CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 janvier 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Communicated on 4 January 2021 Published on 25 January 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 616/16 Dorian MATLIJA against Albania lodged on 14 December 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged refusal by the Government to comply with a Tirana Administrative Court judgment of 6   October 2014 ordering disclosure of documents concerning fulfilment of the statutory eligibility criteria for the appointment of the Chairman and members of the Public Procurement Commission. The applicant complains that the non-enforcement of the above judgment amounted to a violation of his rights under Article 6 § 1, 10 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 13 on account of the authorities’ failure to enforce the Tirana Administrative Court judgment of 6 October 2014 ( Roşi ianu v.   Romania , no. 27329/06, §§ 40-47, 24 June 2014)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive and impart information, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     had disclosure of the information requested by the applicant been imposed by a judicial order which had gained legal force?   (b)     alternatively, was access to the requested information instrumental for the applicant’s exercise of his right to freedom of expression?   If so, was that interference justified under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (see Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 180, 8 November 2016)?