On February 3, the Albanian government adopted Decision No. 62, repealing the March 2025 decision that had interrupted access to TikTok nationwide. The measure, in force for nearly one year, followed the tragic killing of a 14-year-old in late 2024, which authorities linked to disputes amplified through social media.

At the time, the SafeJournalists Network (SJN) expressed concern that a blanket shutdown of a communication platform raised serious issues of proportionality, legality and impact on freedom of expression. SJN underlined that while protecting children from online harm is a legitimate and urgent policy objective, sweeping restrictions affecting the entire population require strict constitutional safeguards and transparent justification.

The government has presented the unblocking as the result of “institutional reassessment” and dialogue with the platform. Prime Minister Edi Rama has stated that TikTok is now accessible with “new safety mechanisms,” including keyword-based protective filters and strengthened reporting channels. Authorities have indicated that oversight and child protection rather than censorship remain the objective.

However, several critical issues remain unresolved.

First, the exact nature of the “protective filters” has not been publicly clarified. It remains unclear how these mechanisms operate, who defines harmful content, what safeguards prevent over-blocking, and what remedies exist for wrongful restriction. Transparency around oversight, reporting standards, and data protection compliance is essential, especially given that the 3 February decision explicitly references personal data protection obligations.

Second, the proportionality of the original nationwide restriction continues to be debated. Critics have argued that a blanket platform shutdown was an extreme measure that affected freedom of expression and access to information, particularly because it was implemented shortly before the May 2025 parliamentary elections. Reports also noted that many users bypassed the restriction using VPNs, raising questions about the approach’s effectiveness.

Third, the matter is not legally closed. Albania’s Constitutional Court held a hearing on 5 February 2026 regarding the legality of the original ban. Although the government argued that repeal renders the case moot, plaintiffs including media organisations have insisted that the Court should still rule, as the measure affected multiple constitutional rights while in force. The Court has scheduled further submissions and final conclusions later in February. Its eventual handling of the case may set the constitutional standards governing future restrictions on digital platforms in Albania.

Restoring access resolves the immediate restriction, but it does not address the broader governance questions. The key issue moving forward is whether online harms will be addressed through transparent, targeted and proportionate measures grounded in law or whether executive authorities retain wide discretion to impose sweeping digital restrictions in sensitive periods.

For media freedom advocates across the region, the Albanian case remains a significant reference point in the ongoing debate about platform regulation, child protection, and constitutional safeguards in digital spaces.