CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 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 27 October 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 51545/21 Eugen BEÇI against Albania lodged on 12 October 2021 communicated on 8 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s dismissal from office following the outcome of the vetting proceedings carried out 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). The applicant was a prosecutor at the Tirana Serious Crime Prosecutor’s Office. On 26 January 2017 the Embassy of the United States in Tirana cancelled his visitor visa which had been delivered in 2016. On 27 January 2017 the applicant filed the vetting declarations. In the background declaration the applicant answered “no” to the question whether he had been denied entry in the past ten years to any EU/NATO countries. On 26 June 2019 the IQC dismissed the applicant from office pursuant to Article 61 (3) of the Vetting Act. In particular, the IQC found that (i) the applicant had not reached a reliable level of asset evaluation and (ii) had not reached a reliable level in background assessment since he failed to declare the revocation of his U.S. visa. He therefore failed to complete the declaration accurately and truthfully and had concealed facts that had occurred prior to the date of the declaration. On 9 February 2021 the SAC upheld the IQC’s dismissal of the applicant but modified its reasoning. The SAC found that the IQC’s conclusions regarding the assets assessment had been unfounded. Regarding the background assessment, the SAC found that the applicant had completed the background declaration incorrectly since he had failed to declare the revocation of the U.S. visa, which resulted in unreliability of the applicant, as well as his unsuitability for office. That judgment was served on the applicant on 12 April 2021. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention about a breach of his right to respect for private life on account of his allegedly unlawful and disproportionate dismissal from office. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was there a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s dismissal from office (see, for applicable principles, Xhoxhaj v.   Albania , no. 15227/19, §§ 359-413, 9 February 2021)? In particular: (a)     Was the interference “in accordance with the law”? Was it foreseeable to the applicant that failure to declare a foreign visa cancellation “without prejudice” would be treated as (i) denial of entry to that country (“ refuzuar hyrja ”) or (ii) an “attempt to conceal [his] contacts with persons involved in organised crime” under Article DH (4) of the Constitutional annex and/or the relevant provisions of the Vetting Act? (b)     Did the requirement to declare any denials of entry to foreign countries, within the vetting proceedings, pursue a legitimate aim and was it “necessary in a democratic society”, as required by Article   8   §   2? (c)     Was it proportionate to such legitimate aim to dismiss the applicant from office based solely on his failure to disclose in a timely fashion the U.S. visa cancellation? In this regard, did the vetting authorities take into account his disclosure of that fact on 20 November 2018?