RE: REQUEST OF ASSISTANCE AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA INCLUDING WITH RESPECT TO THE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE FINAL AWARD RENDERED BY THE ICSID ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AND COMMUNICATED TO THE PARTIES ON APRIL 24, 2019, PURSUANT TO THE ICSID CONVENTION OF 1965.

Mrs. President of the Commission, Mr. President of the European Council, Mr. President of the European Parliament, Mr. High Representative for Foreign Affairs,

I turn to you to ask the European Union Institutions to intervene as a matter of urgency to uphold the rule of law and provide political assistance against the illegal conduct of the Republic of Albania against an EU citizen.

I have been subjected - and I am currently being subjected - to serious persecution by the Government of the Republic of Albania in breach of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of the general principles of the European Union Law resulting from constitutional traditions common to the Member States, of international obligations concerning the protection of human rights and foreign investors. Moreover, the conduct of the Republic of Albania is in breach of the Stabilization and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, on one side, and the Republic of Albania, on the other, as well as of Albania’s unilateral commitment to respect democratic principles, human rights, international law principles and the rule of law of 12 June 2006.

Notably, Albania has flagrantly failed to comply with its obligations under the arbitral award rendered on 24 April 2019 (the “Award”) by a tribunal constituted under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (the “ICSID Convention”) in ICSID Case No. ARB/15/28 between Hydro S.r.l., Costruzioni S.r.l., Francesco Becchetti, Mauro De Renzis, Stefania Grigolon, and Liliana Condomitti (together the “Investors”), and the Republic of Albania.

Under the above final and binding Award, which found Albania liable for unlawfully expropriating the Investors’ investments, Albania is under the obligation to pay a significant monetary compensation for the damage caused to the Investors, including myself, an Italian national. After more than five-and-a-half years since the unlawful expropriation and nearly two years since the issuance of the Award, Albania has still failed to comply with its international obligations under the Award and the ICSID Convention, to which it is a Contracting State.

Furthermore, Albania’s conduct and ongoing campaign against my person is in patent breach of its obligations under both international law and the fundamental rights and principles recognized by the European Union, including rights to due process and press freedom. In similar cases, where EU citizens have faced such grave injustices and violations of their rights as the ones I have suffered, the EU institutions and Member States have intervened to provide political assistance and denounce the unlawful actions of the offending governments.

I am confident that the facts and considerations that I will illustrate will lead the Institutions of the European Union, each according to its competence, to seriously take my request into consideration and to take every appropriate initiative to protect me against the Albanian Government, so that the latter put an end to the illegal conduct perpetrated against me and comply, inter alia, with the obligations stemming from the 1965 ICSID Convention.

I. The facts justifying the request for assistance

Although the facts on which my request is based are in the public domain, I will briefly illustrate the history of my activity as an entrepreneur in Albania (§ 1). I will then explain the relevant factual circumstances and the conduct of the Government of Albania (§ 2) and the actions that I have taken to protect my rights (§ 3). Finally, I will describe Albania’s serious violations of international law as they have been asserted by the international arbitral tribunal in the Award (§ 4).

1. Investments in Albania

I am an Italian businessman who, since the early 90s, has started a series of significant investments in Albania through various companies attributable to my entrepreneurial group. One of the earliest projects was the construction and operation of a power plant in the Kalivac area on the Vjosa River. To this end, I founded BEG SpA in 1995, which in May 1997 was the first foreign company to propose and obtain a thirty-year concession from the Albanian Government for the construction and management of the plant. Under the Kalivac project, BEG entered into a partnership agreement, first, with Enel SpA in 1999 and, then, in 2000 with the wholly owned subsidiary Enelpower SpA, in which Enel had merged the company branch relating to the construction of power plants for the Enel group, pursuant to D.lgs.16 March 1999, n. 79.

Over the years, I have pursued with utmost determination and professionalism the realization of the power station, operating in the most scrupulous compliance of the laws applicable in Italy and in Albania, and of the conditions of the concession. Thanks to my commitment and my entrepreneurial skills, the Kalivac project, first in size and value among several similar initiatives subsequently authorized by the Albanian Government in the energy sector, managed to reach an advanced stage of realization, with the completion of approximately 40% of the total work and costs of tens of millions of euros. This was achieved in spite of both countless criticalities caused by the conduct of the Enel group since the year 2000, and the geopolitical adversities caused by the global financial crisis.

