CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 novembre 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB96219A0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:8.5pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 24 November 2025   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 26717/24 and 11956/25 Alban RULI against Albania lodged on 6 September 2024 and 25 March 2025 respectively communicated on 7 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the applicant’s remand in custody and house arrest on suspicion of having committed the criminal offences of abuse of public office and obstruction of execution of court judgments, and the allegedly insufficient reasons given by the domestic courts. The applicant’s placement in custody and criminal proceedings On 11 January 2023 the Tirana District Court remanded the applicant in custody. On 2 February 2023 the Court of Appeal replaced the applicant’s remand in custody with house arrest as a more suitable measure and in conformity with security needs. On 15 December 2023 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to one year and two months’ imprisonment. On 29 February 2024 the Court of Appeal lifted the applicant’s house arrest since its total duration had exceeded the imposed sentence. On 28 March 2024 the Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant of all charges. Proceedings for lifting the house arrest (application no.   26717/24) On 29 June 2023 the Tirana District Court dismissed the request for the termination of the house arrest. On 18 July 2023 the Court of Appeal upheld that decision and on 31 October 2023 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal. On 10 May 2024 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint. Proceedings for the replacement of house arrest (application no.   11956/25) On 2 October 2023 the Tirana District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for the replacement of house arrest with a more lenient measure, despite the prosecution having supported such a change since the investigation had been finalised and the case sent for trial. On 1   November   2023 the Court of Appeal upheld that decision and on 21   May   2024 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal. On 10 December 2024 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint. The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention about his remand in custody and house arrest. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant’s remand in custody and subsequent house arrest comply with the requirements of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     Did the domestic courts’ decisions give relevant and sufficient grounds justifying the applicant’s remand in custody and house arrest (see, amongst other authorities,   Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova   [GC], no.   23755/07, §§ 87-88, 5 July 2016,   Merabishvili v. Georgia   [GC], no.   72508/13, § 222, 28 November 2017, and Hysa v.   Albania , no.   52048/16, §§ 61-85, 21 February 2023)?   (b)     Did the domestic courts’ decisions contain references to the specific facts and the applicant’s personal circumstances justifying the security measures in consideration ( see   Aleksan yan v. Russia , no.   46468/06, § 179, 22   December 2008)? In particular, did they duly assess the risk of the applicant’s flight, tampering with evidence or that the applicant would reoffend (see   Merabishvili , cited above, §§   222 ‑ 23)? Did the domestic courts consider alternative, less stringent, measures of restraint to address these risks (see Jablonski v.   Poland , no.   33492/96, §   83, 21   December 2000)?