Legal-normative analysis highlights ongoing compatibility issues with social security legislation in Albania and the European Convention on Human Rights.
This research examined the compatibility of Albanian social security legislation with both the Constitution of the Republic of Albania and the European Convention on Human Rights, focusing specifically on the legal issues that arose following the landmark “Dauti v. Albania” case. Using legal-normative analysis and comparative legal assessment, in this pivotal case, the European Court of Human Rights determined that Albania violated Article 6 of the Convention by denying effective judicial review of Medical Commission decisions on disability benefits. The study analyses Law No. 7703 “On Social Security in the Republic of Albania” and its amendments through Law No. 10447, which were implemented in response to the European Convention on Human Rights decision. Despite the Committee of Foreign Ministers of the Council of Europe issuing a report stating these amendments had addressed the Courtʼs findings, the research reveals that significant compatibility issues persist. The Administrative College of the High Court of Albania later determined that despite the legislative changes, the lawʼs incompatibility with Article 6 of the Convention continues, referring the matter to the Constitutional Court for an incidental review. This case ultimately resulted in a unifying decision of substantial importance in Albanian judicial practice, with the High Court affirming that access to courts for disabled persons must be guaranteed regardless of any legislative limitations. The research identified ongoing gaps in three categories: structural (imperfect appointment mechanisms for Appeals Commission members), procedural (inequality of arms and limited accessibility), and substantive (inconsistent standards for reviewing medical determinations). The study concluded that while formal amendments have been made, Albania must implement further reforms to ensure the practical effectiveness of judicial protection in social security cases, particularly for vulnerable groups such as persons with disabilities
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guma et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: