Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Place and Application of International Law in the Albanian Legal System

  • Chapter
Judicial Application of International Law in Southeast Europe

  • 391 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter aims to explore and analyse the place of international law in the Albanian legal system and its application by Albanian courts. First, the chapter addresses the status of international law under the 1998 Albanian Constitution and its interaction with other sources of law within the Albanian legal system. Subsequently, a number of important domestic cases are analysed so as to illustrate the approach taken by Albanian courts towards international law. The chapter focuses on issues concerning the place and application of human rights, European law, and international criminal law and related mechanisms in the Albanian legal system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Constitution of the Republic of Albania (The Constitution), Law No. 8417, 21 October 1998, as modified by Law No. 9675, 13 January 2007 and by Law No. 9904, 21 April 2008.

  2. 2.

    Article 4 of the Constitution.

  3. 3.

    Article 5 of the Constitution.

  4. 4.

    See, Omari and Anastasi (2010), pp. 55–56 (quoting Zaganjori 2004, pp. 26–34).

  5. 5.

    Article 16(1) stipulates: the normative acts that are effective in the territory of the Republic of Albania are:

    1. a)

      the Constitution;

    2. b)

      ratified international agreements;

    3. c)

      the laws;

    4. d)

      normative acts of the Council of Ministers (these are acts having the force of law, and are issued by the Government only during emergencies or times of crises. The Parliament, which should be convened within five days if it is not in session, must be promptly notified of such normative acts. Normative acts become void and lose effect retroactively if the Parliament fails to approve them within 45 days of their date of issuance).

  6. 6.

    Omari and Anastasi (2010), p. 47.

  7. 7.

    Law No. 8371, 9 July 1998.

  8. 8.

    Law No. 7491, 29 April 1991.

  9. 9.

    Article 92(h) of the Constitution.

  10. 10.

    This is not to be confused with the meaning of ‘ratification’ as an international act, which is usually done by the President through the signing of the instruments of ratification.

  11. 11.

    Italian Constitution, Article 80; French Constitution, Article 53. Spanish Constitution, Section 93.

  12. 12.

    Article 121(1).

  13. 13.

    Article 121(2). As for international agreements of lesser importance or those having a technical nature (such as visa exemptions or the equivalence of driving licenses) which are not subject to ratification, Article 17 of Law No. 8371 of 9 July 1998 on the Conclusion of Treaties and International Agreements provides that they must only be ‘approved’ by the Council of Ministers. In any case, the Prime Minister has the duty to notify the Parliament whenever the Council of Ministers signs an international agreement that is not ratified by law.

  14. 14.

    Article 122(1).

  15. 15.

    Ibid.

  16. 16.

    Article 122(2).

  17. 17.

    Let us simply recall that a majority of topics of public international law, such as state immunity or the law of armed conflict, are largely governed by long standing rules having the status of customary international law.

  18. 18.

    Denza (2010), pp. 411–441 at p. 424. See also, International Court of Justice, Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), ICJ Reports 1949, especially p. 22.

  19. 19.

    International Law Commission, Articles on State Responsibility, annex to General Assembly Resolution 56/83 of 12 December 2001, and corrected by document A/56/49(Vol. I)/Corr.4 (2001), Article 4: ‘The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central Government or of a territorial unit of the State’ (emphasis added).

  20. 20.

    Article 131(a).

  21. 21.

    Article 131(b).

  22. 22.

    Article 131(i).

  23. 23.

    The School of Magistrates only last year included international law as a subject of the preliminary phase for admission to the school (excluding it, however, from the core topics in the second phase). However, there is an ongoing trend of raising awareness of international law, at least during the continuing education of judges, especially through short-term training events and seminars conducted by international organisations. The National Bar Association does not include questions of international law in the bar exam. While general international law is given limited attention, law schools offer extensive training and education with regard to the European Convention of Human Rights and the jurisprudence of its court.

  24. 24.

    The issue is particularly striking concerning the prior practice of the Centre for the Publication of Official Acts to only publish the text of the ratification of an international treaty, but not the text of the treaty in Albanian. This has prompted the Office of the Ombudsman to recommend to the Parliament that the text of the treaty be attached to the ratification law, and has urged the competent authorities to translate and publish the remaining ‘stock’ of unpublished treaties. See http://www.avokatipopullit.gov.al/Raporte/RV12008.pdf. Accessed 16 August 2013.

  25. 25.

    Omari and Anastasi (2010), p. 60.

  26. 26.

