CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 novembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 5 November 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 29614/14 Fatmira LULI against Albania lodged on 9 April 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the suppression of the position of the Deputy Director of the Magistrates’ School ( Shkolla e Magjistraturës ) following an amendment to the “Law on Magistrates’ School”. The applicant, who held the position of Deputy Director of the School, was informed by the Director on 16 September 2005 that her job position no longer existed as a result of the changes in the law. The applicant lodged a request with the High Council of Justice (HCJ) asking it to render a decision to the effect that she had been discharged ( liruar ) from her post due to its suppression by the law. She further asked the HCJ to appoint her to an equivalent post given that according to the law she enjoyed the status of a judge. On 3 March 2006 the HCJ decided to state that the applicant’s position had been suppressed following the legal changes. The applicant’s other requests remained unanswered. The applicant instituted legal proceedings before the domestic courts requesting the nullity of the acts of 16 September 2005 and 3 March 2006 and demanding compensation. All the domestic courts dismissed her complaints stating that the applicant should not have started a civil action before the domestic courts against the authorities because the effects did not result from their acts but rather from the changes of the law. The applicant complains before the Court about unfairness of the proceedings amounting to a breach of her right of access to court in that the domestic courts arbitrarily ruled that the applicant should not have brought a civil action against the authorities on account of setting right the effects brought by the authorities’ acts ( rregullimin e pasojave te sjella nga aktet e paleve te paditura) . QUESTION tO THE PARTIES 1.     Does Article 6 of the Convention apply to the proceedings in question (see Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, §§ 100-106, 23 June 2016 and Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 44-57, 25 September 2018)? 2.     Did the applicant have a fair trial in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of her civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, § 120, 23   June 2016?