CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 27 October 2025   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 1364/24 and 11701/24 Sali SALIU against Albania and Ilir ROBAJ against Albania lodged on 9 January 2024 and 17 April 2024 respectively communicated on 7 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicants’ right of access to the Constitutional Court. The applicants complain that their constitutional complaints were declared inadmissible as being lodged outside the four-month time-limit, contrary to the guarantees under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Supergrav Albania Shpk v. Albania , no. 20702/18, §§ 16-31, 9 May 2023). The applicant in application no. 1364/24 also complains that the decision taken in the proceedings in question concerning the plot of land infringed his property rights. The applicant in application no. 11701/21 also complains under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention that he was not informed of the prosecution’s cassation appeal, and therefore could not have participated in the proceedings before the Supreme Court by submitting his comments. He further complains that the principle of legal certainty was violated because the appeal court’s judgment was final, and could not have been reversed by the Supreme Court after five years. Lastly, he complains under Article 8 of the Convention that due to the proceedings in the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, he was removed from the register of experts, which has affected his private life and exercise of profession.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the Constitutional Court’s decisions, rejecting the applicants’ constitutional complaints as being lodged out of time, violate the applicants’ right of access to a court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Supergrav Albania Shpk v. Albania , no. 20702/18, §§   16 ‑ 31, 9 May 2023)?