CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mai 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 } .sBFC49883 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 26 May 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 9311/22 Alfred AGOLLI against Albania lodged on 4 February 2022 communicated on 4 May 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s vetting by the Independent Qualification Commission (IQC) and the Special Appeal Chamber (SAC) (see Xhoxhaj v. Albania , no. 15227/19, 9 February 2021, and Sevdari v.   Albania , no. 40662/19, 13 December 2022). Having started his prosecutorial career in 2001, at the time of his vetting the applicant was serving at the Gjirokastra Appellate Prosecution Office. On 8 July 2019 he was dismissed from office by the IQC. On 13 July 2021 the SAC upheld the dismissal by a majority. It found under section 61(5) of the Vetting Act (law no. 84/2016) that the applicant had undermined the public’s trust in the judiciary as he had: (i) failed to declare a loan of 3,000,000 Albanian Lek (ALL) taken from an individual in 2007; and (ii) made serious professional mistakes in the prosecution of two cases in 2008 and 2013. Two dissenting judges argued that the loan had been in place only for 5 days and there had been no attempt from the applicant to conceal assets. Any professional lapses by the applicant were not sufficiently serious to warrant dismissal. The SAC’s decision was served to the applicant on 1 November 2021. He invokes Article 8 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been 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, and Sevdari v.   Albania , no. 40662/19, §§ 83-97, 13 December 2022)? In particular:   a) Was the applicant’s dismissal “necessary in a democratic society” and proportionate to the breaches he was found to have committed? Were the reasons adduced by the SAC relevant and sufficient (see   Xhoxhaj , cited above, § 402, and   Thanza v. Albania , no.   41047/19, §§151 ‑ 57, 4 July 2023)?   b) Did his alleged professional failures amount to serious breaches capable of justifying the dismissal of a tenured prosecutor (see, mutatis mutandis , Xhoxhaj , cited above, § 410; Juszczyszyn v. Poland , no. 35599/20, § 276, 6   October 2022; and Ovcharenko and Kolos v. Ukraine , nos. 27276/15 and 33692/15, §   104, 12 January 2023)?