Moreover, in 2012, I started a new and important business initiative in the Albanian market, which resulted, over the span of a few months (5 April 2013), in the creation of Agon Channel, an international television production center and a news broadcaster capable of competing, in terms of content and technologies, with the major European television operators. Thanks to an initial investment of around 40 million euros, Agon immediately become the new leading player in the Albanian radio and television market, distinguishing itself for its freedom of information. On 1 December 2014, as a part of the project which involved the opening of channels across Europe, Agon also began to broadcast in Italy (on Channel 33 digital terrestrial) based on the format produced mostly in Albania, with the participation of many well-known faces from the Italian world of entertainment, sport and journalism.

2. The persecutory campaign of the Rama Government

A few months after the launch of the television channel − which proposed itself as an independent and free operator in a market notoriously characterized by a very high rate of politicization¹ - and coinciding with the rise to power of the Rama Government, I found myself at the heart of a violent persecutory campaign by the Albanian authorities; once an esteemed entrepreneur with recognized merits, who had brought huge investments and hundreds of jobs to the country, I become the target to hit and eliminate at all costs from the country’s economic scene.

With the violence typical of the worst authoritarianism, my most elementary rights and the economic interests of the companies attributable to me have been brutally crushed and annihilated. The pressure of the Rama Government, became more oppressive as a result of some reportage that was broadcast by Agon Channel − showing the existence of serious irregularities in the voting process in the local elections of 2015, the investigating authorities launched a flimsy investigation against my group’s business, me and some of my partners, whose sole real purpose was to set up a series of charges to stage a show trial aimed at neutralizing my broadcasting project.

Thus, starting from a false accusation of money laundering in which the illicit origin of the funds used for the initial investment relating to the TV was contested – this accusation immediately fell, of course, since I myself and UniCredit have undeniably proved, through the Luxembourg authorities, the legitimate origin of the invested money, the Albanian judicial authorities began to manufacture a string of absurd crime charges, for the sole purpose of putting me out of the game and destroying my business activities which were are not aligned with the interests of Rama and his Government.

The investigations in question culminated in the adoption, on 5 June 2015, of a measure of remand in custody against me and some of my partners, as well as a number of measures of seizure and freezing of bank accounts which affected several Albanian companies related to my business group, determining the immediate suspension of all activities, from those of television. These seizures were also unlawfully extended to all material and equipment of the company Agonset sh.p.k., which was in charge of managing the channel and its international production center (i.e. the true objective of the persecution undertaken by the Albanian authorities). As a result of all this illicit conduct, which ended with the interruption of the supply of electricity, the broadcaster was forced to end its work, both in Albania and in Italy, less than three years after its launch, resulting in the termination of more than 400 employment contracts.

What is more serious is that with the request for pre-trial detention in prison, an international arrest warrant was issued - with the relative red notice, following which the Albanian Government presented a formal request for extradition both to the Italian authorities - which after only three days attempted to arrest me with a rare deployment of forces - and to the British authorities, that four months later ordered some measures restricting personal freedom (so-called bail) and the beginning of the extradition procedure.

Rama had thus achieved his objective: Agon Channel had been expropriated and its owner would soon be arrested and extradited to Albania.

Indeed, during the days immediately following my arrest, the Albanian Prime Minister did not fail to publicly express, both on the media and on social networks, his satisfaction for the result obtained with the blocking of Agon Channel’s assets, pointing to me, in clear disregard for the presumption of innocence, as a person responsible for serious financial crimes and congratulating the “structures of the Italian State” for having collaborated in “blocking the source of the dirty money that feeds AgonChannel” (so we read verbatim in a post by the Prime Minister published on 9 June 2015 on Facebook and Twitter - interview of 17 June 2015 given to the program Opinion of TV Klan). These “structures”, apparently , are not the legal ones, given that there is no trace of any official collaboration provided by the competent Italian authorities.

Therefore, it is not by coincidence that all the judicial actions I undertook in Albania to challenge the lawfulness of the measures taken against me and my companies have proved fruitless. In fact, the massive persecutory campaign was made possible only thanks to the total, well-known enslavement of the judiciary to the Rama Government above all due to the recent reforms which have introduced a review mechanism for all judges in office (so-called vetting).

For all these reasons, while the Albanian authorities would continue with their persecutory actions through pretextual investigations and mock trials, I turned to international courts to denounce the violation of my rights and those of my companies.

