CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s6B8C76CB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:right; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sCBC8409E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s41AC1870 { width:92.52%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s1A810B9D { width:8.42%; 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 } .s8974C278 { width:31.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDFF5C90B { width:16.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7C0B0EBB { width:22.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF20B49E9 { width:20.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF9A55B77 { width:8.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFAA796B5 { width:31.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5E2858E2 { width:16.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF53FD7AF { width:22.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6155573C { width:20.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Published on 17 November 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 17108/24 Anxhela GJINI and Others against Albania lodged on 14 June 2024 communicated on 27 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are 36 students enrolled at the Tirana Medical University (TMU), a public institution. The application concerns the obligation, introduced by Law 60/2023, of TMU medical students to either sign an agreement committing them to work as medical practitioners in the national health system for a number of years upon completion of their studies, or otherwise pay the ‘full cost of their studies’ – a more substantial amount than ordinary tuition fees. The law also envisages that the diplomas of the medical students who have entered into such agreements are to be withheld (by their employer) until the completion of their in-country employment term. These provisions are to be applied from the 2025/26 academic year to the 2029/2030 academic year. On 26 February 2024, the national Constitutional Court struck down certain provisions of Law 60/2023, in particular by reducing the maximum term of required in-country employment from five to three years. It considered that the contested provisions had impermissibly restricted the constitutional right of free choice of work and to secure one’s means of livelihood. It accepted that the interference had pursued a legitimate aim, namely securing the proper functioning and needed professional resources for the public health system, at a time when allegedly large numbers of TMU graduates sought work abroad shortly after graduation. At the same time, the Constitutional Court found an absence of sufficient correlation between the measures taken – notably the in-country employment for periods of two to five years, depending on the student’s year of enrollment – with the legitimate aim pursued. Accordingly, it held that the contested scheme had amounted to a retroactive denial of the full freedom of choice of workplace for students already enrolled in or seeking access to medical studies. The Constitutional Court directed that the said terms be set to a maximum of three, two and one years, respectively. On 19 September 2024, Parliament amended Law 60/2023 to bring it into compliance with the Constitutional Court judgment. TMU medical students are required to either accept in-country employment terms of three, two or one years (depending on their year of enrollment), or commit to pay the full cost of their (remaining) medical education. The retention of diplomas until completion of such employment (if so agreed) also appears to remain in place. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lack of reasons provided by the Constitutional Court in refusing their discrimination complaint and as regards the proportionality of the amended terms of in-country employment. They also complain about the lack of adversarial proceedings before the Constitutional Court. In addition, the applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention about the restriction of their right to private life and professional activities, alleging that the interference does not pursue a legitimate aim and is not necessary in a democratic society. The applicants also complain under Article   2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the retention of their diplomas upon completion of their studies, as well as the lack of foreseeability in having their study costs significantly increased. Lastly, the applicants complain under Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 8 and 2 of Protocol No. 1, about discrimination of students in a less favourable economic situation who are not in a position to pay the full costs of their studies. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the applicants have victim status under Article 34 of the Convention (see Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 164, ECHR 2015)? Are they currently enrolled in the study programme of the Tirana Medical University (Faculty) and, if so, in which academic year?   2.     What are the modalities of payment of the “full costs of studies”? In particular, are currently enrolled students who refuse in-country employment upon graduation required to pay the full costs for the entire duration of their studies?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial, contrary to Article 6 of the Convention? Were the proceedings before the Constitutional Court adversarial, in particular as regards the ability of the applicants to comment on the submissions of the opposing party (see   Janáček v. the Czech Republic , no.   9634/17, § 46, 2 February 2023)?   4.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention? In particular:   (a) Was the interference prescribed by law and did it pursue a legitimate aim under the second paragraph of Article 8 (see Vavřička and Others v.   the Czech Republic [GC], nos. 47621/13 and 5 others, §   265-66, 8 April 2021)? Was the relevant law formulated with sufficient precision and adequately accessible?   (b) Was the interference necessary in a democratic society (see Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], cited above, § 273)? In particular, does the application of the relevant legal scheme to currently enrolled medical students impose a disproportionate burden on their freedom to choose their future employment? Is the retention of the diplomas for the duration of the in ‑ country employment term proportionate to the aim pursued?   The parties are invited to submit any materials on the legislative history of Law 60/2023, as amended, including any comparative models or materials that may have been considered in the process.   APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Anxhela GJINI 2001 Albanian Tirana 2. Feruze AGALLIU 2000 Albanian Durrës 3. Natali BLIU 2004 Albanian Tirana 4. Oresti ÇAÇA 2000 Albanian Tirana 5. Alesia CARA 2003 Albanian Kamez 6. Kristina ÇELANJI 2001 Albanian Durrës 7. Samuel DËRKA 2004 Albanian Lushnjë 8. Flavio ELEZI 2003 Albanian Dibër 9. Brunelio FEJZULLA 2004 Albanian Tirana 10. Klevi GUGALLJA 2003 Albanian Tirana 11. Dea GURI 2000 Albanian Shkodër 12. Rei HALULI 2002 Albanian Vlorë 13. Diora HOXHA 2002 Albanian Berat 14. Igli HOXHAJ 2000 Albanian Shkodër 15. Arlind KASËMI 2002 Albanian Tirana 16. Gani KRRASHI 2000 Albanian Dibër 17. Reant KULLAJ 1998 Albanian Tirana 18. Eugen LAZAJ 1999 Albanian Vlorë 19. Ledion MANE 2001 Albanian Lushnjë 20. Anxhela MIRAKA 2004 Albanian Durrës 21. Endi MUÇI 2001 Albanian Tirana 22. Joel PLAKU 2003 Albanian Tirana 23. Erdi PODO 2003 Albanian Poliçan 24. Athina PRIFTI 2000 Albanian Tirana 25. Paulo QESARGJONI 2004 Albanian Vlorë 26. Marjo RABIAJ 2000 Albanian Mallakastër 27. Mikel SEFERI 2004 Albanian Tirana 28. Arbëri SHEHU 2003 Albanian Tirana 29. Thimi SHKARPA 2000 Albanian Berat 30. Isabela TABAKU 2004 Albanian Peqin 31. Juri TAULLAU 2004 Albanian Lushnjë 32. Almira TOTA 2004 Albanian Tirana 33. Argisa TROKA 2004 Albanian Cërrik 34. Zino VELESHNJA 2001 Albanian Berat 35. Xhesika XHEBEXHIU 2004 Albanian Lushnjë 36. Viki ZAÇLLI 2003 Albanian Tirana