    In practice this might not be necessary, as most of the rights and liberties provided in the ECHR are already explicitly included into the Albanian Constitution. As a consequence, any violation of a Constitutional fundamental right or liberty may potentially also be a violation of the ECHR.

  27. 27.

    Constitutional Court, Judgment No. 186, 23 September 2002.

  28. 28.

    Constitutional Court, Judgment No. 15, 15 April 2010.

  29. 29.

    See examples of requests for the reopening of proceedings in order to give effect to decisions by the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers, Ref. H(99)10 rev, available at www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution/Documents//Reopening_en.asp. Accessed 16 August 2013.

  30. 30.

    Recommendation No. R (2000) 2 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the re-examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, 19 January 2000.

  31. 31.

    Steering Committee for Human Rights, Follow-up sheets on the implementation of the five recommendations, CDDH(2006)008 Addendum I, 7 April 2006, p. 4.

  32. 32.

    Ibid, p. 5.

  33. 33.

    Article 494(2)(ë) Code of Civil Procedure, added to by Law No. 10052, dated 29.12.2008.

  34. 34.

    Communication from Albania concerning the case of Xheraj against Albania (Application No. 37959/02), DH-DH-DD(2013)700E, 19 June 2013, available at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=DH-DD%282013%29700&Language=lanEnglish&Site=CM. Accessed 16 August 2013.

  35. 35.

    Spanish Constitutional Court (1991) Case No. 254/91, Boletín de Jurisprudencia Constitutional 129, p. 86.

  36. 36.

    With the exception of the Van Mechelen case (Van Mechelen and Others v. The Netherlands, 55/1996/674/861-864, 23 April 1997), whereby in view of the impossibility of reopening criminal proceedings under Dutch law, it was the Minister of Justice who first ordered the applicants’ provisional release and subsequently waived the remainder of their sentences.

  37. 37.

    However, the Spanish Constitutional Court did not base its decision on the direct applicability of the ECtHR judgment, but rather on a derived violation of the Spanish Constitution. See Hartwig (2005), pp. 869–894 at p. 882.

  38. 38.

    Case of Xheraj v. Albania, Application No. 37959/02, Judgment, 1 December 2008, para 61.

  39. 39.

    Ibid, para 82.

  40. 40.

    Constitutional Court, Decision of Inadmissibility No. 22/10, 9 March 2010, p. 6, para 4.

  41. 41.

    Ibid, p. 5.

  42. 42.

    Article 450 of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisions only four cases when reopening of proceedings is possible, namely when:

    1. a)

      the facts on the merits conflict with those of another judgment which is final;

    2. b)

      the judgment was based in a civil proceedings judgment, which has later been quashed;

    3. c)

      new evidence has arisen, which if considered separately or in conjunction with any other previously tendered evidence, indicates that the judgment was wrongly decided upon.

    4. d)

      it has been proved that the judgment was tainted by falsified evidence or any other facts constituting a crime.

  43. 43.

    As mentioned above, it is doubtful whether Article 17(2) of the Constitution is actually relevant in this discussion. Moreover, the right of legal certainty under Article 6 of the ECHR is certainly not included in the list of absolute rights protected by Article 17(2) of the Constitution and Article 15(2) of the ECHR.

  44. 44.

    Constitutional Court, Judgment No. 20/11, 1 June 2011, pp. 6–7.

  45. 45.

    Helfer (2008), pp. 125–159 at p. 147, footnote 131.

  46. 46.

    Case of Xheraj v. Albania, Application No. 37959/02, Judgment, 1 December 2008, para 61.

  47. 47.

    Explanatory Memorandum on the Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation No. R(2000)2 on the re-examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, para 1.

  48. 48.

    Lyons et al. v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 15227/03, Decision on Admissibility, 8 July 2003, p. 9.

  49. 49.

    Hartwig (2005), pp. 869–894 at p. 886.

  50. 50.

    Article 132(1) of the Constitution.

  51. 51.

    Italian Constitutional Court, Judgment No. 113, 4 April 2001, available at www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2011&numero=113. Accessed 16 August 2013.

  52. 52.

    Constitutional Court, Judgment No. 20/11, 1 June 2011, p. 11.

  53. 53.

    Italian Constitutional Court, Judgment No. 113, 4 April 2001 (agreeing with the Bologna Court of Appeals which had denied the interpretation that an ECtHR judgment could be used as valid grounds for the applicability of one of the cases envisioned in Article 630 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

  54. 54.

    Although it should have probably followed another reasoning, i.e. the ‘contradictory facts’ requirement of Article 450(1)(a).