3. Actions taken to protect my rights

A) ICSID Tribunal

On October 11, 2014 and November 17, 2014, I sent two notices of disputes to the Government of Albania under the ICSID Convention, declaring myself available for a friendly settlement. Following the negative response, on 10 June I started international arbitration against Albania under the ICSID Convention of 1965, denouncing multiple and serious violations of the 1991 bilateral treaty between Italy and Albania on the protection and promotion of investments and requesting provisional measures, by reason of serious and irreparable damages arising as a result of the execution of the arrest warrant and the continuation of the criminal proceedings.

On 3 March 2016, the ICSID arbitral tribunal, made up of eminent renowned international jurists Michael Pryles, Ian Glick and Charles Poncet, unanimously upheld the application for interim measures made by the applicants, recommending to a State (Albania) to immediately suspend the extradition proceedings initiated before the English courts and to suspend the criminal proceedings in the context of which the arrest warrant was issued. The order then invited the parties to reach an agreement on the measures necessary for the

preservation of the assets subject to seizure (see Hydro Ltd and others v Republic of Albania, ICSID Case no. ARB 15/28, Provisional order No. 1, 3 March, 2016). However, in defiance of the order of the ICSID Tribunal and persevering in their persecutory attitude, Albania refused to comply, arguing that the Minister of Justice would not have had the possibility to withdraw the request for extradition. This argument is so absurd and groundless that, on 8 July 2016, the Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London held Albania responsible for abuse of process and consequently issued a definitive stay of the extradition request by a decision which Albania expressly renounced to appeal.

The content of the judgment of the English Criminal Court has also been disclosed in Italy, in primary national newspapers.

Subsequently, on 1 September, 2016, after having ascertained that I would not be extradited, the ICSID tribunal adopted a new provisional measure acknowledging the abuse of process by Albania, as ascertained by the English Criminal Court, and ordering the Albanian State not to take any measure to resume the extradition proceedings against me up until the adoption of the final arbitration award.

B) The European Court of Human Rights

On 21 October 2015, I also filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights, complaining of the violation of the presumption of innocence guaranteed by art. 6, paragraph 2, of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (ECHR), as a result of the public statement of guilt made by the Albanian Prime Minister following the arrest warrant, as well as the violation of art. 13 of the ECHR, due to the absence of any effective internal remedy.

That application (registered on 2 December, 2015 with no. 53488/15) was treated with extreme promptness by the European Court, which soon after on 12 January 2016, ordered its communication to the Albanian Government for the starting of adversarial proceedings, which were definitively concluded with the filing of replies and rejoinders on 19 October 2016.

The Agonset company also turned to the European Court of Human Rights, with an application of 27 May 2015 (registered on 27 June 2015 with no. 33104/15,) to complain about the violation of the right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by art. 10 of the ECHR, and of the right to respect for property, protected by art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR.

By decision of 28 August 2015, the Court accepted the request for priority treatment of the appeal, which was, therefore, communicated to the Albanian Government on 5 November 2015 for starting of the adversarial proceedings, which ended with the filing of replies and rejoinders on 22 September 2016.

The European Court’s decisions on both applications are expected in the coming months.

C) Interpol

Finally, even Interpol upheld my complaint against the Red Notice issued at the request of the Albanian authorities.

On January 25, 2017, the Commission for the control of INTERPOL’s files, noting that in the face of my substantiated allegations Albania had not been able to provide any justification of the arrest warrant, thus confirming the persecutory nature of the measures adopted, recommended the cancellation of the data concerning me from the archive, believing that the retention of such data would be in breach of the constitutional rules of operation of Interpol.

Following this recommendation, the Secretary General of Interpol ordered the cancellation of the Red Notice against me and also informed all State Parties to Interpol that any further form of international police cooperation with Albania would be considered contrary to the Constitution and to the Organization’s Data Processing Rules.

4. The Award rendered by the ICSID arbitral tribunal

On April 18, 2019, the ICSID arbitral Tribunal unanimously issued the Award, which held that the actions of the Albanian authorities against the undersigned and its investments constituted unlawful expropriation in violation of international law as “the culmination of a political campaign against the applicants” aimed at silencing a television channel critical of the Albanian Government. For this reason, the ICSID arbitral Tribunal sentenced the Albanian Republic to compensate the undersigned and the other Italian investors the sum of over € 110,000,000.00.

