CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 février 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 } Published on 17 March 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 11645/20 Alma BRATI against Albania lodged on 20 February 2020 communicated on 27 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s dismissal from office following the outcome of the vetting proceedings carried out 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 was a judge at the Tirana District Court. On 5 July 2018 the IQC confirmed the applicant in her position. The Public Commissioner appealed against that decision to the SAC and asked to dismiss the applicant from office on account of insufficient declaration/ justification of assets. On 9 July 2019 the SAC reversed the IQC’s decision and dismissed the applicant from office based on Article 61 § 3 (failure to justify assets) of the law 84/2014. That decision was served on the applicant on 8 October 2019. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unfairness of the vetting proceedings. In particular, she complained that the SAC shifted on her an unreasonable burden of proof in relation to: (a) assets acquired and expenses incurred by her mother during her lifetime in order to prove that her mother had had the actual possibility to save the amount of 1,800,000 ALL which she had donated to the applicant in 2016 and (b) the amounts of child support alimony paid by her former husband. In addition, the applicant complained about a breach of her right to respect for private life under Article   8 of the Convention on account of her allegedly unlawful and arbitrary dismissal from office. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, including as to the burden of proof, as to the findings and conclusions on her mother’s and her former husband’s financial contributions (see, for the applicable approach, Xhoxhaj v. Albania , no. 15227/19, §§   324-37, 9   February 2021; Sevdari v. Albania , no.   40662/19, § 130, 13 December 2022; and Thanza v. Albania , no.   41047/19, §§ 97, 104-05 and 114, 4 July 2023)? 2.     Was there a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s dismissal from office? In particular, did the SAC adduce relevant and sufficient reasons for the above-mentioned findings and conclusions relating to the funds originating from the applicant’s mother and former husband (see Sevdari , cited above, §§   86-93)? Was the dismissal from office proportionate on account of the SAC’s other/remaining findings and conclusions?