Judicial reform has long been a central requirement for EU membership—and one of the most politically difficult. Governments across Eastern Europe and the Western Balkans have responded by prioritizing the fight against corruption, strengthening the rule of law, and creating new anti-corruption mechanisms. Justice systems have been put under review, and anti-corruption measures have become institutionalised, often through specialized courts and prosecutors. Concentrated investigative power has, in many cases, helped dismantle entrenched patronage networks that long enabled bribery and impunity.

 

Yet the rapid pace and intensity of these reforms have also raised concerns. Aggressive anti-corruption frameworks can, if insufficiently checked, empower the misuse of legal norms. When this occurs, the very institutions created to align countries with EU rule-of-law standards risk undermining them. For countries seeking accession, this creates a paradox: reforms designed to accelerate EU integration may instead jeopardize it.

 

A prominent example now comes from Albania. Erion Veliaj, mayor of Tirana, has been in detention without a formal trial for over a year. His presumption of innocence has been widely questioned following actions by the Special Structure Against Corruption and Organized Crime (SPAK). The case has become emblematic of a broader concern: that powerful anti-corruption bodies can operate with insufficient procedural safeguards. Instead of reinforcing accountability, they risk becoming instruments capable of reshaping political competition through the extended use of pre-trial detention.

 

Pre-trial detention is a legitimate tool in healthy democracies when there is a credible risk of flight or destruction of evidence. Yet in Albania, critics argue that the measure is increasingly used in ways that sideline elected officials before guilt is established. Veliaj’s year-long detention is the most prominent example. Charges were reportedly not fully announced until six months into his detention. When the Municipal Council sought to remove him from office, the Albanian Constitutional Court quickly intervened to overrule the effort. Cases like this highlight a recurring challenge in transitional democracies: prosecutorial tools intended to strengthen the rule of law can sometimes be deployed in ways that reshape political competition itself.

 

These concerns matter far beyond the fate of a single official. Albania’s accession negotiations with the European Union are closely tied to progress in rule-of-law reforms. Fighting corruption, maintaining an independent judiciary, and protecting due process are essential benchmarks. This was the rationale behind the creation of SPAK in 2019 as part of sweeping justice reforms intended to restore public trust and align Albania with EU standards.

 

However, the institution now faces scrutiny over whether its broad powers are being exercised with adequate safeguards. Similar dynamics have emerged elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Countries such as Romania and North Macedonia have also established powerful anti-corruption institutions, which initially achieved notable successes but later faced criticism over expansive prosecutorial discretion and procedural overreach.

 

The Veliaj case has therefore drawn growing international attention. The B40 Balkan Cities Network issued a joint letter from seventy-six mayors calling for an end to the indefinite detention of elected municipal leaders. The letter cited findings from a Venice Commission Report examining the detrimental democratic impact of prolonged pretrial detention of mayors.

 

At the same time, the case has become politically charged domestically. Prime Minister Edi Rama has argued that extended detention alone may justify the removal of Veliaj from office. Such arguments highlight a persistent risk in parts of the Western Balkans: that criminal proceedings become entangled with political rivalries, blurring the line between judicial accountability and political maneuvering.

 

International legal observers have also weighed in. Law firms Kasowitz in New York and Mishcon de Reya in London have raised concerns that extended detentions may signal selective enforcement. SPAK responded by suggesting that reliance on international legal representation itself implied guilt. Tensions escalated further when the defense was reportedly denied access to more than 60,000 pages of evidence. When procedural safeguards erode, the damage extends beyond a single case, raising questions about the integrity of the legal system itself.

 

Under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, defendants must be brought to trial within a reasonable time. Yet Veliaj’s trial is scheduled for March 24, thirteen months after his detention began. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly ruled that prolonged detention without trial risks violating fundamental protections of liberty. Cases like this have drawn increasing scrutiny from European lawmakers monitoring the rule-of-law situation across the Western Balkans.

 

Nor is Veliaj the only figure affected. Former President Ilir Meta. has been in custody awaiting a final judgment since October 2024. Together, such cases raise broader questions about how pretrial detention is being used in high-profile political investigations—and what that means for democratic accountability.

 

For the European Union, these developments arrive at a delicate moment. Brussels has repeatedly emphasized that judicial independence and adherence to due process are non-negotiable conditions for membership. Enlargement policy has long been framed as a tool to export the EU’s rule-of-law standards to aspiring members.

 

But credibility cuts both ways. If the EU fails to scrutinize potential miscarriages of justice in accession countries, it risks weakening the very principles that underpin enlargement. Albania’s EU ambitions therefore place both Tirana and Brussels under the same test: whether the rule of law will be defended not only in theory, but also when it becomes politically uncomfortable.