THIRD SECTION
CASE OF THANZA v. ALBANIA
(Application no. 41047/19)
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Fair hearing • Dismissal of Supreme Court judge based on findings of vetting proceedings • Inadequate opportunity to oppose factual findings in relation to background assessment and plead his case in an effective manner • Excessively formalistic application of relevant national law requirements in respect of integrity background assessment into possible links to organised crime • No issue as regards part of proceedings on asset and financial integrity evaluation
Art 8 • Private life • Justified dismissal based on individualised findings from assets and financial integrity evaluation • Vetting bodies’ factual findings and interpretation of domestic law not arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable • No serious shortcomings in decision-making process • Relevant and sufficient reasons

 
STRASBOURG
4 July 2023
 
FINAL
 
04/10/2023
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Thanza v. Albania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Pere Pastor Vilanova, President,
 Jolien Schukking,
 Georgios A. Serghides,
 Darian Pavli,
 Ioannis Ktistakis,
 Andreas Zünd,
 Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 41047/19) against the Republic of Albania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Albanian national, Mr Admir Thanza (“the applicant”), on 29 July 2019;
the decision to give notice to the Albanian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
third-party comments received from Res Publica, which had been granted leave by the President of the Section to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of Court);
Having deliberated in private on 6 June 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The present case concerns the outcome of re-evaluation proceedings (otherwise referred to as “vetting”) against the applicant, which resulted in his dismissal from the post of judge of the Supreme Court. THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Tirana. He was represented by Mr A. Saccucci and Ms G. Borgna, lawyers practising in Rome. 3. The Government were initially represented by their Agent, Ms E. Muçaj, and subsequently by Mr O. Moçka, General State Advocate. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.
background information
5. The applicant served as a judge at the Shkodër District Court from 1992 to 2006 and as its President for several years; a judge at the Tirana District Court from 2006 to 2009; a member of the Constitutional Court of Albania from 2009 to 2013; and a judge at the Supreme Court of Albania from 2013 until his dismissal from office in vetting proceedings (see paragraph 34 below). 6. In accordance with the Assets Disclosure Act (Law no. 9049 of 10 April 2003), the applicant submitted annual declarations of assets to the High Inspectorate for the Declaration and Audit of Assets and Conflicts of Interest (“HIDAACI”, see paragraph 68 below). It appears that HIDAACI found no inconsistencies or inaccuracies in any of his declarations over the years, until his vetting declaration of assets filed in 2017 (see paragraph 11 below). When the applicant was appointed to the Constitutional Court in 2009 and then to the Supreme Court in 2013, he was subjected to a background assessment by the Classified Information Security Directorate (“the CISD”), which he passed. 7. S.B. was detained on suspicion of abuse of office (Article 248 of the Criminal Code). His wife (L.H.) had her telephone communications intercepted. On 31 January and 4 February 2016 the applicant met with L.H., a long-time friend of his family who, according to him, was a notary public with no criminal record. On 8 April 2016 an investigation was opened against them under Articles 244 and 259 of the Criminal Code (active corruption of persons exercising public functions and passive corruption by persons exercising public functions). By a decision of 29 July 2016, the Prosecutor General’s Office discontinued the investigation for lack of a criminal offence, referring to Article 328 § 1 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the act does not constitute a criminal offence”; see paragraph 66 below). It was stated in the discontinuation decision that “the relationship [with L.H.] [was] social and [that there were] no corruptive interests involved”. Although the discontinuation decision could be challenged before the Supreme Court, it appears that no appeal was lodged. 8. In the meantime, in April 2016 the applicant submitted a self‑declaration form in accordance with the new Decriminalisation Act (Law no. 138/2015 “On ensuring the integrity of persons exercising, elected or appointed to public functions”) declaring the absence of grounds, such as a prior criminal record for serious offences, preventing him from being appointed to or serving in public office (see paragraph 71 below). The self‑declaration form was adopted by a further parliamentary decision following the enactment of that Act. The applicant indicated “no” when replying to questions asking whether he had been investigated, tried or convicted in Albania or another country (see paragraph 72 below). 9. In 2016 Albania embarked on comprehensive justice system reforms, amending the Constitution and enacting a number of statutes relating to, among other things, the transitional re-evaluation of all serving judges (hereinafter “the vetting process”, see Xhoxhaj v. Albania, no. 15227/19, §§ 4-7, 9 February 2021). The vetting process was to be carried out by the Independent Qualification Commission (“the IQC”) at first instance and – in the event of an appeal – the Special Appeal Chamber (“the SAC”) attached to the Constitutional Court (jointly referred to as “the vetting bodies”). The vetting bodies were to re-evaluate each serving judge under three criteria: (i) an evaluation of assets (hereinafter also referred to as “assets assessment”); (ii) an integrity background check aimed at determining any possible links to organised crime (hereinafter also referred to as “background assessment”); and (iii) an evaluation of professional competence. At the conclusion of each set of re-evaluation proceedings, the vetting bodies were to give a reasoned decision confirming in office or suspending or dismissing from office the person being vetted. Vetting proceedings in respect of the applicant
10. As a judge of the Supreme Court, the applicant was subject to the vetting process as a matter of priority. In January 2017 he filled in and submitted the following standard declaration forms: a vetting declaration of assets, an integrity background declaration and a professional self-appraisal form. In his vetting declaration of assets, the applicant declared, inter alia, a flat of 149 sq. m. in Tirana, acquired in 2009 for 112,000 euros (EUR) primarily with the proceeds from the sale of another flat in Tirana and his and his wife’s work-related income. He also declared a flat of 136 sq. m. with a garage in Shkodër, acquired in April 2000 with work-related income and the proceeds from the sales of two flats in November 2000. The applicant replied negatively to the questions in the integrity background declaration form (see paragraph 64 below). Submissions by other public authorities
11. HIDAACI considered that the applicant’s vetting declaration of assets was inaccurate and not in accordance with the law; that there were no legitimate financial resources to justify the assets; that the applicant had concealed assets and made a false statement; and that he was not in a situation of conflict of interest. 12. Pursuant to section 39 of the Vetting Act (see paragraph 63 below), on 2 November 2017 the CISD sent a letter to the IQC. It reads as follows:
“Subject: Delivery of the report [dërgohet raporti] on the [applicant’s] background check
To: IQC
Pursuant to section 39 of [the Vetting Act], after completion by the working group of the background check procedure for [the applicant], the CISD informs you as follows. 1. Referring to [the applicant’s] background declaration, we carefully reviewed his file [dosjen] and wrote to SHISH (the State Intelligence Service), SHÇBA (the Internal Affairs and Complaints Service of the Ministry of the Interior) and the Prosecutor General’s Office, to carry out the background check procedure.
a. The declaration was complete and filled out in conformity with the Vetting Act. After a discussion by the working group’s members, it was decided to request verification of background by those authorities.
2. ... According to the Prosecutor General’s Office’s ‘confidential’ letter of 8 September 2017, SHISH’s ‘secret’ letter of 25 October 2017 and SHÇBA’s ‘confidential’ letter of 22 August 2017:
...
b. Having regard to Article DH § 4 of the Annex to the Constitution, [the applicant] inaccurately completed the declaration form by failing to declare proceedings under Articles 244 and 259 of the Criminal Code ... discontinued on 29 July 2016.
c. Information has been obtained giving rise to a reasonable suspicion [dyshime të arsyeshme] of his involvement or inappropriate contact with persons [për kontakte të papërshtatshme me persona] involved in organised crime. 3. Based on an evaluation of all the information available to the verification authorities about [the applicant], we consider as follows. Under section 39(2) of [the Vetting Act], he made inaccurate statements in the declaration form, specifically in point ç, part 5, ‘Data about security’, by not declaring his inappropriate contact with persons [kontaktet e papërshtatshme me personat] involved in organised crime. That non-declaration results in liability for concealment of a fact, incorrect and untrue completion of the declaration form. After [the discontinuation decision] in 2016 on the judge’s involvement in corruption-related activity in the form of bribery for taking or omitting to take action in relation to his judicial function, [the applicant] is considered a person with an inclination towards criminal activities and a person who may be easily put under pressure by criminal structures [strukturat kriminale]; an evaluation based on section 37(b) and (c) of [the Vetting Act]. In addition, under section 3(8) of the Act, which refers to criminal acts under Article 75/a of the Criminal Procedure Code, [the applicant] is involved in unlawful activities, revealed in the form of corruption. Under section 38(4) of the Act, there is information that he has had inappropriate contact. Based on the analysis of the above-mentioned decision, we have established that [there has been] inappropriate contact with person(s) [një kontakt i papërshtatshëm me person/persona] involved in organised crime, within the meaning of section 3(15) of the Act. 4. It follows that the working group has ascertained the inappropriateness of [the applicant’s] continuation in office. Please find attached the report [raporti] on [the applicant’s] re-evaluation and [the discontinuation decision] of 2016.”
13. The High Council of Justice (“the HCJ”) identified certain shortcomings with respect to the applicant’s professional competence in its assessment of his judicial work, such as the absence of a rapporteur’s report, the absence of a date or signature on advisors’ reports and the absence of certain data from hearing listings. The HCJ was nevertheless in favour of confirming the applicant in his post. 14. The Prosecutor General’s Office informed the IQC that it had no information or indications from the law-enforcement agencies of the applicant’s involvement in a criminal offence or as to his background check (cënim të figurës së tij). Moreover, the classified-information registers since 2012 had contained no data or indications from the law-enforcement agencies of investigations against him. The prosecutor’s office attached to the Shkodër District Court informed the IQC that no disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him and that they had no information of his involvement or contact with members of criminal organisations, convicted persons or persons suspected of criminal offences. Proceedings before the IQCInvestigation by the IQC

15. The IQC carried out an administrative investigation based on the three re-evaluation criteria. The IQC wrote to the CISD, requesting “the complete declassification of the information classified as ‘State secret’ and sent with the letter of 2 November 2017”. A copy of that letter (see paragraph 12 above) submitted by the parties to the Court was stamped “fully declassified [deklasifikuar plotësisht] on 1 March 2018”. 16. In March 2018 the IQC invited the applicant to answer some additional questions, one of which read as follows: “Have you ever been detained, investigated, prosecuted, accused or convicted in Albania or a foreign country?”. He replied, providing a detailed account regarding the corruption investigation in 2016 (see paragraph 7 above). He was also asked whether he knew seven named individuals, and whether he had ever conducted professional actions or consultations, or made decisions or contributed to decision-making concerning those individuals or their family members or indirectly to any entity where they could have been or were administrators, owners or partners, managers or had other interests; and whether he had had voluntary personal contact with people involved in civil, criminal or administrative proceedings beyond formal (official) communications. The applicant replied, mentioning his friendship with L.H. in relation to the last question. 17. On 28 May 2018 the applicant received the findings of the IQC’s investigation, which stated, inter alia, as follows. (a)  As to the flat of 136 sq. m. in Shkodër, its declared price of 3,000,000 Albanian leks (ALL) did not match the price of ALL 1,200,000 (approximately EUR 9,000) stated in the purchase contract. The latter price did not seem to reflect the real value of a newly built flat purchased from the developer, being several times lower than the average market price in 2000 in Shkodër. Furthermore, the amount indicated as additional expenses for the flat had not been substantiated, and the proceeds from the sales in November 2000 could not have been used to purchase this flat in April 2000. As to the flat in Tirana, the amount of ALL 4,000,000 declared in the 2003 declaration of assets did not match the price of ALL 1,950,000 in the purchase contract. A financial analysis of the periodic declarations over the years revealed a discrepancy between the declared income and the documentary evidence, and between net income and expenses incurred by the applicant’s family. There was a negative balance for 2003-05, 2007, 2008 and 2016, and there had therefore been no possibility of making deposits, savings or of affording expenses such as property acquisitions during those periods. For the above‑mentioned financial analysis, the IQC enclosed various tables and calculations and indicated that the methodology used was reflected in the attached submissions. (b) The findings concerning the second component of the vetting process (the background assessment) stated that the CISD had carried out an investigation on the basis of statements and other data (të verifikimit të dekiarimeve dhe të dhënave të tjera) and recounted its submission of 2 November 2017 (see paragraph 12 above). 18. On 6 June 2018 the applicant sought access to the documentation and methodology used for calculating living expenses and the liquid assets for 2003-08. He was provided with the material in the case file, including the submissions of the CISD, HIDAACI and the HCJ (see paragraphs 12-13 above) as well as, it appears, letters from the tax authorities on which the calculations were based, and the methodology used for calculating the living expenses and liquid assets. On 8 June 2018 the applicant sought a ten-day extension of the time-limit for making submissions. On 11 June 2018 the IQC set a new deadline of 22 June 2018. 