When “Less Than” is not “Equal to” – A silent risk to the right of appeal

Introduction

When we speak about the right to justice, we often think of grand constitutional principles or international treaties. But sometimes, the strength of that right depends on the smallest details, like whether the word “less” also means “equal.”

The principle of access to justice is one of the cornerstones of both the Albanian constitutional order and European human rights law. Article 42 ¹ of the Constitution of the Republic of Albania makes it clear that freedom, property, and rights recognized by the Constitution and by law may not be infringed without due process of law. Everyone has the right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. This is not an isolated national guarantee; it is mirrored in Article 6 ² of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), ratified by Albania in 1996, ³ and Article 47 ⁴ of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which guides EU candidate states in aligning their systems with EU standards.

But these principles matter only when they are put into practice. This is exactly what happened in a case before the Tirana Administrative Court of First Instance. A citizen, fined 800,000 ALL for an administrative violation, sought to appeal. ⁵ The amount was significant, not a trivial penalty, but the equivalent of twenty times Albania’s monthly minimum wage. And here lies the problem. Under Article 45/a ⁶ of Law no. 49/2012 on Administrative Courts, appeals are barred when a fine is less than twenty times the minimum wage. The law was designed to keep higher courts from being flooded with small-value disputes. But in this case, the fine was not less. It was exactly equal.

At a time when Albania is working to align its justice system with European standards under Chapter 23 of the EU accession process, this episode serves as a reminder that the rule of law can hinge on something as simple and as powerful, as a single word.

Legal Framework

For context, Article 42 of the Albanian Constitution guarantees effective access to the courts.

To give life to this principle, Albania has built a system of administrative courts governed by Law no. 49/2012 “On Administrative Courts and Adjudication of Administrative Disputes” as amended.  This law was introduced to provide citizens with a specialized path for challenging state actions. But in 2017, the law was amended to include Article 45/a, ⁷ which limits appeals in cases involving small-value fines. The intention was practical, to protect higher courts from becoming overburdened with minor disputes. The benchmark chosen was the national minimum wage, fixed at 40,000 ALL per month under Decision of Council of Ministers no. 113, dated 1 March 2023. ⁸ If a fine is less than twenty times that amount, below 800.000 ALL, it cannot be appealed.

Overlaying this national framework are Albania’s international obligations. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) obliges the state to guarantee fair trial rights, which include meaningful access to courts. Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights adds the guarantee of an effective remedy before a tribunal, while Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union requires candidate countries to provide effective judicial protection in all fields covered by EU law. The European Court of Human Rights has been clear, when access to justice is restricted, those restrictions must be narrowly interpreted and foreseeable. ⁹

Seen together, this framework makes the expectation clear, Albanian judges must apply Article 45/a as it is written. The legislature has already drawn the line. Judicial interpretation cannot erase it without undermining both constitutional guarantees and international obligations.

Case Analysis

The dispute that reached the Tirana Administrative Court of First Instance should have been straightforward. A citizen had been fined 800,000 ALL, a sum exactly equal to twenty times the national minimum wage as fixed by DCM no. 113/2023. Article 45/a of Law no. 49/2012 clearly states that appeals are excluded when the fine is less than twenty times the minimum wage. The provision does not say “less than or equal to”.

Despite this clarity, the court reasoned otherwise. In its decision, the judge wrote:

“…based on DCM no. 113/2023 the minimum wage at the national level is 40.000 lek, its twentyfold amount is 800.000 lek. … the fine in the amount of 800.000 lek is less than twenty times the minimum wage…” ¹⁰

In other words, the court acknowledged that the fine was equal to the threshold but still concluded that it was less than that. This leap in reasoning did not simply create a linguistic oddity, but it also deprived the claimant of the right to appeal. From a rule of law perspective, this error strikes at the principle of legal certainty. Citizens must be able to predict how laws will be applied to them. When the words “less than” are stretched to include “equal to” the predictability of the law collapses. From a constitutional perspective, the decision undermines Article 42 of the Albanian Constitution, which guarantees a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.

The misinterpretation also conflicts with established European human rights standards. The European Court of Human Rights has emphasized that any restriction on access to a court must be clear, proportionate, and foreseeable. In Zubac v. Croatia (2018), ¹¹ the Court warned against overly formalistic interpretations that bar appeals without sufficient justification. In García Manibardo v. Spain (2000), it stressed that the right of access must be “practical and effective, not theoretical or illusory”. ¹² The Tirana Administrative Court of First Instance decision, however, embodies the opposite, a restriction expanded beyond the words of the law, in a way the claimant could not have foreseen.

Finally, the case raises a broader systemic concern. The judge involved had already been confirmed under the vetting process established by Law no. 84/2016. This reform, designed to restore trust in the judiciary, evaluates both integrity and competence. Yet this decision shows that competence is not simply about understanding the law, it requires applying it consistently and in line with established standards. Integrity may be intact, but without clear, structured, and legally grounded reasoning, addressing the facts, the relevant provisions, and binding case-law, justice itself is at risk.

