CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 avril 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 } Published on 29 April 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 16399/20 Alma LICAJ against Albania lodged on 8 April 2020 communicated on 9 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, a judge since 2000 and then President of the Vlora Court of Appeal, was dismissed from office – on account of the findings on the assessment of her husband’s assets before and after their marriage in 2003 – within the transitional vetting process by the Independent Qualification Commission and the Special Appeal Chamber (see Xhoxhaj v.   Albania , no.   15227/19, 9 February 2021; 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). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was there a violation of Article   8 of the Convention (see, for applicable principles, Xhoxhaj v. Albania , no. 15227/19, §§ 359-413, 9 February 2021)? Did the vetting bodies adduce relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant’s dismissal from office (compare Sevdari v. Albania , no.   40662/19, § 96, 13 December 2022)? In particular: - As to the actions or omissions attributable to her (future) husband in relation to the flat and land acquired in the 1990s and the flat acquired in 2000, on what grounds was the applicant held liable for any shortcomings related to those transactions that supposedly preceded her marriage? Was it justified to consider that she made “insufficient disclosure” and/or undermined the public trust in the justice system in these respects? - Was her dismissal from office proportionate on account of the findings relating to the flats acquired in 2009 and 2016, and the service units acquired in 2016?