CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mars 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 24 March 2025   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 27525/23 and 6470/24 SHOQATA UNIONI SECURITY ALBANIA against Albania and Shyqiri BALLA against Albania lodged on 11 July 2023 and 23 February 2024 respectively communicated on 5 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicants’ right of access to the Constitutional Court. The applicants complain that their constitutional complaints were declared inadmissible as being lodged outside the four-month time-limit, contrary to the guarantees under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the Constitutional Court’s decisions, rejecting the applicants’ constitutional complaints as being lodged out of time, violate the applicants’ right of access to a court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Supergrav Albania Shpk v. Albania , no. 20702/18, §§ 16-31, 9   May 2023)? In particular, did the applicants avail themselves of the possibility for obtaining service of the respective Supreme Court judgments via e-mail?