CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 novembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 22 November 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 4586/18 Adrian FULLANI against Albania lodged on 12 January 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Following the institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant on the charge of abuse of power, on 18 September 2014 the Albanian Parliament removed him from office as Governor of the Bank of Albania and member of its Supervisory Board ( Këshilli Mbikqyrës ). On 23 December 2015 the applicant was finally acquitted of the criminal charge levied against him. Upon acquittal, following the applicant’s action for damages, on 12 July 2017 the Supreme Court declared his removal from office unlawful and decided that the Bank of Albania should pay the applicant the salaries he would have received from 18 September 2014 until the end of his terms of office in November 2018. The applicant complains that there has been a breach of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts’ failure to reinstate him into office and to award him non-pecuniary damage for the harm caused to his reputation and honour. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the domestic courts’ findings, can the applicant claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34 (see, for example, Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no.   26828/06, §§ 259-62, ECHR 2012 (extracts), and Konstantin Markin v.   Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, § 82, ECHR 2012 (extracts))? 2.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of his Article 8 complaint? In particular, was the applicant required to lodge a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court in accordance with section 131(f) of the Constitution and sections 71, 71/a, 76 and other relevant provisions of the Constitutional Court Act, as amended by Law no.   99/2016? 3.     Without prejudice to Questions nos. 1 and 2, has there been a breach of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Taliadorou and   Stylianou v. Cyprus , nos. 39627/05 and 39631/05, § §§ 45 and 49-58, 16   October 2008 and other cases cited therein)?