23 September 2026

Why the National Economic Chamber Bill Still Needs Work

ABCCI joins 16 other business organisations in a joint statement to the Albanian Government

On 10 September 2026, seventeen of Albania’s leading business organisations spanning bilateral chambers of commerce, sector associations, and investor groups sent a joint statement to Prime Minister Edi Rama, Minister of Economy Delina Ibrahimaj, and Minister of Finance Petrit Malaj, setting out shared concerns over the revised draft law “On the National Economic Chamber” (DHEK), published for public consultation on 14 August 2026.

The Albanian British Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ABCCI) is proud to stand among the signatories. Copies of the statement were also shared, for information, with the EU Delegation to Albania, the US Embassy, and the British Embassy in Tirana a reflection of how closely Albania’s international partners are watching the reform of its business representation system as the country advances toward EU membership.

Please follow the TV debate of Mr Zenel Hoxha, President of ABCCI, on the issue  https://youtu.be/M–sSYvfeSM?si=jWN-apUG9K_D2_yD

A reform we support in principle but not in its current form

The signatory organisations are unambiguous: they welcome genuine reform of Albania’s fragmented chamber system and support structured dialogue between business and public institutions. What they cannot support is a model that would make membership in a single, publicly-created chamber automatic and compulsory for every registered business in the country, while leaving the core questions of cost, value, and necessity largely unanswered.

Five issues stood out as unresolved, even after the August revision of the bill:

1. Compulsory membership still overrides freedom of enterprise and association. Every commercial entity registered in Albania would become a member of DHEK ‘ipso lege’ automatically, by operation of law with only narrow carve-outs for businesses already tied to other statutory professional bodies. The statement argues this cuts against a basic principle: representation works when it is built on trust, choice, and demonstrated value, not legal compulsion. The existing ecosystem of voluntary business organisations bilateral and multilateral chambers, sectoral associations, investor groups derives its legitimacy precisely from the fact that businesses chose to join them. A new statutory structure with automatic membership should not be allowed to sideline, weaken, or gatekeep that pluralism. As the statement puts it plainly: the state can create an institution and delegate public functions to it, but it cannot hand that institution a mandate to represent business only businesses themselves can do that.
2. The link between the mandatory fee and actual services remains unclear. The revised bill expands DHEK’s prospective service catalogue considerably business advisory, training, surveys and analysis, certificates of origin, ATA/TIR carnets, a European integration role, and various delegated public functions. That expansion is welcome in principle, but it does not resolve the underlying problem: a compulsory annual fee cannot substitute for solving the basic question of whether membership itself should be compulsory. The bill still bundles the registration fee together with the cost of public functions and voluntary services without clearly separating what every member is guaranteed to receive for what they pay. The organisations are also concerned that non-payment being classed as an administrative offence, subject to a fine, needs a clearer, more proportionate legal basis and that bundling fee and services this loosely risks reducing membership to a formality rather than a fair exchange of value.
3. The case for reform needs to rest on evidence, not just intent. The explanatory report cites the “fragmentation” of the existing chamber system as a justification for centralisation but the signatories argue that a change this fundamental to how business is represented nationally should be grounded in a full assessment of the current system’s actual performance, usage, and shortcomings, alongside a genuine comparison of alternative models that stop short of compulsory membership. Notably, the projected budget for the transition period has grown from roughly 15.4 million lek for one year (in the earlier version) to state support of up to two years in the current draft a change that itself calls for a clearer account of real costs and real returns for business, before that cost is passed on through a mandatory fee.
4. The EU-integration rationale needs to be spelled out, not assumed. The explanatory report is candid that this bill does not transpose any specific piece of EU acquis. That is not, in itself, disqualifying but it does raise the bar for justification. If the reform is not legally required by European integration, its architects owe the public a clear account of why compulsory, ipso lege membership in a public chamber is the model that best serves market economy principles, competitiveness, and the broader integration agenda and what alternatives were considered and set aside, and why.
5. Overlap with existing public institutions needs to be resolved, not layered on top. DHEK is set to take on a series of delegated public functions and to coordinate closely with the National Business Centre on registration and data matters. The statement calls for a clean, explicit division of responsibility for each delegated function legal basis, accountability, service standards, complaint mechanisms, and financing so the reform simplifies the relationship between business and the administration rather than adding a new layer of institutional intermediation. It also recommends clearly separating DHEK’s representative and self-regulatory functions from its delegated public functions, since each should follow a different regime of oversight, accountability, and financing. Existing chambers should not face new operational constraints, or requirements for prior approval from the Technical Committee, beyond what is genuinely necessary to manage an orderly transition.

What the business community is asking for

The joint statement closes with a concrete set of asks, not just objections:

• Real freedom for businesses to choose whether, and through which organisation, they are represented
• Protection for the autonomy and plurality of existing and future voluntary business organisations
• A clear, guaranteed list of baseline services funded by the annual fee
• A full, published analysis of the current system, the alternatives considered, and the reform’s likely economic and institutional impact
• A clearer argument connecting the reform to EU integration and to market-economy principles freedom of enterprise, proportionality, freedom of association
• A clean separation of delegated functions from existing public institutions, with no duplication

Above all, the signatories make one structural point: public consultation should be used to help decide the shape of the reform itself, not simply to fine-tune a model whose fundamentals have already been fixed in advance.

ABCCI’s position

As a bilateral chamber built on the voluntary participation of its members and on decades of trust between the Albanian and British business communities, ABCCI has a direct stake in this debate not only as a matter of principle, but practically, in how the final law treats organisations like ours. We remain committed to constructive engagement with the Government on this reform, and alongside AMCHAM, DIHA, CCIA, BCCA, SWISSA, Confindustria Albania, FIAA, AAB, HBAA, AREA, BTSH, AITA, the Insurers’ Association of Albania, SH.SJ.P.FI, AJCCI, AECA, and CCIFA we look forward to a genuine dialogue that produces a stronger, more broadly supported reform.

ABCCI Copyright © 2026