CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCDA9F793 { width:14.2pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4F6F0E53 { width:22.87pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s8368AB65 { width:126.08pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF993D337 { width:25.88pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF78227B2 { width:156.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 20617/23 Gerd GJINARARI against Albania   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17   March   2026 as a Committee composed of:   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh , President ,   Darian Pavli,   Mateja Đurović , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   20617/23) against the Republic of Albania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 16 May 2023 by an Albanian national, Mr Gerd Gjinarari (“the applicant”), who was born in 1974, has his residence in Tirana and was represented by Mr A. Saccucci and Ms   G.   Borgna, lawyers practising in Rome; the decision to give notice of the application to the Albanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr O. Moçka, State Advocate General; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The application concerns the proceedings upon the applicant’s request for early release from prison. 2.     In 1997 and 2002 the Italian courts found the applicant guilty of forgery of documents, murder in aggravating circumstances, possession of firearms, production and sale of narcotic drugs and commission of crimes by an armed group, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 3.     On 10 March 2014 the Tirana District Court recognised the Italian courts’ judgments. On 24 November 2014 the applicant was transferred to Albania to serve the life sentence. 4.     On 14 February 2019 the Korça District Court accepted the applicant’s request for early release, and the applicant was released. However, upon the prosecutor’s appeal, on 26 June 2019 the Korça Court of Appeal overturned the decision, dismissing the applicant’s request. 5.     On 6 August 2019 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 14 June 2022. 6.     On 14 November 22 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint which was declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court on 16   January 2023 as being lodged outside the four-month time-limit, counted from the date of the Supreme Court’s judgment. 7.     The applicant is a fugitive since, following his release from prison in 2019, his whereabouts have remained unknown. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT Article 6 §   1 of the Convention 8.     The applicant complained of a breach of his right of access to a court on account of the Constitutional Court’s calculation of the time‑limit for lodging a constitutional complaint. 9.     The Court reiterates that the examination of requests for early release from detention or of issues relating to the manner of execution of a custodial sentence does not fall within the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Such examination concerns neither the determination of a “criminal charge” nor the determination of “civil rights and obligations” within the meaning of this provision (see, among others, Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, §   97, ECHR 2009; Boulois v. Luxembourg [GC], no. 37575/04, § 87, ECHR 2012; and Dybeku v.   Albania , no. 41153/06, § 55, 18 December 2007, all with further references). 10.     Accordingly, this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35   §   3 (a), and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §   4. Other complaints 11.     These complaints were not communicated to the respondent Government, but they are inadmissible for the reasons outlined below. 12.     The applicant, relying on Articles 3 and 7 of the Convention, complained that the provisions of the Albanian Criminal Code regulating early release lacked clarity and foreseeability, that life prisoners became eligible for early release only after they had served thirty-five years, that the law provided for the possibility of early release after rehabilitation had been achieved but without regulating individual programs of rehabilitation, and that the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning early release had been applied retroactively in the applicant’s case. 13.     The Court notes that the applicant was released in 2019 after the first ‑ instance court accepted his application for early release. Ever since, his whereabouts have remained unknown, even though in the application form he listed an address in Tirana as his residence. Thus, after the appeal court reversed the first-instance judgment, the applicant failed to return to serving the remainder of his sentence. 14.     The Court considers that guarantees under Articles 3 and 7 of the Convention as to the possibility of release of life prisoners, apply only to persons who are actually detained and serving their sentence. The aim of these guarantees is to give a possibility for prisoners serving a life sentence to apply for release (compare with the principles outlined in Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no.   10511/10, §§   99 ‑ 104, 26 April 2016). These guarantees become void of meaning in respect of persons who are at large. The Court observes that, in the instant case, despite the existence of valid court judgments sentencing the applicant to life imprisonment, and then reversing his early release, he is not physically detained and is a fugitive from justice. 15.     It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3   (a) and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 9 April 2026.     Olga Chernishova   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh   Deputy Registrar   President