CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 janvier 2019

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sBDE9CEF6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; line-height:12pt }   Communicated on 25 January 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 58997/18 Besa NIKEHASANI against Albania lodged on 17 December 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s dismissal from her duties on the basis of a failure to submit an accurate declaration of assets in the framework of the vetting process. The applicant challenged the dismissal decision before the Appeal Chamber, the established body under the Vetting   Act no. 84/2016 to review appeals. Her appeal was dismissed and the decision cannot be appealed. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? 2.     Did the Appeal Chamber (“AC”) satisfy the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law to be seen as a “tribunal” within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention (see   Olujić v. Croatia , no.   22330/05 , 5 February 2009 and Ivanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   29908/11 , 21 January 2016)? 3.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular was the AC which dealt with the applicant’s case, independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Were the provisions of Law no. 84/2016, including with respect to the grounds for dismissal and burden of proof, clear and accessible as regards all stages of the proceedings before the transitional re ‑ evaluation bodies, ensuring the applicant’s rights were protected under Article 6? 4.     Has there been an interference with the the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, under Article 8 of the Convention on account of her dismissal from office as a prosecutor? (see Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no.   35289/11 , ECHR 2017 (extracts), No.   59320/00 , § 50, ECHR   2004-VI; Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.   32555/96 , ECHR   2005 ‑ X)? In the affirmative, was the interference in the exercise of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society, within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 (see   Sõro v. Estonia , no. 22588/08, § 60, 3 September 2015? 5.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for his above-mentioned complaint under Article 8, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?