In particular, the arbitrators in that decision reached the following conclusion:

“724. When taken together, all of the matters discussed in paragraphs 708-719 above therefore strongly support an inference that the Seizure Decisions were the culmination of a political campaign against the Claimants.
to. The criminal investigations were commenced by a government that was close to the Claimants’ commercial competitors, incumbent operators of television stations, against a channel that was critical of the government.

b. At the outset of those investigations, a representative of the government explicitly stated that Mr. Becchetti should speak with one of those competitors if he wished to understand why the Claimants’ investments were under investigation, and that it was not a good idea to oppose the state.

c. There were significant flaws in the factual basis for the allegations that underpin the criminal investigation. When called to justify the allegations that underpinned the Arrest Warrants by INTERPOL, Albania failed to do so.

d. Once the Seizure Decisions were issued, Prime Minister Rama stated his ‘war’ against investors such as the Claimants had been a ‘success’, and went on to threaten the judiciary on the basis that it was somehow implicated in the supposed wrongs by those investors. 725. Unlike the conduct of which the Claimants complained in relation to the Kalivac Project, the Tribunal finds that these activities were deliberate interference with Agonset’s business and motivated by Agonset’s criticism of government. The Tribunal therefore draws that inference for which the Claimants contend, and finds that Albania’s taking of Agonset was not a legitimate exercise of its police powers. As such, Mr. De Renzis’, Mr. Becchetti’s, Ms. Grigolon’s and Hydro’s investment in Agonset was expropriated in breach of Article 5 of the Treaty.

[...]”

In paragraph 724, letters (a) and (b), the ICSID Tribunal concluded that the criminal investigations had been initiated under pressure from a partisan government, both because Rama was close to the interests of other television broadcasters, competitors of Agonset, and for the obvious aversion of the Government to the criticisms addressed to him by Agonset. The ICSID decision states the following:

“708. Nevertheless, the Rama government was closely associated with the incumbent operators, Agonset’s commercial competitors. Former employees of those incumbents were employed by the government in key positions. In particular, the Rama government installed a former senior executive at one of the incumbents as President of AMA. It did so by using his numbers in parliament to override the statutory requirement that the opposition party participate in the selection process. The President who was replaced as a result had been the subject of a sustained campaign on the part of the incumbent TV operators for her removal. [...]

712. Of more direct significance is the first matter identified by the Claimants, the explicit statements made by the government representatives concerning the motives for the criminal investigations. In late 2013 or early 2014, shortly after the money laundering allegations were first raised against the Claimants, Mr. Becchetti asked the Secretary General of Prime Minister Rama’s cabinet, Mr. Ağacı, why those investigations were being pursued. Mr. Agaçi said Mr. Becchetti should speak to Enkelejd Joti, General Manager of Top Channel, one of Agonset’s incumbent competitors. When Mr. Becchetti asked why he should speak to Mr. Joti, Mr. Agaçi said: ‘It is not a good idea to oppose the State.’

[...]”

Paragraph 724 (c) of the ICSID Decision deals with the “material defects” of the factual basis of the allegations in the criminal proceedings. The analysis of these substantive defects is particularly developed in paragraphs 716-719 of the ICSID awards, which reads as follows:

“716. The Claimants also point out that key allegations justifying the Arrest Warrants and the Seizure Decisions have the following significant flaws:

a)  The allegation that the companies were laundering overseas funds is undercut by documents provided to the prosecutor before the criminal charges were formally brought, showing a legitimate source of the funds.

b)  It was also alleged that invoices were sent in relations to works that were not done, namely “foundation work on the material that was selected and dug out for the construction of the body of the dam”. Reports from the relevant government agency from different years indicated that the work was been completed, however.

c)  As to the allegation that Energji overcharged for works, further documents available to prosecutor showed that Albania had approved the rate charged to it in the Second Addendum of the Concession Agreement. They also showed that Deutsche Bank had approved the rate at which KGE’s contract with Energji set the works.

717. Under Albanian law, all that is required for an arrest warrant to be issued is a reasonable basis to suspect a crime has been committed. For a range of detailed reasons, set out in its final submissions, the Respondent contends that such reasonable basis existed despite the flaws identified by the Claimants in the basis for the criminal investigation.

718. Although this may well demonstrate that the Arrest warrant had a sufficient basis under Albanian law, this is not the end of the matter. As noted, the question is whether, in substance, the Claimants can show that Albania’s actions were motivated by a political campaign against them. Even if it is accepted that there was a reasonable basis for suspicion concerning the allegations that formed the basis of the criminal investigation, the factual flaws the Claimant identify provide further basis for an inference that Albania’s motivations were not bona fide in the public interest.

