ALBANIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Arlind Ahmetaj and Nikol Halimi, Halimi Ahmetaj Law and Tax
Furthermore, for projects with significant public and environmental impact, a lawyer’s obligations extend to advising on contractual safeguards and assessing political and reputational risks. When a major foreign project culminates in a crisis – such as the Aruba or “ Flamingo Revolution ” cases – the question naturally arises as to whether due diligence was sufficient and whether the investor was properly advised on potential consequences. A lack of in-depth analysis and failure to clearly warn the investor undermine the credibility of the entire legal profession and Albanian law firms in the eyes of international investors and advisers. In this context, the Zvërnec case underscores the need for higher due diligence standards in Albania, particularly when foreign investors rely on local law firms for strategic projects with significant public impact. The integrity of a law firm is not merely a tech - nical or professional matter but a crucial element of the overall credibility of the Albanian legal environment for foreign investment. The Vlora International Airport concession: when the state becomes the risk If Zvërnec illustrates the risks of private partnerships and inadequate due diligence, the Vlora Airport con - cession demonstrates an even more concerning phe - nomenon: the state actively or passively undermining a legitimate majority investor in a strategic infrastruc - ture project (EU Reporter, 17 July 2026). The concession for Vlora International Airport was awarded to a consortium in which Mabco Construc - tions S.A. (a Swiss-registered company linked to investor Behgjet Pacolli’s group) held a 98% stake and acted as the financier and main contractor. A 2% minority shareholder, 2A Group, later claimed a much larger share through what Mabco alleges was an invalid and unapproved share transfer. Albanian courts issued a series of interim measures that effec - tively suspended Mabco’s voting rights and, cru - cially, blocked its access to the construction site (EU Reporter, 17 July 2026). Despite a Supreme Court ruling in May 2026 that appeared to restore Mabco’s position, new interim measures from lower courts quickly reinstated the blockade. The Ministry of Infrastructure and Energy
has faced criticism for failing to intervene decisively to safeguard the implementation of the concession and, in some instances, for actions perceived as facilitating the minority shareholder’s control. The practical consequences have been severe. Con - struction has halted. International certification pro - cesses have been obstructed. Equipment has been left at the terminal, exposed to harsh weather condi - tions. The project – presented by the government as an innovative infrastructure initiative critical to Alba - nia’s EU accession timeline – remains unfinished and mired in a conflict where the government itself and the State Advocate are acting as roadblocks. An article in EU Reporter in July 2026 framed the impasse as a test of investor confidence at a delicate moment for Albania’s EU integration. From a legal perspective, several issues come to light. First, the abusive use of interim measures has become a recurring tactic to shift the balance of power in cor - porate disputes without a full hearing on the merits. While interim remedies serve a legitimate purpose, their repeated use to freeze governance and exclude a majority investor from a concession site raises seri - ous questions regarding judicial predictability and the protection of legitimate expectations. Secondly, the state’s role in concessions creates heightened obligations. When a foreign investor enters into a concession agreement with the Albanian state, they reasonably expect not only contractual stability but also for the state to act as a responsible partner and regulator, refraining from actions (or omissions) that undermine the economic purpose of the invest - ment. The Vlora case suggests that these expecta - tions are not being met. Thirdly, the dispute has already triggered the investor’s rights under the Albania–Switzerland Bilateral Invest - ment Treaty on the Promotion and Protection of Invest - ments. State actions and omissions have placed the foreign investor in a favourable position for potential international arbitration. This is not an isolated devel - opment. Albania has faced several high-profile claims under investment treaties in recent years, including the well-known Becchetti case. Each new arbitration
30 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook