THE CHALLENGES OF IMPLEMENTATION IN ALBANIA Erjon Muharremaj1* 1University of Tirana, Faculty of Law, Department of Public Law, Tirana, Albania. 1ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8050-3167 Giola Cami2 2 University of Szeged, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Science, Szeged, Hungary. 2ORCID ID: https://orcId.org/0009-0002-1780-9829 *[email protected] Abstract In the framework of its EU integration, Albania has been undertaking institutional and legislative reforms related to the protection of the environment. Currently, Albania has opened five clusters of the negotiation chapters, and its future progress will depend among others, on the progress made towards the implementation of EU environmental acquis and standards. This paper will aim to offer an analysis of the relationship between international, European and the Albanian environmental legislation in general, with a focus on the legislation on the Protected Areas, in the framework of the European integration of Albania. It will begin with a short introduction of the current stage of the Albanian EU integration process. It will also conduct a brief overview of the recognition of international and European legal developments regarding the Protected Areas. The paper will continue with an analysis of the EU influence on the harmonisation of the domestic legislation with the EU acquis on Protected Areas and the challenges of implementation in Albania. Furthermore, it will analyse the role of the courts for the protection of the environment and Protected Areas, and the relevant European and Albanian environmental caselaw, in order to identify the challenges and obstacles to the implementation of the legislation on Protected Areas in Albania. In the end, conclusions will focus on the recommendations regarding the needed institutional and legal improvements, in order not only to successfully conclude the access negotiations, but more importantly, to guarantee the implementation in practice of the legislation on Protected Areas in Albania. Keywords: Albania, environment, harmonisation, integration, legislation, Protected Areas. 1st SMPA-EU — Tetor 2025 Libri i Artikujve/Book of Proceedings 28 of 199 Botuar ne Librin e Artikujve (Book of Proceedings) të Konferencës Shkencore Ndërkombëtare "Sfidat kryesore të menaxhimit të qendrueshëm të zonave të mbrojtura në Shqipëri sipas Direktivave dheRregulloreve të BE-së / 1st SMPA-EU", fq.28–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17491091, organizuar në kuadër të Modulit Jean Monnet “Albanian Protected Areas in the Frame of EU Integration: ALPAsEU”, financuar nga BE. ISBN:9789928488602; e-ISBN:9789928488633 dhe DOI:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17476890. Botues:RUR.AL Konferenca u organizua në bashkëpunim me Universitetin “Ismail Qemali”, Vlorë, Shqipëri. 18 tetor 2025 1. Introduction Albania considers EU membership as the main objective of its foreign policy. It has the status of a candidate country since 2014, and for this purpose, it is undertaking deep reforms in order to accelerate the EU accession process. EU membership depends on the fulfilment of the “Copenhagen Criteria”, which require among others that the candidate country must provide institutions to guarantee democracy, the rule of law, human rights and to have the administrative and institutional capacity to implement EU legislation (acquis), in order to be able to take on the obligations arising from membership. The greatest challenges that Europe is facing are related to reducing biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, as well as adapting to accelerating climate change. Therefore, urgent measures are needed to tackle these problems and to protect biodiversity and ecosystems, to enable climate change mitigation and adaptation, and to fight pollution and guarantee environmental health (European Environment Agency, 2025, p. 8). In the framework of its EU integration, Albania has been undertaking institutional and legislative reforms related to the protection of the environment. Currently, Albania has opened five clusters of the negotiation chapters, and its future progress will depend among others, on the progress made towards the implementation of EU environmental acquis and standards. On 16 September 2025, the Council of the European Union announced the opening of Cluster 4, ‘Green Agenda & Sustainable Connectivity’, which covers transport and energy, the trans-European networks, and environment and climate change policies (Council of the EU, 2025). This study assesses Albania’s environmental legislation compliance with the EU and international standards. Specifically, this paper is concerned with the protected areas legal framework, aiming at identifying the degree of harmonisation between the Albanian domestic legislation with the EU acquis on environmental protection. Hence, the normative analysis in the first part of the paper is conducted through a comparative legal approach, identifying whether Albania’s recent legislative amendments are consistent with the principles enshrined in the EU and international environmental frameworks. The second part of the paper is concerned with the evaluation of the role of the Albanian national courts, their contribution in the development of environmental safeguards, and their role in upholding the implementation of the environmental legislation. By addressing these matters, the study aims at contributing to a better understanding of the challenges that Albania faces in harmonising its environmental legislation with the EU acquis. Equally, it gives prominence to the pivotal role of the judiciary in safeguarding the rule of law and environmental protection, during the accession process. 