Comparative and European Context

What happened before the Tirana Administrative Court of First Instance is not just an Albanian story. Across Europe, courts and legislators have grappled with how to balance efficiency with the right to appeal. It is legitimate to prevent higher courts from being overwhelmed by small disputes, but it is equally essential to ensure that restrictions on appeal are predictable and proportionate.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has developed a consistent line of reasoning on this issue. In Zubac v. Croatia (2018), ¹³ the Court warned that appeal restrictions cannot be applied in a purely formalistic way that deprives citizens of meaningful review. In that case, the applicant’s claim was rejected on procedural grounds that the Court considered excessively rigid, undermining the right of access to justice under Article 6 ECHR. The lesson is clear, rules that close the door to higher courts must be applied narrowly, not expansively.

Earlier, in García Manibardo v. Spain (2000), ¹⁴ the ECtHR underlined that the right of access to court must be “practical and effective, not theoretical or illusory.” Restrictions may exist, but they must never erode the essence of the right. By treating “equal to” as “less than” the Tirana court went against this principle, it extended a restriction beyond its text, making the right to appeal illusory for the claimant.

Importantly, Albania’s own Supreme Court itself has addressed this matter directly. In its Decision no. 31003-00003-00-2023 dated 23.11.2023, ¹⁵ the Administrative Chamber examined conflicting lower-court interpretations on whether appeal restrictions apply when the value in dispute meets or exceeds the statutory threshold. The Court made it clear that the legislator intended the restriction to apply only when the amount is less than the threshold. Anything equal to or above remains open to appeal. To extend the restriction beyond that point, the Court underlined, would contradict both the wording of the law and the principle of narrow interpretation of rights-limiting provisions. Also, the Court explicitly linked such inconsistencies to violations of Article 6 of the ECHR, emphasizing that uniform interpretation is not only a domestic necessity but also an international obligation.

The European Union also sets clear expectations. Article 19 of Treaty on European Union obliges states to provide effective judicial protection, and the Court of Justice of the EU has reinforced this in landmark cases. ¹⁶ The message is consistent, access to justice must be real, and any limits must be justified and strictly confined. For Albania, a candidate country under Chapter 23 of the accession negotiations, these standards are not optional. They are part of the criteria that determine readiness for membership.

Seen in this European light, the Albanian case is more than a local mistake. It is a warning sign, if courts begin expanding restrictions rather than upholding rights, Albania risks drifting away from the very standards it has committed to uphold.

Implications for Albania

The implications of the Tirana Administrative Court’s decision reach far beyond one citizen’s fine. They touch on the very credibility of Albania’s justice system and its alignment with European standards.

First, the case underscores the fragility of legal certainty when courts deviate from the plain meaning of the law. Article 45/a of Law no. 49/2012 is explicit, and by reading “equal to” as “less than” the court not only misapplied the law but also destabilized the predictability that citizens must rely on. This unpredictability erodes trust in the judiciary, a trust that Albania has been working hard to rebuild through its justice reform.

Second, the case reveals the limits of the vetting process. Albania’s justice reform, ¹⁷ focused heavily on ensuring the integrity of judges, examining their assets and background to root out corruption. But integrity alone does not safeguard justice. As this decision shows, the quality of legal reasoning is equally vital. If judges are confirmed as “clean” but continue to produce decisions that misinterpret clear provisions, citizens’ rights remain at risk.

Third, the case raises questions about the role of the High Judicial Council and the School of Magistrates in ensuring consistent judicial practice. The Supreme Court’s Decision no. 31003-00003-00-2023 provided much-needed clarity by affirming that “less than” cannot mean “equal to”. But unless lower courts are trained and guided to follow such uniform interpretations, similar errors may recur. A stronger mechanism for monitoring jurisprudence and disseminating interpretative guidance is needed to prevent fragmentation.

Fourth, the case has direct implications for Albania’s EU accession process, particularly Chapter 23 on Judiciary and Fundamental Rights. The European Union monitors not only the integrity of Albania’s judges but also the effectiveness and predictability of its judicial system. When courts introduce unforeseeable restrictions on access to appeal, Albania risks being seen as falling short of its commitments under Article 6 ECHR, Article 47 of the EU Charter, and Article 19 TEU. Such shortcomings may delay progress in accession negotiations.

Finally, at a societal level, the decision highlights the importance of judicial culture. Judges are not merely technicians applying rules, they are guardians of rights. A culture that interprets restrictions strictly and narrowly, consistently leaning toward safeguarding access to justice, is indispensable. Without it, even the most well-drafted reforms risk becoming hollow.

Recommendations

To prevent similar misinterpretations in the future, Albania needs both legislative and institutional action. One possible step is to refine the wording of Article 45/a of Law no. 49/2012. Although the text already speaks only of amounts “less than” the threshold, a legislative amendment could emphasize this by expressly stating “strictly less than” or by clarifying that fines equal to or above the limit remain appealable. Such precision would shut the door to semantic distortions.

