The decision, adopted on 11 March 2026 and now published in full, provides detailed constitutional reasoning on the limits of state intervention in the digital sphere and the standards applicable to restrictions on online communication.
Background of the case
The case concerns Decision No. 151/2025 of the Council of Ministers, which ordered the interruption of access to TikTok across Albania for up to 12 months. The measure was justified by the authorities as a temporary intervention aimed at addressing concerns related to harmful content, risks to children, and broader social impacts linked to the platform.
The case was brought before the Constitutional Court by the Association of Journalists of Albania and BIRN Albania. Although the government later repealed the measure, the Court proceeded with the review due to the public interest in clarifying constitutional standards for similar interventions.
Online platforms as spaces of expression
In its reasoning, the Court reaffirmed that online platforms may function as spaces for communication, dissemination of information, and interaction with audiences. It found that restricting access to such a platform constitutes an interference with freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
The Court considered that the suspension of access to TikTok, applied to all users, directly affected the exercise of these freedoms.
Assessment of constitutional criteria
The Court examined whether the measure met the constitutional requirements for restricting fundamental rights, focusing on legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality.
On legality, the Court found that the restriction was not “prescribed by law.” It held that the applicable legislation did not provide a clear, specific, and foreseeable basis authorising the government to impose a general suspension of access to an online platform for all users.
On legitimate aim, the Court accepted that the measure pursued a public interest objective, namely the protection of children and young people, which is recognised under the Constitution.
On proportionality, the Court concluded that the measure did not meet the required standard. It found that the suspension applied broadly to all users without distinction and that it had not been demonstrated that such a general restriction was necessary. It also noted that alternative measures had not been sufficiently considered.
Clarification of constitutional standards
In its full reasoning, the Court emphasised that restrictions on freedom of expression must be based on a clear legal framework and must respect the principle of proportionality. It underlined that more intensive restrictions require more precise legal authorisation and careful assessment of less restrictive alternatives.
The Court also highlighted that the existence of other communication channels does not, in itself, justify the restriction of access to a specific platform.
Outcome
The Constitutional Court concluded that the implementation of Decision No. 151/2025 resulted in a violation of freedom of expression and freedom of the press. As the measure had already been repealed, the Court limited its decision to the finding of a violation, while providing guidance for future cases involving restrictions in the digital environment.
Complete decision in Albanian (pdf)
SafeJournalists Network engagement on the TikTok ban
The SafeJournalists Network (SJN) has consistently followed and publicly addressed the TikTok ban since its announcement. In December 2024, SJN raised initial concerns after the Albanian government announced plans to suspend access to the platform, emphasizing that such measures must comply with freedom-of-expression standards and due process. Following the adoption of the government decision in March 2025, SJN, together with partners from the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) and civil society organizations, warned that a nationwide suspension of TikTok represented a far-reaching restriction on freedom of expression and access to information, stressing that any such measure must meet the criteria of legality, necessity and proportionality.
SJN continued monitoring the case as media organisations challenged the decision before the Constitutional Court, highlighting concerns that the measure constituted a violation of freedom of expression and the right to information. After the government repealed the ban in early 2026, SJN reiterated that blanket restrictions on communication platforms raise serious constitutional concerns, particularly in relation to proportionality and legal certainty. The Constitutional Court’s ruling of March 2026 confirmed these concerns, finding that the implementation of the measure violated freedom of expression and freedom of the press