CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 février 2026

.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 23 February 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 11640/20 Artor YLLI against Albania lodged on 20 February 2020 communicated on 5 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s transitional vetting process 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, an Albanian national born in 1985, had worked since 2015 as a legal assistant at the Administrative Court of First Instance in Tirana. In May 2018 he had been admitted, in his capacity as a legal assistant, to a two ‑ year training program at the School of Magistrates. By IQC’s decision of 2   November 2018, as upheld by the SAC’s judgment of 20   November 2019, he was dismissed from office. As a result of his dismissal, he was disqualified from continuing training at the School of Magistrates. It was established in the vetting proceedings that in 2010 and 2012 the applicant had made several bank transfers at the request of M. (an advocate and professor, in whose law office the applicant was a trainee in 2009) for M.’s commercial activities in China. The funds transferred did not belong to the applicant. Also, the applicant had been fined for his failure to submit tax declarations within statutory time ‑ limits in respect of the period from 2010 to 2014, during which he had no income from his private practice as a lawyer. The applicant had reported the outstanding tax liabilities in the total amount of 386,398 Albanian lek in his vetting declaration and paid them while the vetting proceedings were pending. The SAC, by a majority, found, inter alia , that the abovementioned conduct of the applicant as a candidate magistrate had been contrary to magistrates’ ethics and undermined public confidence in the justice system. Two judges dissented, arguing that the applicant’s conduct as a private attorney could not be subject to strict assessment of compliance with magistrates’ ethics; that the applicant had not breached the law by making the impugned bank transfers; and that the violation of the tax regulations was not so serious as to warrant his dismissal. The applicant invokes Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Is Article 8 of the Convention applicable in the present case? If so, has there been a violation of Article 8 (see, for applicable principles, Xhoxhaj v.   Albania , no. 15227/19, §§ 359-413, 9 February 2021, and Sevdari v.   Albania , no. 40662/19, §§ 83-97, 13 December 2022) on account of the applicant’s dismissal? In particular, was it proportionate to dismiss the applicant from his position of judicial assistant on the basis of his prior conduct as a private attorney, including his compliance with tax obligations in that capacity?