719. At around the time the Arrest Warrants were issued, INTERPOL issued the “Red Notices” at Albania’s request in relation to Mr. Becchetti and Mr. De Renzis. In 2016, INTERPOL repeatedly asked Albania to justify those notices in response to allegations that they were politically motivated, lacked a proper purpose and lacked a proper evidentiary basis. Receiving no adequate response, INTERPOL withdrew the Red Notices in 2017.

[...]”

In paragraph 724 (d) the arbitral tribunal observed that the Albanian Prime Minister, after having seized the assets of companies related to me, said that his “war” against investors had been carried out with “success”:

“713. In June 2015, immediately following the Seizure Decisions (taken in part on the basis of the money laundering allegations), Prime Minister Rama explicitly stated that he considered the government to be at “war” with certain investors, including the Claimants, and that the war had been successful. He went on to say that the executive government “will shake the foundations of the judicial system” in a way that those judges who had “become part of the crime cannot even imagine.”

[...]
715. It is certainly true that Prime Minister Rama states he has nothing against Mr. Becchetti. However, in the context of the matters set out in the preceding paragraphs, the Prime Minister’s comments are best read as indicating a political campaign against, at least, “that kind of investor”, of which Mr. Becchetti was one. This reading is further supported by the weaknesses identified in the money laundering allegations described in the following paragraphs.“

The substantial defects relating to the facts at the basis of the criminal investigation identified the by Claimants and confirmed by the ICSID Tribunal (see para. 716 of the ICSID Decision) cannot but lead to the conclusion that the criminal proceedings were not carried out in good faith and in the public interest. As indicated in paragraph 724, letter (c) of the ICSID Decision itself:

“... c. There were significant flaws in the factual basis for the allegations that underpin the criminal investigations. When called upon to justify the allegations that underpinned the Arrest Warrants by INTERPOL, Albania failed to do so”.

II. On political assistance in case of serious violations of fundamental rights by a foreign State

Governments should act immediately in protection of a citizen who has suffered, and continues to suffer, violations of fundamental human rights of this magnitude, and such assistance is urgently required in my case both by my State of citizenship (Italy) and by the European Union, of which I am also a “citizen” under Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”).

The Italian Government and the institutions of the European Union should take action so that Albania starts respecting the rule of law and my fundamental rights and obligations under the applicable treaties, including the Stabilization and Association Agreement of 2006. Regrettably, as of today, the Italian Government has persistently failed to provide any assistance and protection notwithstanding my repeated requests addressed to the President of the Council of Ministers and to the Minister of Foreign Affairs since the issuance of the arbitral Award in April 2019.

Finally, and what is more, the Italian Government did not even respond to my latest request of protection (which I sent on 29 December 2020) within the 30 day time-limit provided by law (which elapsed on 29 January 2020), and also my open letter to the President of the Republic (published in a national newspaper from 7 to 11 January 2021) remained completely ignored. In so doing, the Italian Government is inexplicably acting against its own policy and practice to offer protection to its own nationals who are victims of serious human rights violation by a third State.

1. Albania’s violations

In my case, not only has the unlawful conduct undertaken by the Albanian Government been ascertained by an ICSID tribunal by way of a final award – which, pursuant to Article 54 of the ICSID Convention has the same force as a domestic ruling that has become res judicata, but also the damages that I have suffered, and continue to suffer, result from the outright violation of fundamental human rights under national, European and international law. Indeed, the ICSID decision established that an Italian investor and his partners have been the target of a political campaign conducted by a foreign government through its judiciary and police in blatant breach of international law. Those breaches amount to a systematic persecutory campaign which is still ongoing.

Moreover, the illegal conduct put in place by Albania is today further aggravated by its non- fulfillment of the ICSID award, an international obligation stemming from Article 53 (1) of the ICSID Convention. On the one hand, after almost two years from the issuance of the award, Albania is still refusing to compensate the investors of the huge damages suffered in compliance with the arbitral award; on the other hand, Albania refuses to execute the award in its own legal system as prescribed by the ICSID Convention, having denied, on March 4, 2020, the request for recognition, implementation and execution of the Award in an arbitrary, unreasonable, and grossly unfair decision contrary to Albania’s obligations under the ICSID Convention and Albanian law.

