CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 novembre 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 25 November 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 32283/23 Shiqiri MANJANI against Albania lodged on 21 August 2023 communicated on 8 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a decision not to admit the applicant to the School of Magistrates as prosecutor on the grounds of his conviction for theft which he had committed as a minor and for which he had been rehabilitated. A final decision was taken by the Constitutional Court on 23 March 2023. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 8 applicable in the present case, given that it concerns a life-long ban on the applicant’s access to certain civil service positions (see Naidin v. Romania , no. 38162/07, §§ 30-35, 21 October 2014), and in view of the criteria established in the Court’s case-law in relation to the activities of a professional nature (see Denisov v. Ukraine ([GC], no.   76639/11, §§ 115-117, 25 September 2018)?   2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   3. If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, was the permanent ban on the applicant’s access to a magistrate career on the grounds of his prior criminal conviction as a minor, for which he had been rehabilitated, compatible with the needs of rehabilitation of minors or generally (see   mutatis mutandis Minicozzi v. Italy , no. 7774/02, § 19, 24 May 2006; and N.F. and Others v. Russia , nos. 3537/15 and 8 others, §§ 47 and 54, 12   September 2023)?