  55. 55.

    Supreme Court, Judgment No. 52102-01226-00-2011, 7 March 2012.

  56. 56.

    Albanian Supreme Court, Judgment No. 8 (United Chambers), 10 June 2011 (Chemonics Judgment).

  57. 57.

    Economic Bilateral Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Albania and the Government of the United States of America, 10 June 1992, Treaties and Other International Acts Series 12456.

  58. 58.

    Ibid, p. 3.

  59. 59.

    The agreement included both juridical persons (public or private organisations) and individuals (individuals and employees of public or private organisations).

  60. 60.

    Article 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulates that:

    Members of Consular and Diplomatic Missions accredited in the Republic of Albania shall not be subject to Albanian courts, except when:

    1. a)

      they voluntarily accept (such jurisdiction)

    2. b)

      there exist the cases and conditions provided by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

  61. 61.

    Ibid, paras 12.1–12.2.

  62. 62.

    Case of Ashingdane v United Kingdom, Application No. 8225/78, Judgment, 28 May 1985.

  63. 63.

    Chemonics Judgment, paras 13–14.

  64. 64.

    Ibid, para 14(1), (quoting Case of McElhinney v. Ireland, Application No. 31253/96, Judgment, 21 November 2001, para 37; Case of Manoilescu and Dobrescu v. Romania and Russia, Application No. 60861/00, Judgment, 3 March 2005, para 80; Case of Treska v. Albania and Italy, Application No. 26937/04, Judgment, 26 June 2006; Case of Vrioni et al., v. Albania and Italy, Application Nos. 35720/04 and 42832/06, Judgment, para 46).

  65. 65.

    Ibid, para 16.

  66. 66.

    Ibid, paras 18–25.

  67. 67.

    The judges who appended a dissenting opinion maintained that the waiver should have been explicit and that Article 7(3) of the Labour Code was plain in prohibiting agreements on jurisdictions concluded before the arising of a dispute (pp. 10–12). They maintained that the whole purpose of Article 7(3) was to protect subjects who enjoy immunity from forgoing their rights before a dispute had arisen.

  68. 68.

    The judges appending the concurring opinion noted that paragraph 3(e) of the agreement, which concerned the category of employees of the US Government, envisioned an absolute type of immunity, both civil and criminal, comparable to that of diplomatic agents. By contrast, the type of immunity which paragraph 3(d) envisioned was limited to civil liability, and only if such liability was directly related to the project covered by the agreement. Because of its nature, the employment contract did not fall into the category of those activities protected by paragraph 3(d) of the agreement. Any different interpretation would, therefore, render the term ‘directly connected’ moot and transform that provision into a de facto absolute immunity for all civil liabilities, irrespective of the nature of the activity. Secondly, the concurring opinion claimed that absolute immunity for employment disputes would also violate Article 6(1) ECHR, considering that such a limitation to the right of access to court would not be proportional to the aim sought. It then referred to the (then) most recent judgments of the ECtHR, which in the cases Cudak v. Lithuania (Application No. 15869/02, Judgment, 23 March 2010) and Vilho Eskelinen et al. v. Finland (Application No. 63235/00, Judgment, 19 April 2007) had excluded employment disputes from the doctrine of state immunity, therefore showing that ‘absolute immunity does not exist anymore, that it should be assessed on a case by case basis and that the right of access to court should be given priority’.

  69. 69.

    See for example, United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 2 December 2004. Not yet in force), A/59/49, Article 1: ‘The present Convention applies to the immunity of a State and its property from the jurisdiction of the courts of another State’.

  70. 70.

    See for example, in addition to the case law cited in note 64 above, Case of Al-Adsani v. UK, Application No. 35763/97, Judgment, 21 November 2001, para 56: ‘It follows that measures taken by a High Contracting Party which reflect generally recognised rules of public international law on State immunity cannot in principle be regarded as imposing a disproportionate restriction on the right of access to a court as embodied in Article 6 § 1’.

  71. 71.

    See Case of Wallishauser v. Austria, Application No. 156/04, Judgment, 19 November 2012; Case of Sabeh El Leil v. France, Application No. 34869/05, 29 June 2011; Case of Cudak v. Lithuania Application No. 15869/02, Judgment, 23 March 2010.

  72. 72.

    Case of Wallishauser v. Austria, supra at note 71, para 60; Sabeh El Leil v. France, supra at note 71, para 54.

  73. 73.

    Application No. 26083/94, Judgment, 18 February 1999.