Albania’s refusal to comply with and recognize and enforce the Award constitutes a continuing violation of international law, which justifies urgent action by the Italian Government and the European Union.

This attitude on the part of Albania reiterates and amplifies the arbitrariness and seriousness of the wrongfulness ascertained by the ICSID tribunal, based on overwhelming evidence, and even on the admissions by the Albanian representatives in the arbitral proceedings.

Unless Albania complies with the ICSID decision and dismisses the pending charges against me (for six years a measure of remand in custody has being hanging over me!), I will remain constantly subjected to new abusive restrictions of my personal freedom, as protected by the EU law and the ECHR. To date, nearly two years since the Award was rendered, Albania has not yet withdrawn the arrest warrant against me, which implies that I will have to defend myself against new extradition procedures and the related restrictions based on the phony accusations raised against me.

In this respect, it bears noting that the former Head Prosecutor of the Tirana General Prosecution Office, Mr. Petrit Fusha, who signed the order of remand in custody against me, resigned from his office on 6 March 2019 following allegations of having influenced an ongoing investigation so as to avoid to be subjected to the so called “vetting procedure” established by the 2016 justice reform.

Moreover, the Deputy Prosecutor, Mrs. Antoneta Sevdari, who conducted the investigations against me, sought my arrest and later requested my committal to trial, was dismissed from office on 28 February 2019 as the outcome of the vetting procedure on account of alleged shortcomings in her declaration of assets and professional proficiency.

A sinister picture emerges, which confirms the serious findings of the ICSID Tribunal of a tyrannical use by Edi Rama of the judiciary and police powers for the purpose of political persecution, which reflects an attitude of singular support on the part of Italy, despite the evident criticalities of the Albanian political and judicial system, which is overtly in contrast to the fundamental principles of the European Union and of any democratic State based on the Rule of Law.

These considerations highlight the fact that, by refusing to comply with the ICSID award, and keeping the arrest warrant against me open for more than six years, Albania is persevering in its persecutory behaviour towards me.

Moreover, the overall conduct by Albania and its individual actions and omissions in question also amount to a blatant violation of the obligations enshrined in the Stabilization and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, on one side, and the Republic of Albania, on the other.

The recitals of the Agreement state, in the relevant part, that “the commitment of the Parties to increasing political and economic freedoms as the very basis of this Agreement, as well as their commitment to respect human rights and the rule of law”. It also indicates that “this Agreement will create a new climate for economic relations between them and, above all, for the development of trade and investment” in recognizing Albania’s status as a potential candidate for European Union membership. For example, Article 2 of the Agreement expressly states “[r]espect for the democratic principles and human rights (...) respect for international law principles and the rule of law” constitute “essential elements of this Agreement.”

Article 91 of the Agreement also recognizes “cooperation between the Parties, within the scope of their respective competences, in the field of investment promotion and protection shall aim to bring about a favourable climate for private investment.” It bears noting that, having special regard to the media industry, Article 102 of the Agreement requires that “[t]he Parties shall cooperate to promote the audiovisual industry in Europe and encourage coproduction in the fields of cinema and television,” including cooperation “so as to reinforce their independence, professionalism and links with the European media,” and that “ Albania shall align its policies on the regulation of content aspects of cross-border broadcasting with those of the Community and shall harmonize its legislation with the Community acquis.”

Finally, Article 125 of the Agreement stipulates that, in the fields covered by the Agreement, “the arrangements applied by Albania in respect of the Community shall not give rise to any discrimination between the Member States, their nationals, companies or firms”.

Albania has shamelessly violated and continues to violate these fundamental obligations under the European Treaties and the 2006 Agreement to an extent which seriously defeats their object and purpose and which cannot remain unaccounted for by the European Union.

2. Assistance by the European Union and its Member States with special regard to the violations of the international obligations concerning the protection of investments in third States.

The European Union has recognized the need and the authority of the EU institutions and Member States to act in protection of the investments made by European economic operators in third countries.

The Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) sets, among the objectives for the consolidation of the common commercial policy, the assignment of the field of foreign direct investment to the competence of the Union (Article 3, para. 1, letter e), and Article 207, par. 1).

Based on this competence, the European Commission has made efforts towards the establishment of a comprehensive European international investment policy (see Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 7 July 2010, COM(2010)343). Notably, the Commission pointed out that, “with a view to ensuring external competitiveness, uniform treatment for all EU investors and maximum leverage in negotiations, a common international investment policy should address all investment types and notably assimilate the area of investment protection”.