Beyond legislative drafting, institutions have a crucial role. The High Judicial Council could strengthen its monitoring of jurisprudence to ensure that lower courts follow the line established by the Supreme Court, particularly its Decision no. 31003-00003-00-2023. Clearer guidance, perhaps in the form of interpretative bulletins or regular case law digests, would help avoid fragmentation in practice. Judicial training is equally important. The School of Magistrates could give greater emphasis to constitutional interpretation, the principle of narrow reading of rights-limiting norms, and alignment with Strasbourg case law, so that judges not only know the law but also apply it in a way that consistently protects rights.

At the same time, the evaluation of judges must place more weight on the quality of reasoning. The vetting process under Law no. 84/2016 has addressed integrity, but this case shows that competence cannot be reduced to the absence of corruption. How judges interpret clear statutory rules is as decisive for citizens’ rights as their personal probity.

Conclusion

The case of the Tirana Administrative Court of First Instance demonstrates how access to justice can be jeopardized not by legislative gaps, but by judicial misinterpretation. Article 45/a of Law no. 49/2012 is unequivocal, appeals are barred only when fines are less than twenty times the minimum wage. By reading “equal to” as “less than” the court crossed a clear statutory line, effectively denying a citizen’s constitutional right to appeal.

This was not an isolated judicial misstep. Albania’s Supreme Court, in Decision no. 31003-00003-00-2023, had already underlined that such thresholds must be applied strictly as written, and that uniformity of practice is essential to legal certainty. When lower courts depart from both the wording of the law and the guidance of the Supreme Court, citizens are left uncertain about the protection of their rights.

At the European level, the lesson is equally clear. The jurisprudence of the ECtHR, especially in Zubac v. Croatia and García Manibardo v. Spain, insists that restrictions on access to justice must be narrowly interpreted, proportionate, and foreseeable. The EU’s legal order, through Article 47 of the Charter and Article 19 TEU, reinforces the same standard. Albania, as a candidate country, cannot afford to ignore these obligations.

Ultimately, this case is a reminder that the rule of law often turns on details. A single word as “less” can determine whether a citizen has the right to challenge the state or must accept its decision without review. The responsibility of the judiciary is to ensure that such words are applied faithfully, in line with constitutional guarantees and European human rights standards.

For Albania, the path forward is clear, legislative clarification, consistent jurisprudence, stronger training, and a culture of rights-protective interpretation. Only then can the country ensure that the constitutional promise of access to justice is more than theory—and prove, to its citizens and to Europe, that it takes the rule of law seriously.

1. Article 42 of the Law No. 8417, date 21.10.1998, as amended, “1. The freedom, property, and rights recognized in the Constitution and by law may not be infringed without due process. 2. Everyone, for the protection of his constitutional and legal rights, freedoms, and interests, or in the case of an accusation raised against him, has the right to a fair and public trial, within a reasonable time, by an independent and impartial court specified by law.”
2. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as amended, “1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice…”
3. Law no. 8137, dated 31.7.1996, “On the ratification of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”.
4. Article 47 of Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as amended, “Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article. Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented. Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice.”
5. Decision of the Tirana Administrative Court of First Instance no. 1988 (80-2025-2013 Decision), dated 30.05.2025
6. No appeal shall be allowed against the final decisions of the administrative court in lawsuits concerning: a) the contestation of sanctions for administrative offences, where the value is less than twenty times the minimum national wage […]
7. No appeal shall be allowed against the final decisions of the administrative court in lawsuits concerning a) the contestation of sanctions for administrative offences, where the value is less than twenty times the minimum national wage.
8. The minimum monthly basic wage for employees at the national level, which is mandatory for implementation by any natural or legal person, domestic or foreign, shall be 40,000 (forty thousand) lek
9. Zubac v. Croatia, 2018 and García Manibardo v. Spain, 2000
10. “…based on DCM no. 113/2023, the national minimum wage is 40,000 ALL; twenty times this amount is 800,000 ALL. … a fine in the amount of 800,000 ALL is less than twenty times the minimum wage…”
11. Zubac v. Croatia (application no. 40160/12, 2018)
12. Para 43.  “The Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective (see the Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, pp. 12-14, § 24). In the circumstances of the case, the applicant’s appeal was declared inadmissible owing to her failure to deposit the requisite amount. She was thus deprived of a remedy which could have proved decisive for the outcome of the dispute.”
13. Zubac v. Croatia (application no. 40160/12, 2018)
14. Para 43.  “The Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective (see the Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, pp. 12-14, § 24). In the circumstances of the case, the applicant’s appeal was declared inadmissible owing to her failure to deposit the requisite amount. She was thus deprived of a remedy which could have proved decisive for the outcome of the dispute.”
15. Paragraphs 17, 22, 29, 37, 42, 45 and more of the Decision no. 31003-00003-00-2023 dated 23.11.2023 of the Albanian Supreme Court
16. See the case Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v. Tribunal de Contas (C-64/16)
17. Law no.84/2016 “On the transitional re-evaluation of judges and prosecutors in the Republic of Albania”