ALBANIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Arlind Ahmetaj and Nikol Halimi, Halimi Ahmetaj Law and Tax
damages the country’s reputation and increases the cost of future capital. The contrast with the government’s public messaging is stark. While high-ranking officials promote Albania as investor-friendly and highlight strategic partner - ships with Western and regional stakeholders, the reality on the ground in Vlora is one of institutional paralysis and a slide toward de facto expropriation via judicial and administrative means. For foreign investors considering concessions or public–private partnerships in Albania, the message is clear: even a controlling stake and a signed concession agreement offer limited protection if a determined minority can weaponise the judicial system and the state fails to safeguard the project’s integrity. Comparative lessons and recommendations The cases of Zvërnec and Vlora , though structurally different, reveal shared systemic problems. In Zvër- nec , the risk stems primarily from the private part - ner, questionable ownership chains, and a lack of a “social licence”. In Vlora , the risk arises from the state itself and the judicial system, which allow a minority to seize control of a strategic concession through interim measures and institutional inaction. A common thread is the lack of legal certainty. State- issued property titles can be challenged later; interim measures are used to shift the balance of power in the absence of a final ruling; and regarding concessions, the state often fails to protect the majority investor who has provided the capital and expertise. These issues are not new. EU progress reports on Albania have consistently highlighted concerns regarding the rule of law, judicial independence, real estate registra - tion, and transparency in concessions and strategic investments. Each new high-profile case reinforces the perception that Albania remains an environment where contracts and court rulings can be overridden by political factors or special interests.
For foreign investors and their legal advisers, practical lessons clearly emerge. Firstly, due diligence must go far beyond the formal verification of titles; it must include stress-testing the historical chain of ownership, environmental and social risks, and the reliability of local partners. A failure by a single law firm can tarnish the trust and reputation of the entire legal services sector in Albania. Secondly, regarding concessions, contractual stability clauses, dispute resolution mechanisms, and protec - tions under bilateral investment treaties (BITs) must be prioritised. Thirdly, investors should be prepared for international arbitration and possess communication strategies to protect their reputations when facing public or institu - tional attacks, by engaging the appropriate law firms. For Albania, the challenge runs deeper. To attract seri - ous, long-term investment, the country must ensure the consistent enforcement of property rights, judicial predictability, compliance with Supreme Court rulings, and genuine protection for investors in strategic con - cessions. Without these, the narrative of “reform” and “opening up to foreign investors” will remain hollow, and Albania will continue to lose strategic capital to more predictable jurisdictions. *** This article aims to provide a balanced yet clear analy- sis of the risks foreign investors face in Albania . The two cases discussed are not exceptions ; they are symptoms of a system that does not yet guarantee sufficient legal and institutional protection for foreign capital . For a country aspiring to European Union membership , addressing these weaknesses is not merely an economic issue ; it is a test of credibility and political will for genuine reform .
31 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook