CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 janvier 2025

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 10 February 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 38771/23 Eugen PAPANDILE against Albania lodged on 19 October 2023 communicated on 20 January 2025 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, among others, Xhoxhaj v.   Albania , no.   15227/19, 9 February 2021). As a legal adviser at the Constitutional Court of Albania, the applicant was subject to that process. Since January 2018 he has been serving as Secretary General of that Court, as the head of its administration. The IQC discontinued the vetting proceedings and banned him under Article   G of the Annex to the Constitution from being appointed, for fifteen years, to certain positions within the justice system on the grounds that he had resigned from a prior position (legal adviser) that required him to undergo the vetting. By a decision of 19 April 2023 (notified to him on 19 June 2023) the SAC dismissed, by a majority vote, his request for the continuation of the proceedings and upheld the IQC’s decision. The applicant complains that his vetting was wrongly discontinued and that, as a result, he is banned from being appointed as a judge or prosecutor, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the discontinuation of the vetting proceedings and the 15-year ban interfered with the applicant’s right to respect for private life under Article   8 of the Convention (see, for general principles, Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no.   76639/11, §§ 92-117, 25 September 2018; Xhoxhaj v.   Albania , no.   15227/19, §§ 359-61, 9 February 2021; and Bala v. Albania (dec.), no.   21141/20, §§   56-58, 9   April 2024)?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see, for general principles, Xhoxhaj , cited above, § 402, and Namazov v. Azerbaijan , no. 74354/13, § 45, 30 January 2020)? Were the alleged interferences in accordance with the law and proportionate to a legitimate aim relating to restoring public trust in the justice system? In particular, did the Special Appeal Chamber consider the proportionality of, and provide relevant and sufficient reasons for, refusing to complete the vetting process as allegedly requested by the applicant in his appeal, which resulted in the application of the 15-year ban under Article   G of the Annex to the Constitution?   3.     The parties are asked, in addition, to clarify the following points:   (a)     What relevant positions within the justice system was/is the applicant interested in applying for?   (b)     Does the 15-year ban under Article G of the Annex to the Constitution apply to the position of Constitutional Court judge (see Bala , cited above, §   63)?   The parties are requested to submit (i) any relevant case-law or practices on the application of Article G of the Annex to the Constitution, in particular as regards the constitutional judgeship, and (ii) the decisions taken by the Justice Appointments Council and the courts on the applicant’s candidature in 2019-20.