Cameras, speed-detection devices and other technologies allow road offences to be detected without immediately stopping the driver. This method is not unlawful in itself. Legality depends on the full procedural chain: technical evidence, the official record, identification of the responsible person, service and an effective opportunity to challenge the measure.
A person may discover the fine only through an online check, while requesting a service or when enforcement begins. Neither validity nor invalidity should be assumed at that point. The administrative file must first be obtained and examined.
Detection without stopping the vehicle
“An official record must be drawn up in order to establish the violation.” — Article 198 of the Road Code
Article 198 of the Road Code requires an official record of the alleged violation. Where electronic or automatic digital equipment is used on signposted roads, the record must explain the violation and service is governed by Article 199.
The record should identify the alleged facts, including the date, time, place, vehicle, rule allegedly breached, method of detection and the reason why the driver was not immediately identified. A database entry does not replace examination of these elements and the underlying technical evidence.
Service within the statutory period
Where the offender cannot immediately be identified, Article 199(1) requires service of the record on the offender or the responsible person shown in the relevant registers within 30 days of verification. If the person is identified later, the period runs from identification. Article 199(2) provides a separate 360-day period for persons residing abroad.
Article 199(3) governs the methods of service and also permits certified electronic service. The appearance of a fine in an online system should not automatically be equated with proof of legally compliant service. Under Article 199(5), a person who is not served within the prescribed period is no longer required to pay the administrative fine.
Article 154 of the Code of Administrative Procedures adds that where an error by the authority in effecting service worsens the party’s legal position, service is deemed to have occurred on the date on which the recipient proves actual knowledge.
The owner and the actual driver
Article 194 makes the vehicle owner, or another person specified by law, jointly liable with the offender for payment unless it is proved that the vehicle circulated against the owner’s will. This financial liability must be distinguished from identification of the person who actually committed the offence.
Where the offence entails penalty points and the driver was not identified, Article 120/1 requires the owner or jointly liable person to provide the driver’s personal and licence details within 60 days. Failure to do so without documented justification is a separate offence. The information provided must be accurate.
An owner who pays as a jointly liable person may seek full reimbursement from the actual offender under Article 194(4).
Challenging the measure
The first step is a written request for the official record, technical evidence and proof of service. Postal envelopes, electronic confirmations, system extracts, photographs, vehicle records and evidence identifying the user of the vehicle should be preserved.
Article 201 provides for administrative examination upon the offender’s complaint. Article 202 sets a five-day period for a judicial challenge against the penalty decision issued by the competent administrative authority. Given this short period and its interaction with administrative-jurisdiction rules, the act and the procedural stage require immediate review.
Article 18 of Law no. 49/2012 generally provides a 45-day period for claims against administrative action, running from lawful service, and a special one-year regime where the act does not clearly explain the right and period for judicial proceedings. This general rule should not be used to disregard a shorter period under special legislation.
- Identify the act and issuing authority
- Obtain the record and proof of service
- Review the statutory basis and technical evidence
- Distinguish the fine from points and supplementary measures
- Determine the correct remedy and applicable period
Institutional and Supreme Court guidance
In a 2023 recommendation, the Albanian Ombudsman documented recurring failures in serving fines imposed in the driver’s absence and recommended revocation of measures not served lawfully within 30 days. The recommendation is not a judgment, but it records the practical significance of the issue.
In decision no. 00-2025-3176 (342) of 18 September 2025, concerning a Property Treatment Agency act rather than a traffic fine, the Administrative College of the Supreme Court held that unclear information about the right and period of appeal rendered service defective and should be interpreted in favour of access to court and legal certainty.
In decision no. 00-2025-2391 (266) of 19 June 2025, also concerning a different administrative field, the College held that the party seeking enforcement bears the burden of proving service of the fine. These rulings provide comparative procedural standards; they do not automatically determine every traffic-fine dispute.
Conclusion
A road traffic fine cannot be assessed solely because it appears online. The legality of detection, the official record, the responsible person, evidence and timing of service, and the applicable remedy must all be examined. Because certain periods are extremely short, obtaining the file and responding should not be delayed.
Updated on 9 September 2026. This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice for a specific matter.