CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 décembre 2023

.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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 8 January 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 57935/18 Artan BROCI against Albania and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 15 December 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applicants, Supreme Court judges, were dismissed from office on account of the findings on the assessment of assets and conflict of interest (application no. 57935/18), or on the assessment of assets and the background assessment (applications nos.   34288/19 and 41560/19), within the 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). COMMON QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was there a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of each applicant’s dismissal from office (see, for applicable principles, Xhoxhaj v.   Albania , no.   15227/19, §§ 359-413, 9 February 2021)? Was each applicant’s dismissal from office necessary in a democratic society under Article 8 of the Convention? Was it based on relevant and sufficient reasons and proportionate on account of any allegedly serious failings concerning the declaration or justification obligation relating to any significant assets? Reference is also made to the matters mentioned below. CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Application no. 57935/18 (Broci):   1.     Was the applicant’s right to a hearing by an impartial tribunal under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention violated because of Judge S.Ç.’s presence on the SAC panel in the vetting case (see, for the applicable approach, Rustavi   2   Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia , no.   16812/17, § 359, 18   July 2019)?   2.     Was the applicant’s dismissal from office proportionate on account of a “conflict of interest” based on a legal or ethical requirement applicable at the time and which undermined the public’s trust in the justice system (see Xhoxhaj , cited above, § 387)?   Did any major shortcoming in the decision-making process on the decisive aspects of the vetting case entail a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see, for the applicable approach, Thanz v.   Albania , no. 41047/19, § 158, 4 July 2023), for instance, as to notifying the applicant of – and an adequate opportunity to put forward a defence on – the allegations about the conflict of interest in V.Ç. case, the purchase/sale of the beach house in Durres or the purchase of the office space in 2003?   Application no. 34288/19 (Ndreca):   Was the applicant’s dismissal from office proportionate as required by Article   8 of the Convention, on account of: (i)     failure to declare “inappropriate” contact with his brother-in-law? Was it convincingly established that in 2011-16 and when submitting his background declaration in 2017, the applicant had known or ought to have known the essential factual and legal elements of that person’s prosecution? (ii)     the assets acquired in 1999 and 2009, or on account of his sons’ wealth and their declarations on it within the vetting process?     Application no. 41560/19 (Zeneli):   Was the applicant’s dismissal from office proportionate on account of his failure to declare the revocation of a tourist visa? Did any major shortcoming in the decision-making process on the decisive aspects of the vetting case entail a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see, for the applicable approach, Thanza , § 158)? In particular, given the SAC’s alleged reliance on non-disclosed internal documents pertaining to the financial assessment, was the applicant afforded an adequate opportunity to oppose the findings on the insufficient lawful income, in particular, as to the flat acquired in 2002 (compare Thanza , § 100)? In this latter respect, did the SAC adduce relevant and sufficient reasons?   APPENDIX List of cases: No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 57935/18 Broci v.   Albania 10/12/2018 Artan BROCI 1973 Tirana Albanian Andrea SACCUCCI and Giulia BORGNA 2. 34288/19 Ndreca v.   Albania 19/06/2019 Tom NDRECA 1956 Tirana Albanian 3. 41560/19 Zeneli v.   Albania 30/07/2019 Artan ZENELI 1968 Tirana Albanian