Concrete and important evidence of this strong and unequivocal objective is provided by the initiatives taken by the Union in the case involving the Spanish energy company Repsol and the Argentine Republic, where the latter State failed to fulfill its obligations under the bilateral investment treaty with Spain, by arbitrarily expropriating the Spanish investor.

By Resolution of 20 April 2012 on the legal security of European investment outside the European Union (2012/2619(RSP)), the European Parliament deplored the decision taken by the Argentine Government and called on the President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission and the High Representative for CFSP “to make every effort with the Argentine authorities to defend the Community interest and to safeguard the principle of legal certainty which guarantees Europe’s presence and investment in this South American country”; it also urged “the European Commission and the Council to explore and adopt any measures required to safeguard European interests in order to avoid such situations arising again, including the possible partial suspension of the unilateral tariff preferences under the GSP scheme”; and also urged “Commissioner De Gucht and High Representative Ashton to use all diplomatic avenues available to solve this situation with their Argentine counterparts”.

Most importantly, on that occasion, the Commissioner for Trade Karel De Gucht grounded his intervention in support of the Spanish investor, clarifying that the call to all Member States to impose sanctions against Argentina “will guarantee legal certainty and effectiveness to the bilateral treaties stipulated between our Member States and third States, with a view to replacing the latter with collective agreements. This line will protect European investments abroad and guarantee the effectiveness of the protections implemented in parallel by European investors through legal channels. [...] The ambition is that all European investors have equal protection of their investments in third countries, something that up to now has only been concretely ensured by some Member States”.

In fact, there are multiple examples of interventions by the institutions of the European Union on behalf of European citizens – and also of individuals who are not EU citizens - who have been victims of serious violations of human rights by third States. To mention just one recent example, the Resolution adopted on 18 December 2020 by the European Parliament in relation to victims of human rights violations in Egypt stresses inter alia how respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms constitutes and essential element of the relations between the European Union and Egypt, thus, inviting the institutions of the Union and Member States “to give a unified and resolute response, also in coordination with the other partners that share the same principles, to the repression and violations of human rights in Egypt, as well as to use all the tools at their disposal to ensure tangible progress in the human rights situation in Egypt”, making further collaboration with Egypt conditional to compliance with clear rule of law parameters.

The intervention of the European Union in the event of serious violations committed by third States is also instrumental to ensuring equal treatment of European investors within the single market. In the same direction, the rules on freedom of competition require avoiding differentiated treatment with respect to the protection of direct investment abroad by different investors from different Member States.

Irrespective of the individual attitudes by Member States of nationality of the investors in question in any given case, the European Union should take into serious consideration the requests for assistance of its citizens and to intervene by every lawful means, in supplementary function, to guarantee an equal level of protection of European investments abroad and the regular functioning of the internal market and free competition.

III. Urgency

I wish to stress the urgency - both from a legal and a humanitarian standpoint - of the assistance requested. Such urgency derives from the “continuing character”, to this day, of the breaches of international law, and of the basic legal values, rules and principles of the EU by Albania. Such internationally wrongful conduct continues to cause serious personal physical and mental injury, next to the ongoing harm to my economic interests and rights.

Not only have I suffered such injury and harm out of the wrongful acts and omissions of the Government of Albania still underway, but the persistent attitude of unfettered defiance of international law, EU economic and humanitarian rules and principles, by the Government of Albania affects my daily life, due to the constant prospect of being – once again and even more dramatically – made subject in the future, for an indefinite period of time, to serious abuses, including arbitrary arrest and detention.

Without a clear and firm intervention by the EU in assistance of a EU citizen, who has been the victim of wrongs committed by a non-EU State bound by a Stabilization and Association Agreement, I have no hope that those still continuing wrongs will cease, that my fundamental rights and freedoms will be upheld, that the physical, mental and economic harm that I have suffered, and I continue to suffer, will be redressed, and that I may resume enjoying an adequate standard of living in the future based on the rule of law.

IV. Conclusions

On the basis of the foregoing considerations, I request the EU to provide assistance and to take action against the continuing unlawful conduct of the Republic of Albania to which I am subjected. The ICSID Tribunal has, indeed, established Albania’s violations of international law in its politically-motivated campaign against me and my partners, which continue to be perpetrated to this day. Despite the binding nature of the Award under international law, Albania refuses to comply with its obligations under the Award and the ICSID Convention. This conduct constitutes, as mentioned, a serious violation of international law, as well of the most basic human rights recognised under EU law and the ECHR.

Among the constitutional rights whose violation I have suffered – and continue to suffer – are the following.

First, the right to personal freedom under Article 6 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and Article 13 of the Italian Constitution. In fact, for six years now, I find myself unable to return to my country of nationality because of the lack of any protection by Italy against the violation by Albania of my fundamental rights. No less importantly, I find myself forced to stay in the United Kingdom and prevented from returning to the European Union of which I am a citizen.

This has forced me to live in lockdown in London for six years in order to avoid the risk – if not the certainty - of being unjustly arrested and detained in any part of the world where I might find myself and to defend myself from an unjust order of remand in custody, which is still in force and which has been issued for crimes clearly never committed and contested in a mock trial by the courts of a country which for nearly 8 years has known no justice and democracy.

Second, the right to freedom of expression, which includes the “the freedom of opinion and the freedom to receive or communicate information or ideas without any interference by public authorities and without border limits”, guaranteed by Article 11 of the Charter and by Article 21 of the Italian Constitution. The facts illustrated above show that the Albanian Government has acted for the sole purpose of gagging Agon Channel, one of the few free voices in that country. Fully in line with the findings of the ICSID Tribunal, on 19 June 2020, the Venice Commission issued a report on the media situation in Albania. The findings of the European commissioners are very harsh. They found that the media sector is in crisis due to the “ lack of ethical standards “ and “ [by] journalistic self-censorship due to the interconnection between economic and political interests” in combination with the “lack of transparency with respect to the media ownership structures and the source of funds used to finance them” (see Venice Commission, Opinion on Draft Amendments to Law No. 97/2013 on the audiovisional media service, 19 June 19 2020, par. 17). For these reasons, the commissioners conclude that “the reporting of facts conflicting with the economic and political interests of the owners is avoided; journalists remain vulnerable to strong pressure and, thus, resort to ‘self- censorship” (Ibid, para. 18).

Third, and finally, my right to freedom of economic activity and the enjoyment of property provided for by Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and by Articles 41 and 42 of the Italian Constitution has clearly been violated. The Albanian Government has in fact expropriated all my assets in Albania and has cleared all the investments I have made in that country. All this is against any principle of law and for the sole purpose of fighting what was perceived to be a political opponent.

It is hardly necessary to point out what is now already established – including by a decision of the ICSID Tribunal which, pursuant to Article 54 of the ICSID Convention, has the same effect as a final domestic judgment – that the conduct of the Albanian governmental authorities and of the Albanian judiciary has repeatedly and willfully violated the fundamental human rights of an Italian and European citizen; just as it is now clear that the Albanian Government is in breach of Article 53 of the ICSID Convention by refusing to comply with the arbitral decision.

Under such circumstances I request the European Union to take my case seriously into consideration and to intervene to ensure Albania’s compliance with the obligations deriving from the ICSID Convention, to which all EU Member States are parties, and from the 2006 Stabilization and Association Agreement, as well as its respect for human rights and international law broadly.

The European Union institutions have a wide range of legal, economic and political means that can be used to that effect, including under the framework of the 2006 Stabilization and Association Agreement. Notably, Article 126, para 2, of the Agreement provides that “If either Party considers that the other Party has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Agreement, it may take appropriate measures” and that “before so doing, except in cases of special urgency, it shall supply the Stabilization and Association Council with all relevant information required for a thorough examination of the situation with a view to seeking a solution acceptable to the Parties”. Moreover, Article 119 of the Agreement stipulates that each Party “shall refer to the Stabilization and Association Council any dispute relating to the application or interpretation of this Agreement”.

Furthermore, the European Union should call on all Member States to adopt sanctions against Albania as it has done in similar circumstances according to a well-established regulatory framework corroborated by a consistent policy and practice in respect of the protection of foreign direct investments in third countries.

Being a “European citizen”, as well as an “Italian citizen”, I respectfully ask the institutions of the European Union to take every appropriate measure against the Government of Albania so that the latter finally complies with the ICSID arbitral award and its obligations towards the EU, by putting an end to the persecutory conduct against me, and so that no other European investor in Albania is affected in the future by similar politically motivated and discriminatory actions.

Respectfully submitted,