The Constitutional Court of Albania has ruled that the government’s decision to block the online platform TikTok violated freedom of expression and freedom of the press, confirming concerns previously raised by media freedom organizations and civil society groups.

The ruling follows a constitutional complaint filed by the Association of Journalists of Albania and BIRN Albania, challenging Decision No. 151 of the Council of Ministers, dated 6 March 2025, which suspended nationwide access to TikTok for one year.

In its decision, the Court partially accepted the request and concluded that the implementation of the government measure resulted in a violation of freedom of expression and press freedom, protected under Article 22 of the Constitution of Albania and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Constitutional Court examined whether the restriction met the constitutional criteria required to limit fundamental rights: legality, legitimate aim and proportionality. While the Court acknowledged that the government’s objective — protecting minors from harmful online content — constitutes a legitimate public interest, it concluded that the nationwide blocking of the platform failed the proportionality test. According to the Court, the government did not sufficiently demonstrate that blocking access to the entire platform was necessary or that less restrictive alternatives had been considered, such as regulatory or targeted measures. The Court also raised concerns regarding the lack of a clear legal basis authorizing the Council of Ministers to impose a general restriction on access to an online communication platform.

The contested government decision had already been repealed earlier in 2026 by Decision No. 62 of the Council of Ministers, restoring access to the platform after nearly one year of restrictions. However, the Constitutional Court proceeded with the case due to the significant public interest involved, particularly regarding the protection of freedom of expression and media freedom in the digital environment. The Court therefore limited its ruling to establishing that the implementation of the decision resulted in a violation of freedom of expression and press freedom.

Media freedom organizations had warned from the outset that the nationwide ban raised serious concerns regarding fundamental rights.

In December 2024, the SafeJournalists Network (SJN) expressed concern after the Albanian Prime Minister announced plans for a one-year ban on TikTok, following a fatal incident involving teenagers that authorities linked to social media disputes.

In a subsequent statement issued together with the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) and civil society organizations, SJN warned that the decision to suspend access to TikTok nationwide could undermine freedom of expression and access to information. The organizations stressed that while protecting children from harmful online content is an important policy objective, such measures must respect fundamental human rights and comply with international standards, including the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality.

In addition, SCiDEV in a subsequent in-depth analysis of March 2025, demonstrated that the decision failed to argue the proportionality of the measure, was implemented without proactive transparency, and lacked coherence with broader policy frameworks, including Albania’s commitments under the EU accession process.

The Constitutional Court’s ruling sets an important precedent for how authorities in Albania may regulate digital platforms and online communication spaces in the future.

By finding that the blanket blocking of TikTok violated freedom of expression and press freedom, the Court reaffirmed that broad restrictions on digital platforms represent one of the most serious forms of interference with fundamental rights. Any such measures must therefore meet strict requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality, as guaranteed by the Albanian Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The decision also signals that governments cannot rely on broad executive powers to impose large-scale restrictions on online platforms without a clear legal basis adopted through legislation and appropriate safeguards. More broadly, the ruling highlights the growing importance of digital platforms as spaces for journalistic work, public debate and access to information, and underscores that restrictions affecting these platforms can have direct consequences for media pluralism and democratic discourse.