2. Methodology This study employs primarily a normative legal assessment, using both descriptive and comparative analysis, as we audit the consistency of Albania’s legislation and its compliance with the EU and international standards. The legal analysis is carried out through a close examination of legal norms enshrined in conventions, laws and regulations, and caselaw interpretation. Particular emphasis is placed on the relevant caselaw of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of Albania concerning environmental legal issues. In addition, secondary sources, including reports, policy documents, and academic commentaries, are examined to support and contextualize the normative findings. In addition, limited empirical data is used to contextualize the effect of environmental degradation. 3. Harmonisation of the Albanian Environmental Legislation with the International Treaties and EU Acquis Treaties to which Albania is a party, including environmental ones, have become part of the domestic legal system through the ratification of laws by the Parliament. Articles 122(3) and 123 of the Constitution of the Republic of Albania state the primacy of the norms deriving from an international 1st SMPA-EU — Tetor 2025 Libri i Artikujve/Book of Proceedings 29 of 199 organisation over the domestic law, in case of conflict between these norms, and the transfer of state competences to the international organisations, for certain issues, pursuant to agreements with these organisations (Constitution of the Republic of Albania, Arts. 122–123). In view of these constitutional provisions, the EU has the status of a higher organisation. As far as relevant international conventions are concerned, Albania became a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1994,1 and its’ following protocols, Cartagena (in 2005),2 and Nagoya (in 2014).3 The Albanian legal framework is generally harmonised with the relevant EU legislation, as it relies on the same principles that the European environmental legislation does, it has been drafted with the assistance of European experts and generally reflects the requirements of international conventions to which Albania is a party. Among these, can be mentioned the Convention on Biological Diversity (and its’ Cartagena and Nagoya Protocols), the Council of Europe Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention), the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents (Tromsø Convention), the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the UN Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa (UNCCD), the UN Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo Convention), the Kyoto Protocol, the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean against Pollution (Barcelona Convention), the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Water Convention), the Convention on Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, etc. Last year, in June 2024 Albania joined the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as its newest member.4 Currently, in the present stage of the integration process, in the framework of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA), Albania’s undertakings regarding the environment are defined in its Article 108 which provides that “The Parties shall develop and strengthen their cooperation in the vital task of combating environmental degradation, with the aim of promoting environmental sustainability. Cooperation shall mainly focus on priority areas related to the Community acquis in the field of environment”. The vast majority of the new legislation that is enacted by the Parliament aims at harmonising the Albanian legislation with the EU acquis. Currently, the EU Council has welcomed Albania’s progress on the rule of law and the continued implementation of reforms in the justice system and public administration, and the progress made on the fight against corruption and organised crime, underlining the need to further strengthen the protection of fundamental rights (European Commission, 2024). The assessment of Chapter 27 on “Environment and climate change” indicated that Albania still needs to step up its efforts to achieve full alignment and implementation in most areas. The processes of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) need to be significantly improved, while recommendations from EIAs are rarely implemented, and they should be enforced and then monitored. Public participation and consultation in decision-making need to be improved. Moreover, inspections and enforcement capacity should be strengthened, especially to address environmental crimes more effectively (European Commission, 2023, p. 119). 1 Available at: https://www.cbd.int/information/parties.shtml 2 Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/lists/cpb-ratifications.pdf 3 Available at: https://www.cbd.int/abs/nagoya-protocol/signatories 4 Available at: https://www.iucn.org/press-release/202406/albania-joins-iucn-its-newest-state-member 1st SMPA-EU — Tetor 2025 Libri i Artikujve/Book of Proceedings 30 of 199 4. The Influence of the EU on the Harmonisation of Albania’s Environmental Legislation with the acquis on Protected Areas 4.1. Legal developments on Protected Areas We have commonly inherited the Earth, alongside the responsibility to protect it. Preservation policies appear to be confined to a preventive, vanguard role against future harm, while it is equally important to infer the capacity to reverse the damage that has already occurred. In 2015 it was assessed that 10,000 species were threatened with extinction (Muharremaj, 2015, p. 93), whereas a decade later, nearly 48,600 now share that peril.5 Also, it is estimated that since 1990 about 420 million ha of forests have been lost worldwide, due to deforestation (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2020). Other data on the damage inflicted on the environment pertain to the long-term use of fossil fuels, which have considerably affected the Earth's climate with the release of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, leading to increased widespread environmental and human impacts. World Bank indicates that air pollution is a major risk to human health, which has caused more than 5.7 million deaths globally in 2022 and confirmed as a leading risk for premature death (World Bank, 2025). While the aforementioned data reflect only a partial account of the damage that has occurred, they nonetheless point unanimously the need for stringent policies to adverse effects of environmental degradation (Taylor, Pollard, Rocks & Angus, 2012). International and domestic legal acts have been enacted for the protection of environment, with one of the earliest measures for biodiversity conservation being the establishment of protected areas, prohibiting activities that could harm ecosystems. The first such area, Yellowstone National Park, was established in 1872 in the United States, inspiring many other countries to follow.6 In the 19th century, the international efforts to draft biodiversity treaties were limited in scope and effect, due to narrow species coverage, limited geography, and few contracting states (Muharremaj, 2015, p. 93). A significant development came with the 1893 Behring Sea Fur Seals arbitration between the United States and the United Kingdom, which asserted that conservation in international waters required cooperative rules (Bering Sea Fur Seals Arbitration, 1893). This was followed by the 1911 Convention for the Protection of Seals and the 1900 and 1933 London Conventions on the Protection of Flora and Fauna in Africa (Convention for the Preservation and Protection of Fur Seals, 1911). Subsequent efforts focused on protecting species and habitats, including the Geneva Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas (1958), African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (1968), UNESCO World Heritage Convention (1972). The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity became the main framework for global biodiversity protection, promoting in situ and ex situ conservation, sustainable use, equitable benefitsharing, and national strategies integrating biodiversity into all sectors. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2000) addressed risks from genetically modified organisms, while the Nagoya Protocol (2010) instated fair access and benefit-sharing for genetic resources. Other key treaties include the 1971 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, which requires states to designate wetlands of international importance, and regional agreements such as the 1979 Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats and the 1979 Bonn Convention on Migratory Species, both ensuring cooperative protection of vulnerable fauna and flora. 4.2. EU Acquis on Protected Areas To prevent the endangerment and extinction of species, EU environmental legislation has witnessed significant developments, creating the world’s largest network of protected areas — Natura 20007, 5 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species https://www.iucnredlist.org/ 6 Available at: https://www.nps.gov/yell/index.htm 7 Available at: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/natura-2000_en 1st SMPA-EU — Tetor 2025 Libri i Artikujve/Book of Proceedings 31 of 199 covering over 26,000 sites and about 18% of the EU’s land area. The network is based primarily on two legal instruments: the Birds Directive (Council Directive 79/409/EEC, 1979) and the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC, 1992). The Birds Directive, adopted in response to the concerning decline of bird populations in Europe, applies to all wild bird species within Member States’ territories. It requires them to maintain population levels in alignment with ecological, scientific, and cultural needs, through the creation and management of protected areas, strict regulation of hunting, and prohibition of trade in endangered species. The Directive includes annexes enumerating protected species, prohibited methods of capture, and obligations to report data to the Commission. Whereas, the Habitats Directive, regarded as the backbone of EU biodiversity policy, regulates procedures for site designation, impact assessment of plans and projects (Article 6), and the adoption of compensatory measures in cases of overriding public interest. Complementing these acts, the Council Regulation on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora (Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97, 1996) regulates trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, aligning EU rules with CITES and strengthening border controls. The European Parliament’s 2012 Resolution “Our Life Insurance, Our Natural Capital: An EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020” recognized biodiversity as essential to human well-being and called for improved implementation and financing of Natura 2000. Further commitment was consolidated through the 7th EU Environment Action Programme (Decision No 1386/2013/EU, 2013), “Living well, within the limits of our planet”, which established targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting renewable energy, and halting biodiversity loss by 2020. Enshrined in the principles of prevention, precaution, and the “polluter pays,” these instruments together aim at providing a high level of environmental protection and improving the quality of life for European citizens. 4.3. Albanian legislation on Protected Areas One of the comprehensive acts of the Albanian legislation is Law no. 10431, dated 9.6.2011, “On the protection of the environment”. Article 13 stipulates that every person has the right to be given timely information about the state of the environment, its pollution, and the measures taken. Further, it stipulates that during the institutional solution of environmental protection problems, the relevant public authorities must ensure that the public and interested parties have real opportunities to participate in the procedures for identifying the state of the environment, drafting and approving strategies, plans and programs that are related to the protection of the environment and the components of the environment, as well as in the drafting and approval of regulations and acts of a general nature, related to the protection of the environment, decision-making for the granting of relevant environmental permits, in accordance with the provisions of this law and the legislation to which it refers. Most importantly, the whole Chapter VII includes provisions on the environmental information system, informing the public on environmental issues, the right to environmental information (Law No. 10431, 2011). Especially, Article 48 provides the right to take legal action in a court, in cases of threats to the environment, pollution and its damage. It provides the public with the right to ask the relevant public authorities to take appropriate measures within the deadlines and in accordance with the authority given by the law, and to file a lawsuit in court, in accordance with the conditions provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, against the public authority or natural or legal person, which has caused damage to the environment or which risks damaging it. It also provides for the liability for environmental damage and compensation for environmental damage (Law No. 10431, 2011, Arts. 50–52), as well as the institutional framework for the protection of the environment, including the National Environmental Agency and the environmental inspections. Apart from the law on the protection of the environment, another important legal act is Law no. 10440, dated 07.07. 2011, “On Environmental Impact Assessment”. In its first provision it stipulates that it aims at guaranteeing an open decision-making process, and the involvement of all interested parties in the process. Whereas the most important provisions for the purposes of this paper are included in the Chapter III of the law, articles 14-17, which: enlist the parties that must be involved in the EIA process, that apart from the project developer and the public authorities, include the public and non1st SMPA-EU — Tetor 2025 Libri i Artikujve/Book of Proceedings 32 of 199 profit organizations. It obliges the developer to inform and consult with the interested public about the assessment of the environmental impact of his activity and to present the relevant documents as part of the application for the permit. It also obliges the National Environmental Agency to organize hearing sessions with the public and interested NGOs, in order to receive their opinion, as part of the decision-making process (Law No. 10440, 2011). The rules, requirements and procedures for informing and involving the public in environmental decision-making are defined by Decision of the Council of Ministers "On determining the rules, requirements and procedures for information and public involvement in environmental decision-making (DCM No. 247, 2014). However, a clear requirement for granting development consents for projects to include the EIA conclusion, environmental conditions, as well as associated measures and monitoring protocols, is not envisaged by the EIA Law. Essential secondary legislation required for proper implementation of the EIA is still lacking (Energy Community, 2023, p. 23), despite the enactment of the bylaw on the approval of rules, responsibilities and deadlines for the EIA procedure (DCM No. 686, 2015). The most controversial pieces of legislation are related to the Protected Areas, which include several DMCs (DCMs No. 59 and No. 60, 2022), and Law no. 21/2024 “On supplanting and amending Law no.81/2017, On Protected Areas”. The amendment in February 2024 clears the way for infrastructure projects - such as Vlora Airport - to be carried out in previously protected areas. One of its most controversial provisions is the introduction of the “Principle of suitability” (Law No. 21/2024),8 unprecedented in the environmental legislation of any other country, or any international environmental treaty. The amendment grants to the National Council of Territory (NCT) [which now includes also Water - NCTW] (Law No. 107/2014, Art. 2(13); DCM No. 519, 2017), enormous power over the protected areas. For these reasons, it has been aptly dubbed as the “Unprotected Areas Law” (Albanian Ornithological Society, 2024). Read together with the Law No. 55/2015, “On strategic investments in the Republic of Albania”, it becomes abundantly clear that the most important decision-making on large infrastructure objects, which carry the largest potential harm to the environment, are left to the same group of people, the Strategic Investments Committee (SIC), with an almost identical composition as the NCTW, chaired by the Prime Minister. It disregards the will of the locally elected officials, by stating openly that SIC “…can invite in its meeting the heads of local government units, but with no right to vote” (Law No. 55/2015, Arts. 9(1)–9(2)). The amendment of February 2024 opened the possibility for projects - such as Vlora Airport - to be carried out in the protected areas. These legal acts go clearly against the commitments that Albania has undertaken in the framework of the international treaties, especially those related to the harmonisation with the environmental acquis of the EU. As for the institutional framework, the National Agency for Protected Areas (NAPA) is the central public institution that directs and administers the conservation and management of all environmentally protected areas.9 At the local governance level, the Regional Administration of Protected Areas (AdZM) is the local body responsible for the conservation and management of the protected areas in the territory of the region, whereas the Administration of the Protected Area (APA) is the local body responsible for the conservation and management of a certain protected area. 5. The Role of the Courts in the Preservation of Protected Areas The right to a healthy and ecologically adequate environment is related to the social objectives provided by Article 59 of the Albanian Constitution. In its judgment No. 3, dated 30 January 2024, the 8 Art. 2: “d) "Principle of suitability". The category of a protected area must be changed if from its assessment at a given time results that the characteristics and objectives for which the area it was proclaimed as “protected”, do not any longer match those of that certain category.” In practice, this provision will have disastrous consequences for the protected areas. Essentially, instead of serving to protect certain areas as habitats of flora and fauna, it will encourage environmental criminals and/or powerful developers to destroy them, so that afterwards they may be declared as “unsuitable” environments, and removed from the “protected” category. Thus, the way is opened for development, which would not otherwise be permitted in these areas. 9 Available at: https://akzm.gov.al/ 1st SMPA-EU — Tetor 2025 Libri i Artikujve/Book of Proceedings 33 of 199 Constitutional Court ruled that the right to be informed about the state of the environment and its protection are guaranteed directly by the Constitution. However, although the right to a healthy and ecologically adequate environment are related to the social objectives provided by Article 59 of the Constitution, the Court assessed them in the light of international law. In this context, the Constitutional Court emphasised that even the ECtHR has not considered them as separate rights, but they have been treated in the case-law of the ECtHR as related to other rights set out in the ECHR (Judgment of the Constitutional Court of Albania No. 3, 2024, para. 22). The applicants (environmental and human rights NGOs), claimed an infringement of the right to be informed about the state of the environment, provided for by Article 56 of the Constitution, the Aarhus Convention, as well as the laws on notification and public consultation and environmental protection, because the disputed acts were adopted without transparency, without information or public consultation regarding the usefulness of the investment, the possible limitations of rights and the influence of the law on them, the advantages, disadvantages and consequences it brings to the economy, the health of the population etc., and without public involvement in the decision-making. Likewise, the acts were approved without preparing the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report of the project for the construction of the Skavica Hydropower Plant (HPP), which was supposed to be ready for public opinions and comments in the third quarter of 2022. They also claimed the infringement of the right to a healthy and ecologically appropriate environment, provided for by article 59 of the Constitution, since the realisation of the project would create a microclimate of the region characterised by high moisture content in the air, increased fog, a negative impact of radiation and other meteorological indicators, an increase in the level of carbon in the air as a result of the flooding of the forests, which would make the lives of the inhabitants of the basin less healthy. The Court found that in view of the obligations that Article 56 of the Constitution and the Aarhus Convention impose on state authorities before undertaking activities or projects that have an impact on the environment and other fundamental rights related to it, the Court considered that the petitioners’ claims for violation of the right for public information, must be upheld. This, because international standards require public consultation in the early stages of undertaking activities or activities with an impact on the environment, which did not happen in this case. The approval procedure of Law No. 38/2021, which granted the concession for the construction of the hydropower plant, was made in violation of the right to information on the state and protection of the environment. The Constitutional Court found that the law was adopted without public consultation, without hearing the affected community, and without assessing the project’s environmental impact. Nevertheless, considering that the project was still in its early stages, the Court held that the procedural violations could be remedied through subsequent public involvement during later phases of implementation and decision-making (Judgment of the Constitutional Court of Albania No. 3, 2024, para. 64). Consequently, while acknowledging the applicants’ claims as well-founded, the Court found no grounds to repeal Law No. 38/2021, allowing the project to proceed, rendering the decision largely ineffective in protecting the plaintiffs’ rights. Most recently, the Constitutional Court delivered another regrettable judgment on the constitutionality of the amendment of the Law on Protected Areas, at a time when this law contains one of the most controversial provisions, as far as the protection of environment is concerned, especially the protected areas. Regrettably, for this amendment, the Constitutional Court held that the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) aims at cooperation in the fight against environmental degradation, by defining a process of legislative approximation without imposing concrete enforceable obligations. Although the contested law ostensibly liberalises state policies in the administration of protected areas, it essentially constitutes a framework law, which is not self-executing and does not in itself bring consequences and, consequently, does not infringe international obligations for environmental protection under the SAA. Considering that specific Decisions of the Council of Ministers (DCM) will be issued for the implementation of the law, which will make the relevant detailed determinations for each area, only at that moment can the non-compliance with international obligations under Article 108 of the SAA be verified, i.e., whether the obligation for non-environmental degradation is fulfilled (Constitutional Court of Albania, Notice of Decision-making, 31.07.2025). 1st SMPA-EU — Tetor 2025 Libri i Artikujve/Book of Proceedings 34 of 199 In other words, according to the Constitutional Court of Albania, it must wait for the damage to occur (meanwhile, the Vlora Airport is near completion and the first airplane has already landed there) (Albanian Times, 2025), in order to consider whether the legislation that enabled it, is constitutional, or not. The role of the judiciary is to protect the public interest, the right to a healthy environment, by restricting work that leads to the destruction of protected areas and the irreplaceable natural values that they hold, especially in cases where significant financial interests may create external pressures. The Constitutional Court should play a crucial role in this regard. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Albania operates with the same limited mindset. In its judgment of 11 March 2025, it argues that the motion for injunctive relief “is not based on legal grounds”, and that “The Court preliminarily assesses that the motion is not well-founded, as there is no clear evidence of the reasonable doubt about the possibility of causing a serious, irreversible and imminent damage to the plaintiff, and whether this damage is caused by the airport construction works, or by its future operation. Also, the plaintiff has neither reasoned, nor provided evidence that granting the injunctive relief does not seriously harm public interest, which is, and remains an obligation for the plaintiff.” It beggars belief to understand why the Supreme Court requires that the plaintiffs, the Centre for Conservation and Protection of the Natural Environment in Albania and The Ornithological Society of Albania would have to provide evidence damage to their interest, at a time when their aims and objectives as environmental NGOs are to protect the public interest, not their interest. This is a serious regress in the Supreme Court’s attitude in environmental cases, which itself had previously argued in 2021 that are “…polycentric in nature, far from the formal contradictory aspect of a normal civil/administrative trial”, and that “…the prevalence of a greater public interest, that of protecting the environment, nature and biodiversity. Environment is an inter-territorial concept, which goes beyond the borders of a country. The protection of the environment is a fundamental condition for ensuring the development of society and is a national priority, which aims to pass an undamaged environment between generations.” The Supreme Court has provided no arguments for this negative change in its caselaw, while both cases are identical: one related to the construction of an airport in a Protected Area in South Albania, the other related to the construction of hydropower plants in the Valbona National Park, in North Albania. In both cases, the adjudicating panels have been presided by the same judge, the President of the Supreme Court. The permission of the construction of the Vlora Airport is one of the illustrating cases of the dismal failure of the efforts to protect the environment, vis-à-vis unsustainable tourism development. It showed total disregard for the fundamental principle that protected areas are for the conservation of nature, not for allowing projects that bring mass tourism. No right-minded person would be against the development of infrastructure that brings tourism, and therefore, income and development to the country, but such developments should be sustainable, i.e., they should not harm the environment, especially the most sensitive areas, which have been placed for that specific reason under protection. The airport is being constructed within the Vjosë-Nartë wetland, proclaimed as a Protected Wetland/Terrestrial Landscape by the Council of Ministers since 2004 (DCM No. 680, 2004), an area that the National Agency of Protected Areas (NAPA) admits itself that contains 6 habitat types that are listed as priority to the Natura 2000 Habitat List, where various conservation measures must be in place, and where there are seven floristic species, one endemic species and two species included in Annex IVb of the Habitats Directive, as well as faunal species, out of which two species are “Critically Endangered”, while eleven of them are “Endangered” and 81 are “Vulnerable” (National Agency of Protected Areas, 2022). Due to its particular characteristics, it has an