  74. 74.

    Application No. 28934/95, Judgment, 18 February 1999.

  75. 75.

    Waite and Kennedy, para 68.

  76. 76.

    Brabandere (2010), pp. 79–119 at pp. 94–95; see also, Ryngaert (2010), pp. 121–148 at pp. 134–135 (accepting that the Court did not make it a ‘strict prerequisite’).

  77. 77.

    Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others v. The Netherlands, Application no. 65542/12, Decision, 11 June 2013, para 164.

  78. 78.

    Moreover, is it highly doubtful whether employment disputes can be correctly categorised as ‘civil liabilities directly related to the performance of its work’.

  79. 79.

    For more information, visit http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/potential-candidate-countries/albania/eu_albania_relations_en.htm. Accessed 16 August 2013.

  80. 80.

    For the full text of the SAA, visit http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/albania/st08164.06_en.pdf. Accessed 16 August 2013.

  81. 81.

    See inter alia Zaganjori et al. (2011), p. 66.

  82. 82.

    Namely, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia (FYROM), Montenegro and Serbia. Slovenia joined the EU on 1 May 2004 and Croatia joined on 1 July 2013.

  83. 83.

    See inter alia Bogdani (2007); Zahariadis (2007).

  84. 84.

    See Law No. 9121, On Competition Protection, 28 July 2003. The mission of the Competition Authority is the protection of free and effective competition in the market through the implementation of legislation on competition. For more information, visit http://www.caa.gov.al. Accessed 16 August 2013.

  85. 85.

    See Albania 2012 Progress Report, COM (2012) 600 final, 10 October 2012, available at http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2012/package/al_rapport_2012_en.pdf. Accessed 16 August 2013. For the full text of the key priorities, see Commission Opinion on Albania’s application for membership of the European Union, COM (2010) 680, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0680:FIN:EN:PDF. Accessed 16 August 2013.

  86. 86.

    See inter alia Zaganjori et al. (2011), pp. 59–64, 66–71.

  87. 87.

    Article 288, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, also available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/new-2-47.htm. Accessed 16 August 2013. According to this article, a regulation shall have general application and shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

  88. 88.

    See inter alia Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Belastingen [1963]; Case 6/64 Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585; Case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel [1970] ECR 1125; Case 106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze v Simmenthal SpA [1978] ECR 629; Macarthys v Smith [1979] 3 All ER 325; Case C-213/89 R (Factortame Ltd) v SS for Transport [1990] ECR I-2433.

  89. 89.

    For a detailed discussion of EU laws, see Craig and de Búrca (2011). Also visit http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/introduction/treaty_en.htm. Accessed 16 August 2013.

  90. 90.

    Decision No. 24, 24 July 2009, available at http://www.gjk.gov.al. Accessed 16 August 2013.

  91. 91.

    Article 42 of the SAA prohibits prohibitions or restrictions which constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between the Parties.

  92. 92.

    Law No. 10091, Për auditimin ligjor, organizimin e profesionit të ekspertëve kontabël të regjistruar dhe të kontabilistit të miratuar, 5 March 2009.

  93. 93.

    Decision No. 3, 5 February 2010, available at http://www.gjk.gov.al. Accessed 16 August 2013.

  94. 94.

    Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament, and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC.

  95. 95.

    In its Resolution 1300 (2002), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe called on Albania (and a number of other member states of the Council of Europe) to ratify the ICC Statute (para 14(i)(b)). Moreover, in the same resolution the Parliamentary Assembly called on all member and observer states of the Council of Europe not to enter into any bilateral exemption agreements which would compromise or limit in any manner their co-operation with the court in the investigation and prosecution of crimes within its jurisdiction (para 14(iii)(c)).

  96. 96.

    Agreement between the United Nations and the Republic of Albania on the Enforcement of Sentences of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, 19 September 2008. Available at http://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/Member_States_Cooperation/enforcement_agreement_albania_19_09_08_en.pdf. Accessed 16 August 2013.

  97. 97.

    Practice Direction on the Procedure for the International Tribunal’s Designation of the State in Which a Convicted Person is to Serve His/Her Sentence of Imprisonment, 1 September 2009 (IT/137/Rev. 1), par. 5. The relevant part reads: ‘Particular consideration shall be given to the proximity [of the State] to the convicted person’s relations.’ Available at http://www.icty.org/sections/LegalLibrary/PracticeDirections. Accessed 16 August 2013.

  98. 98.

