CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } Published on 29 September 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 25544/21 Edison ADEMI against Albania lodged on 15 May 2021 communicated on 8 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 1974, served as a prosecutor, most recently as the head of the prosecutor’s office at the Saranda District Court. By IQC’s decision of 9 April 2019, upheld on appeal by the SAC’s decision of 9   November 2020, the applicant was dismissed from office. According to the SAC’s decision, his dismissal was based on the assessment of assets pursuant to section 61 (3) of the Vetting Act. In particular, the vetting bodies’ financial analysis for the period 2004-2015 resulted in a negative balance of at least ALL   2,473,568. Monetary donations from the applicant’s brother residing in the UK, for the total amount of GBP 31,000 and ALL 550,000, were excluded from the financial analysis. The SAC held, inter alia , that as a result of the applicant’s failure to prove the payment of taxes on his brother’s income in the UK such income should not be regarded as lawful, and that, therefore, the claimed donations should not be taken into consideration. The applicant invokes Article 8 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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 basis, inter alia , of the SAC’s finding that donations from the applicant’s brother residing abroad during the period 2004-2015 did not constitute “lawful income”, due to his inability to prove that that relative had paid taxes on said income in the country of fiscal residence? In particular, had it been foreseeable to the applicant at the time he had accepted the brother’s donations that he would subsequently be required to prove that his brother had paid foreign taxes on such income? Was it proportionate to dismiss the applicant on such grounds?   2.     What donations (in what amount and year) from the applicant’s brother residing abroad were rejected by the SAC: (a)     on the ground that the applicant had failed to prove the payment of foreign taxes on such income? (b)     on any other grounds (such as the alleged failure to prove the existence of the brother’s foreign income for any given period)?