extremely important role for the protection of nature and biodiversity, and for these reasons it is an Important Bird Area (IBA), a Key Biodiversity Area (KBA), part of the Emerald Network of Areas of Special Conservation Interest (Council of Europe, 2003). As expected, the amendment of the Law ‘On Protected Areas’ was followed by a decision of the National Council of Territory and Water in August 2025, that stipulates that in cases of the proposals for development in the areas that are registered in the cadaster as “orchard” or “olive grove”, when it is confirmed by the local authorities that there are no more existing trees or olive trees, the developer may proceed with the application for development, a procedure which will be followed by the Technical Secretariat of the NCTW (Decision of the National Council of Territory and Water No. 01, 1st SMPA-EU — Tetor 2025 Libri i Artikujve/Book of Proceedings 35 of 199 2025). Both the timing (it was adopted on 28 August 2025, while Albania was fighting amongst the worst fires in its history) (Ministry of Defense of Albania, 2025a), and the content of this decision, are to be proven disastrous for the protection of the environment, because it will encourage the destruction of green areas through arson, in order to clear them for development. It is both sad and ironical that on 27 August 2025 the Prime Minister of Albania decorated the firefighters that risked their lives to battle the fires across Albania (Ministry of Defense of Albania, 2025b), and the very next day, on 28 August 2025 he signed the decision of the National Council of Territory and Water, in the capacity as its chairman. An impediment to the right to access the courts for environmental protection is the use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). Regarding these, Albania is in the absurd situation that they are almost inexistent, but not for the right reasons. This is so not because of the legal guarantees, but because in the court proceedings, representatives of the public authorities defend the developers, not the environment. It is the environmental NGOs that usually appear as plaintiffs, whereas the public authorities that issue the development/construction permits (the government, the National Council of Territory and Water), and the developer appear as defendants. 6. Conclusions Since the 1990s, the harmonisation of the domestic law with the EU acquis and its effective implementation has been one of the main priorities in Albania. Understandably, the country must ensure that current and future legislation should strive towards the full approximation with the acquis, but it is equally important to understand that “harmonisation” does not mean simply “copy & paste” of the European legislation. Rather, it means the drafting of a comprehensive legislation, and most importantly, its implementation in practice. Challenges that the EU itself faces, regarding the implementation of this legislation arise firstly from the fact that it is very wide and diverse, including matters related to climate change, protection of air, water, soil, biodiversity, up until the management of chemicals and waste. Also, the environmental acquis includes diverse techniques, beginning with those that guarantee the standards of products in order to reach environmental objectives, continuing with restrictions and prohibitions, the use of economic instruments, the defining of delicate zones that require a higher level of protection, the evaluation of plans and programmes that have an impact on the environment, up to those that guarantee the participation of the public in environmental decision making. Apart from these aspects, the implementation of the environmental acquis is further complicated if we take into account the fact that it includes issues to which the public is very sensitive and always ready to put into action the mechanisms at its disposal that challenge the decision making of the authorities through administrative and judicial review. No less important, there are the challenges that stem from the continuous enlargement of the EU, including countries that come from former totalitarian systems, with mentalities and capacities totally different from those of the existing Member States (European Commission, 2008, p. 3). EU environmental legislation is adopted by the Member States (by the same token it is also adopted gradually by the candidate countries, including Albania) almost exclusively through directives. Under these circumstances, these rules are not directed to the legal subjects, but rather to the Member States, in the form of “requests” to harmonise their legislation, which as a consequence oblige the subjects to act in accordance with the domestic harmonised norms. EU legislation stands behind the major part of the domestic environmental legislation. This analysis on the efforts for the protection of environment in the course of the European integration has shown that in this stage of the integration of Albania, the implementation of the environmental legislation and its harmonisation with the acquis are of crucial importance. Certainly, drafting a comprehensive legal framework, even if it is approximated with the acquis, as it is in the case of Albania, does not, per se, guarantee the protection of the environment, if the mechanisms are not in place for its implementation, and a strong judiciary to guarantee the rule of law. In this regard, the role of the courts becomes all the more important, since they give practical meaning to the legislation on environmental protection and pave the way for its interpretation in practice. Even though Albania 1st SMPA-EU — Tetor 2025 Libri i Artikujve/Book of Proceedings 36 of 199