CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 4 August 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 35801/23 Albert KULIÇI against Albania lodged on 22 September 2023 communicated on 15 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 2020 the applicant was a prosecutor in the city of Vlora. Following a vacancy announcement by the High Prosecutorial Council (“the Council”) for the position of head of the Vlora District prosecutor’s office, the applicant applied and was ranked second. The applicant brought proceedings against the Council’s decision before the Administrative Court of Appeal, arguing inter alia that the winning candidate had not met the statutory eligibility criteria for the position of head prosecutor. On 28 April 2022 that court dismissed the claim. The complaint challenging the evaluation of the winning candidate was dismissed for lack of standing, on the grounds that the applicant lacked any legal interest in pursuing such proceedings, considering that the decision neither concerned the applicant nor violated his rights. The other complaints, concerning the applicant’s own evaluation and the decision to appoint the other candidate as the head prosecutor, were dismissed on the grounds that the merits of the assessment (based on a point system) fell within the Council’s discretionary power. On 6 October 2022 the Supreme Court upheld the Administrative Court of Appeal’s judgment. On 17 May 2023 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaints concerning an impartial tribunal and lack of adequate reasoning by the Supreme Court as manifestly ill founded, and the remainder of the complaints as not raising any constitutional questions. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of lack of access to a court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil limb applicable to the proceedings in the present case (see, for example, Vilho Eskelinen and others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 62, ECHR 2007-II,   Grzęda v.   Poland   ([GC],   43572/18, §§ 257-64, 15 March 2022, Alonso Saura v.   Spain , no.   18326/19, §§ 24-26, 8 June 2023, and Stylianidis v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 24269/18, §§   37-45, 16 January 2024)? In particular: (a)     Did national law expressly exclude the applicant’s standing to challenge the results or any other fundamental aspects of the relevant HPC procedure, as allegedly raised in his appeals? (b)     If yes, could such exclusion be justified on objective grounds in the State’s interest? 2.     In the affirmative, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court (see mutatis mutandis , Gloveli v. Georgia , no. 18952/18, §§   58-60, 7 April 2022; Oktay Alkan v. Türkiye , no.   24492/21, §§ 64-69, 20   June 2023; and Stoianoglo v. Moldova , no.   19371/22, §§ 52-56, 24   October 2023, with further references) ? In particular, did the restriction impair the very essence of the applicant’s right of access to a court?