CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 avril 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 } Published on 27 April 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 998/21 Artan BAJRAMI against Albania lodged on 30 December 2020 communicated on 9 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s vetting by the Independent Qualification Commission (IQC) and the Special Appeal Chamber (SAC) (see Xhoxhaj v. Albania , no. 15227/19, 9 February 2021, and Sevdari v.   Albania , no. 40662/19, 13 December 2022). Having started his judicial career in 1991, at the time of his vetting the applicant was a prosecutor at the prosecution office attached to the Court of Appeal for Serious Crimes. On 14 February 2019 he was dismissed from office by the IQC. On 3 July 2020 the SAC, although it admitted some of the applicant’s grounds of appeal, ultimately upheld his dismissal by three votes against two. The majority found, in particular, that in his 2017 vetting declaration of assets, the applicant had inaccurately described how he had financed the purchase of a flat in the year 2000. Namely, he had not declared that a family member had donated to him 1,300,000 Albanian Lek (ALL) to help with the purchase. Also, he had made inconsistent declarations as to the use of 4,000   USD obtained in 1996 from the sale of his previous flat. The SAC concluded that these inaccurate declarations made it impossible to assess the lawfulness of those assets. The two dissenting judges considered that those failures did not warrant the dismissal of the applicant. The applicant invokes Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 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)? Was the applicant’s dismissal “necessary in a democratic society” and proportionate as required by Article 8 § 2 of the Convention, in particular on account of his declarations related to the received donation of 1,300,000 ALL and the use of 4,000 USD? Were the reasons adduced by SAC relevant and sufficient (see Xhoxhaj , cited above, § 402, and   Thanza v. Albania , no. 41047/19, §§ 151 ‑ 58, 4 July 2023)? In particular, did the applicant’s alleged inaccuracies make it impossible for SAC to assess the lawfulness of his assets?