The draft law aims to enhance institutional coordination and clearly define the legal nature of the Supervisory Board decisions, including the possibility of court appeal against decisions on grants.

This is a positive development, that improves legal certainty and foreseeability, bringing the framework more closely into line with general principles of administrative law.

At the same time, the draft law should be brought into closer alignment with, and more explicitly reflect, the strategic documents through which Albania has undertaken concrete commitments, particularly the Roadmap for the Functioning of Democratic Institutions. Under the Roadmap, two specific measures were assigned to the Agency for the Support of Civil Society with implementation deadlines in 2025. Therefore, in 2026, their implementation should be treated as a priority and clearly embedded in the draft law, thus translating policy commitments into concrete, legally binding and enforceable provisions.

Therefore, in order to ensure:

• the practical effectiveness of legal remedies, given the heavy caseload of the administrative courts;
• a reduced risk of legal disputes and procedural annulments;
• strengthened strategic governance and greater transparency;
• fuller alignment with EU public administration standards and SIGMA principles; and
• the implementation of the measures envisaged in the Roadmap for Democratic Institutions,

the following amendments and additions are proposed.

Recommendation 1: Obligation to issue reasoned decisions

Article 7 – Article 26 (Grant decisions and legal remedies)

Proposed text:
“Decisions of the Supervisory Board to approve or reject a grant shall be issued in writing and shall be duly reasoned.”

The decision shall include the legal basis, the factual circumstances, the assessment against each established criteria, the respective ranking where relevant, as well as information on available appeal remedies.”

Justification:
Providing clear and detailed reasoning is fundamental to enabling meaningful judicial review. Introducing this obligation in the sector-specific law strengthens legal clarity and predictability, reduces the risk of annulment of decisions due to a lack of reasoning, and is consistent with European standards on the right to an effective remedy.

Recommendation 2: Mandatory administrative review prior to court proceedings

Proposed text:
“The applicant may request an administrative review by the Agency within 15 days from the date of notification of the decision.”

Justification:
Given the heavy caseload of the Administrative Court of Appeal, this stage provides a faster and more practical avenue for resolving disputes, helps filter and correct procedural errors, and reduces unnecessary judicial disputes, without undermining the constitutional right of access to a court.

Recommendation 3: Review by members not involved in the initial decision / or by a dedicated appeals committee

Proposed text:
“The administrative review shall be carried out by members who did not participate in the initial assessment or decision-making process, or through a dedicated ad hoc appeals committee established for this purpose.”

Justification:
This mechanism safeguards impartiality and prevents conflicts of interest, recognising the right to appeal in the same manner as for other administrative acts. It would also enhance the credibility in the process.

In any event, establishing an appeal mechanism within the Ministry is not recommended, as it would risk politicising civil society funding and would concentrate oversight excessively within the executive. Given that the draft law already strengthens the Ministry’s supervisory role in several respects, adding an appeals function at the same level could create governance imbalances and weaken perceptions of the Agency’s operational autonomy. Moreover, such a concentration of competences may increase exposure to judicial challenges, as applicants may question the independence and impartiality of the review process, particularly in decisions involving discretion in the allocation of grants.

Recommendation 4: 20-day deadline for the administrative review decision

Proposed text:
“The decision on the administrative review shall be issued within 20 days from the submission of the request and shall be duly reasoned.”

Justification:
A clear deadline prevents procedural delays, upholds the requirement that proceedings be conducted within a reasonable time, thereby safeguarding the effectiveness of legal protection.

Recommendation 5: Court proceedings as the final recourse

Proposed text:
“Once the administrative review procedure is concluded, the applicant may contest the decision before the competent administrative court in accordance with the applicable legislation”

Justification:
This wording preserves judicial review as a final safeguard and is consistent with European multi-tier protection models.

Recommendation 6: Administrative silence as a refusal

Proposed text:
“Failure to issue a decision within the prescribed period shall be deemed a refusal and shall entitle the applicant to seek judicial protection.”

Justification:
This rule protects the applicant against administrative inaction and ensures that the right to judicial review remains practical and enforceable.

Recommendation 7: Online platform for tracking the grants process

Proposed text after Article 26 (new article)
“The Agency for the Support of Civil Society shall establish, maintain, and administer an online platform for tracking the grants process, which ensures at least:
a) the publication of calls for proposals, standard documentation, and clarifications;
b) the electronic submission of applications and official communication with applicants;
c) the traceability of the application status throughout all stages of evaluation and decision-making;
ç) the publication of final decisions and data on grant results, in accordance with transparency rules;
d) an accessible archive of calls for proposals and results.
The detailed rules on the functioning of the platform, including accessibility standards and publication deadlines, shall be approved by a decision of the Supervisory Board.”

Justification:
The Roadmap for the Functioning of Democratic Institutions foresees improving administrative procedures for the management of public funds and activating the full functionality of the online platform for tracking the grants process within 2025. Introducing this obligation into the law makes the reform mandatory and sustainable, increases transparency and traceability in decision-making, lowers the risk of procedural disputes, and improves CSOs’ equal access to public funding.

Recommendation 8: Integrating strategic planning into the law

Proposed text (new Article 15/1):
“The Agency shall adopt a multiannual strategic plan that sets out objectives, priorities, and measurable performance indicators.
The plan shall be reviewed periodically, at least once every three years.
The Agency shall prepare an annual performance report, which shall be published on its official website.”

Justification:
This strengthens institutional accountability and aligns the Agency’s functioning with EU standards on strategic planning and performance management.

Recommendation 9: Monitoring and impact evaluation

Proposed text (new Article 15/2):
“The Agency shall ensure systematic monitoring and periodic evaluation of the results and impact of its grant programmes.
Aggregated results shall be made public.”

Justification:
This strengthens an evidence-based approach, increases the efficiency of the use of funds, and aligns with best practices in European public administration.

Recommendation 10: Structured consultation with civil society

Proposed text (new Article 15/3):
“The Agency shall organise periodic consultations with civil society organisations on funding priorities and strategic objectives.
Strategic projects shall be subject to public consultation prior to approval.”

Justification:
This strengthens participatory governance and the legitimacy of decision-making, in line with European standards on transparency and inclusion.

Recommendation 11: Transparency on grants

Proposed text (addition to Article 9):
“The Supervisory Board shall ensure the publication of grant decisions, evaluation criteria, and an annual summary of the allocation of funds.”

Justification:
This improves transparency, preserves checks and balances alongside stronger coordination, and limits perceptions of excessive centralisation.

Recommendation 12: Agency’s role as the Technical Secretariat of the NCCS as a legal function

Proposed text (addition to Article 9 – duties):

“The Agency shall perform the function of the Technical Secretariat of the National Council for Civil Society (NCCS) and, in this capacity, shall: provide administrative and technical support, document meetings, follow up on the implementation of decisions, and ensure the transparency of the NCCS’s work through the publication of agendas, materials, and minutes.”

Justification:
Although the law on the NCCS provides that Agency performs the function of technical secretariat for the Council, this role is not clearly reflected in Agency’s own sectoral law. Including the technical secretariat function in Law No. 10093/2009 ensures coherence of the legal framework, clarity of competences and accountability, and guarantees that this role is supported with adequate resources, procedures, and transparency obligations.

The above proposals aim to:

• ensure effective legal protection in practice;
• reduce the risk of judicial disputes;
• strengthen strategic governance and transparency;
• further align the legal framework with European standards;
• address the obligations arising from the measures set out in the Roadmap for the Functioning of Democratic Institutions.