CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 mai 2025

.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 } Published on 2 June 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 17711/23 Ines DANI against Albania lodged on 19 April 2023 communicated on 14 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a decision by the High Prosecutorial Council not to admit the applicant to the School of Magistrates as a prosecutor candidate on the grounds of her brother’s conviction for criminal offences related to organised crime. A final decision was taken by the Constitutional Court on 20 December 2022. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 8 applicable in the present case, given that it concerns a ban on the applicant’s access to certain civil service positions (see Naidin v.   Romania , no. 38162/07, §§ 30-35, 21 October 2014), and in view of the criteria established in the Court’s case-law in relation to activities of a professional nature (see Denisov v. Ukraine ([GC], no. 76639/11, §§   115 ‑ 117, 25 September 2018)? If so, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   2. Has the applicant exhausted any applicable domestic remedies, including as to her claims related to legal certainty and the foreseeability of section 32 of Law no. 96/2016?   3. Was the interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2, given the special status of public prosecutors? Did the authorities provide relevant and sufficient reasons as to the proportionality of the ban in the circumstances of the applicant’s case?   The respondent Government are invited to provide information as to the legislative history of section 32 of Law no. 96/2016 and any comparative data or standards that might have been considered in this respect.