CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 29 September 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 7192/21 Adnand KOSOVA against Albania lodged on 28 January 2021 communicated on 10 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s 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, an Albanian national born in 1964, served as a prosecutor, most recently at the Prosecutor General’s Office. By IQC’s decision of 20   December 2018, the applicant was confirmed in office. Following the International Observer’s dissenting opinion, the Public Commissioner lodged an appeal. By decision of 13 March 2020 the SAC, by three votes to two, granted the appeal and dismissed the applicant from office due to unsatisfactory assets assessment (section 61 (3) of the Vetting Act), notably his failure to prove the fact of a down payment he had allegedly received in 1998 for the sale of his flat in Korça. The dissenting judges argued that under domestic law there was no mandatory written form for a deposit which could serve to confirm the conclusion and execution of a future contract; based on the overall circumstances of the case, they considered it plausible that the applicant had indeed received the deposit from the buyer, which the applicant had later used to purchase a flat in Tirana. The applicant invokes Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see, for applicable principles, Xhoxhaj v. Albania , no. 15227/19, §§ 359-413, 9   February 2021; and Sevdari v. Albania , no. 40662/19, § 85, 13 December 2022) on account of the applicant’s dismissal on the ground of his failure to prove, with documentary evidence, the lawful origin of 1,500,000   lek, allegedly received in 1998 as a deposit from a buyer for the sale of a flat in Korça and subsequently used by the applicant for purchasing a flat in Tirana?