    Article 73 provides: ‘The execution of a premeditated plan aiming at the total or partial destruction of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group or directed towards its members, and combined with the following acts: intentionally killing a group’s members, serious physical and psychological harm, placement in difficult living conditions which cause physical destruction, applying birth-preventing measures, as well as the obligatory transfer of children from one group to another, is sentenced with no less than 10 years of imprisonment, or with life imprisonment.’

  99. 99.

    Article 74 provides: ‘Homicide, extermination, use as slaves, deportation and exile, or any kind of torture or other human violence that is committed with a pre-meditated concrete plan against a civilian population group for political, ideological, racial, ethnic or religious motives are all punishable by no less than 15 years in jail or by life imprisonment.’

  100. 100.

    Article 75 provides: ‘Acts committed by different people in war time such as murder, maltreatment or deportation for slave labour, as well as any other inhuman exploitation to the detriment of the civilian population in an occupied territory, the killing or maltreatment of war prisoners, the killing of hostages, the destruction of private or public property, and the destruction of towns, commons or villages, which are not ordained by military necessity, are sentenced with no less than 15 years of imprisonment, or life imprisonment.’

  101. 101.

    Law No. 9081 of 19 June 2003.

  102. 102.

    See Albania 2012 Progress Report, COM (2012) 600 final, 10 October 2012, p. 23.

  103. 103.

    Law No. 10193, dated 3.12.2009.

  104. 104.

    See Decision No. 186 of the Albanian Constitutional Court (ACC) of 23 September 2002, available at www.gjk.gov.al. Accessed 16 August 2013.

  105. 105.

    Article 122 reads:

    • 1. Any international agreement that has been ratified constitutes part of the internal juridical system after it is published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Albania. It is implemented directly, except for cases when it is not self-executing and its implementation requires issuance of a law. The amendment, supplementing and repeal of laws approved by the majority of all members of the Assembly, for the effect of ratifying an international agreement, are done with the same majority.

    • 2. An international agreement that has been ratified by law has superiority over laws of the country that are not compatible with it.

    • 3. The norms issued by an international organisation have superiority, in case of conflict, over the laws of the country if the agreement ratified by the Republic of Albania for its participation in the organisation expressly contemplates their direct applicability.

  106. 106.

    This is also the view expressed by Albania during the Review Conference of the Rome Statute in 2010. See document RC/ST/CP/M.2, 1 June 2010.

References

  • Bogdani M (2007) Albania and the European Union: the tumultuous journey towards integration and accession. IBTauris, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Brabandere E (2010) Immunity of international organizations in post-conflict administrations. Int Organ Law Rev 7(1):79–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig P, de Búrca G (2011) EU law: text, cases, and materials, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Denza E (2010) The relationship between international law and national law. In: Evans M (ed) International law, 3rd edn. OUP, Oxford, pp 411–441

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig M (2005) Much ado about human rights: the Federal Constitutional Court confronts the European Court of Human Rights. Ger Law J 06(05):869–894

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfer RL (2008) Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: embeddedness as a deep structural principle of the European human rights regime. Eur J Int Law 19(1):125–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omari L, Anastasi A (2010) E Drejta Kushtetuese. ABC, Tiranë

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryngaert C (2010) The immunity of international organizations before domestic courts: recent trends. Int Organ Law Rev 7:121–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaganjori X (2004) Vendi i së Drejtës Ndërkombëtare në Kushtetutën e Republikës së Shqipërisë. Jeta Juridike 2:26–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaganjori X, Anastasi A, Çani (Methasani) E (2011) Shteti i së Drejtës në Kushtetutën e Republikës së Shqipërisë (The rule of law in the Constitution of the Republic of Albania). Adelprint, Tirana

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis Y (2007) The effects of the Albania–EU Stabilization and Association Agreement: economic impact and social implications. ESAU working paper 17, February 2007. www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/2527.pdf. Accessed 16 Aug 2013

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, University of Oslo, 6706, St. Olavs plass, 0130, Oslo, Norway

    Gentian Zyberi

  2. Legal Officer, Supreme Court of Albania, Rruga “Ibrahim Rugova”, Tirana, Albania

    Semir Sali

Authors
  1. Gentian Zyberi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Semir Sali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gentian Zyberi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Judge, Court of Justice of the European Union, Luxembourg, European Union

    Siniša Rodin

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Tamara Perišin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zyberi, G., Sali, S. (2015). The Place and Application of International Law in the Albanian Legal System. In: Rodin, S., Perišin, T. (eds) Judicial Application of International Law in Southeast Europe. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46384-0_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation