CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 juillet 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 } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center }   Published on 22 July 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 19646/20 Ervin METALLA against Albania lodged on 7 May 2020 communicated on 3 July 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the 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). The applicant had been a judge since 2001, most recently, at the Tirana Court of Appeal. The IQC dismissed him from office under the first component of the transitional vetting process (assessment of assets, section   61 (3) of the Vetting Act). By a majority decision on 30 October 2019, the SAC amended the IQC’s findings and upheld the dismissal from office, also referring to section 61 (5) of the Vetting Act (conduct undermining the public trust in the justice system).     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s dismissal from office? Specifically: (a)     Was it foreseeable to the applicant that his brother (E.M.) was to be treated as “other related person” with “a relationship of interest” ( lidhje   interesi ) under the Vetting Act (see Sevdari v. Albania , no.   40662/19, §   75, 13   December 2022)? (b) Was the dismissal proportionate and necessary in a democratic society to achieve the legitimate aims of the vetting process, as required by Article   8 § 2 of the Convention (see, for applicable principles, Xhoxhaj v. Albania , no.   15227/19, §§ 359-413, 9   February 2021), in particular on account of: -     the SAC’s findings related to E.M. and the applicant’s failure to substantiate that E.M. had had enough funds to acquire in 2008 a flat offered as collateral for the applicant’s soft loan in 2011? - the SAC’s finding that the applicant had made allegedly fictitious or simulated transactions aimed at obtaining a State-supported soft loan? Was the applicant afforded an adequate opportunity to contest the claim/ conclusion that his conduct had “undermined the public trust in the justice system”? Was it convincingly established that his actions in 2011-12 had violated specific legal or ethical requirements in force at the relevant time, including Rule 15 of the Code of Judicial Ethics (2006) (see Xhoxhaj , cited above, §§ 387 and 410)?