CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 février 2024

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Published on 26 February 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 23101/20 Artur MALAJ against Albania lodged on 11 June 2020 communicated on 5 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s transitional vetting process by the Independent Qualification Commission (IQC) and the Special Appeal Chamber (SAC) (see   Xhoxhaj v. Albania , no. 15227/19, 9 February 2021; Besnik Cani v. Albania , no. 37474/20, 4   October 2022; Sevdari v. Albania , no. 40662/19, 13 December 2022; Nikëhasani v. Albania , no. 58997/18, 13   December 2022; and   Thanza v. Albania , no. 41047/19, 4 July 2023). At the relevant time the applicant was serving as judge in the Tirana Administrative Court of Appeal. By decision of 3 August 2018 the IQC confirmed him in office. On 24 October 2019 the SAC reversed that decision and dismissed him from office. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have an adequate possibility in the SAC proceedings to   rebut   the Public Commissioner’s grounds of appeal in compliance with the principle of adversarial   proceedings (compare with Sevdari v. Albania , no. 40662/19, §§ 120-23, 13 December 2022, and Thanza v. Albania , no. 41047/19, §§ 97-108, 4 July 2023, with further references)? 2.     Has there been a violation of   Article 8   of the Convention (see, for applicable principles, Xhoxhaj v. Albania , no. 15227/19, §§ 359-413, 9   February 2021)? In particular, was the applicant’s dismissal “necessary in a democratic society” and proportionate   as required by Article   8 § 2 of the Convention, on account of the SAC’s finding that he had had insufficient lawful income to justify at least 5,804,318.00 [1] Albanian Lek in assets and expenses over different years (compare with Xhoxhaj , §§   402-14, and Sevdari , §§ 83-97, both cited above)? [1] Approximately equivalent to 55,760 Euro on 31 January 2024.