CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 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 6 October 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 4920/24 Erleta KASTRATI against Albania lodged on 3 February 2024 communicated on 18 September 2025 STATEMENT OF FACTS The case concerns the applicant’s dismissal from her employment in a private communications company and her claim for compensation in that connection. On 27 October 2014 the Tirana District Court allowed the applicant’s claim concerning compensation for the unilateral unlawful termination of her employment contract. On 2 July 2015 the Court of Appeal overturned that judgment and dismissed the claim. The applicant was not present in the hearing. On 29 September 2023 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, on the grounds that it did not contain any admissible arguments, in accordance with Article 472 of the Code of Civil Procedure (no   valid grounds for appeal). On 29 September 2023 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint as manifestly ill-founded. It held that, even though there were some irregularities in the applicant’s notification by the Court of Appeal, they had not had any essential influence on the outcome of the proceedings. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains about (i) the lack of fairness of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal, because she was not given the opportunity to attend the hearing, and (ii) the alleged insufficient reasoning of the Supreme Court’s decision. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   In particular, were the relevant rules for the notification of proceedings before the Court of Appeal complied with in the instant case? Was the applicant provided with an opportunity to attend the hearing before that court (see Dilipak and Karakaya v. Turkey , nos. 7942/05 and 24838/05, §§   76-87, 4 March 2014; Aždajić v. Slovenia , no. 71872/12, §§ 53-72, 8   October 2015; and Gankin and Others v. Russia , nos. 2430/06 and 3   others, §§ 25-28, 41-42, 31 May 2016)? Did the applicant have an adequate opportunity to raise her arguments on points of law during the Supreme Court proceedings?