CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 février 2026

.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 } .s9252AC04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } Published on 9 March 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 20350/22 Gurali BRAHIMLLARI against Albania lodged on 7 April 2022 communicated on 20 February 2026 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 had been a judge since 2000, more recently at the Court of Appeal for Serious Crimes. On 21 July 2019 the IQC dismissed the applicant from office under the first component of the vetting process (assessment of assets, section   61 § 3 of the Vetting Act). On 12 October 2021, the SAC allowed a number of points raised by the applicant in his grounds of appeal, but ultimately upheld his dismissal from office on the same basis. That decision was served on the applicant on 17   December 2021. The SAC held, inter alia, that due to the applicant’s failure to prove the payment of dividend taxes on his brothers’ shareholder income, three loans that he had obtained from them in 2008 and 2009 could not be regarded as lawful income for the purposes of the vetting process. As a result, the applicant was deemed unable to fully justify his assets. The applicant invokes Article 8 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s dismissal from office (see, for applicable principles, Xhoxhaj v.   Albania , no.   15227/19, §§ 359-413, 9 February 2021; and Sevdari v.   Albania , no.   40662/19, §§ 83-97, 13 December 2022)? 2. In particular, taking into account the SAC’s findings that the loans provided by the applicant’s brothers in 2008 and 2009 did not constitute “lawful income” due to his inability to prove that his brothers had paid taxes on said income: (a) had it been foreseeable to the applicant at the time he had accepted those loans that he would be required to prove that his lenders had possessed sufficient lawful means to make the loans and/or whether they had paid any relevant taxes? (b) was it fair and proportionate to sanction the applicant in the vetting process due to his failure to prove that his brothers had met those requirements in 2008 and 2009, respectively? (c) what part of the total shortfall identified by the SAC (see paragraph 32 of its judgment) with regard to payments made for the applicant’s property in Tirana was unrelated to the loans provided by his brothers (which were not accepted as lawful income)?