19. On 22 June 2018 the applicant submitted observations and documents, such as an expert report on his family’s financial situation in 1992-2002, with a view to proving that he had had sufficient income and savings to justify the assets. He also stated that the only document attached to the CISD’s submission was the 2016 discontinuation decision and that it was reasonable to conclude that it was based on that document and no other evidence. 20. On 28 June 2018 the applicant was informed that a hearing was listed for 4 July 2018. On 3 July 2018 the IQC informed him that it had considered the financial data for 1992-2002 and provided him with an amended financial assessment and the methodology for it. The latter indicated that the estimate of living expenses was based on HIDAACI’s data (the amount calculated for the entire period, in proportion to the years for which there was an obligation to declare, to determine the average annual spending). The IQC rescheduled the hearing to 10 July 2018. The applicant was informed that he could make written submissions by 6 July 2018. Decision by the IQC
21. The applicant and his lawyer made written and oral submissions and adduced evidence at the hearing on 10 July 2018. Those were admitted to the file for consideration by the IQC panel. By a decision of 17 July 2018, the IQC dismissed the applicant from office and made the following findings. (a)   Evaluation of assets
(i)      Flats and garages in Shkodër and Tirana
22. In his first declaration of assets for 2003, submitted in March 2004, and vetting declaration of assets submitted in 2017, the applicant had declared a flat of 136 sq. m. in Shkodër acquired with his family in April 2000, with a declared value of ALL 3,000,000, the applicant and his wife owning a 50% share. The 2003 declaration contained another version of the same page drawn up in 2005, one of which indicated ALL 1,200,000 as the purchase price and ALL 1,800,000 as additional expenses, essentially incurred after November 2000. That situation was irregular as to the procedures before HIDAACI, in the absence of any record or note in the file. The price in the purchase contract was ALL 1,200,000, which was lower than the average market price for a newly built flat in Shkodër in 2000. The flat had been declared as purchased in April 2000 with the proceeds from the sales of two flats in November 2000. The timing and amount (exceeding the purchase price) of the alleged alterations/work in the flat were not proven by the relevant documentation. The garage purchased with the flat had first been declared in the vetting declaration and had not been mentioned in the 2003 declaration. 23. It was not specified in the purchase contract that the flat had been sold unfinished (gjendje karabina), which the applicant argued could have explained a lower price. It was specified that the flat could be used by the buyers, could be registered immediately by them and was free of any charge or mortgage. The flat was part of a building, which implied that the latter had been inspected and registered as completed and functional. The proceeds from the sales in November 2000 had only provided ALL 1,000,000, and there was no evidence that the remaining ALL 800,000 came from a lawful source. It was apparent from the available data that the declared price of ALL 3,000,000 – and, a fortiori, the purchase price of ALL 1,200,000 – for a flat of that size with a garage was at least half the market price for the year 2000. The applicant had not convincingly proven why the seller had sold below the market value. As to the modified page in the 2003 declaration, assuming it had been done following HIDAACI’s request, there should have been some record made. 24. Thus, the applicant had made an insufficient, incomplete and inaccurate declaration, providing contradictory and unconvincing explanations, in particular as to the financial resources used to purchase the flat in April 2000. 25. As to the flat of 113 sq. m. in Tirana, acquired in 2003 and owned by his spouse until it was sold in or around 2009, the applicant had declared it with a value of ALL 4,000,000. That flat had been declared in the vetting declaration as a source used for the creation of another asset, a flat owned when the vetting process started. The purchase contract for that first flat specified a price of ALL 1,950,000. Even accepting the explanation that the significant difference of ALL 2,050,000 concerned the declaration of additional expenses, there was no proof that they had been incurred. The applicant had made an inaccurate and insufficient declaration regarding the purchase price of that flat. Apparently, the price specified in the contract was – as in some other cases – fictitious, to avoid the significantly higher tax rate applicable to amounts over ALL 2,000,000. Thus, there was reason to doubt that the alleged alteration work had been carried out immediately after the purchase, or that the amount of related expenses had been incurred. 26. In the vetting declaration, the applicant had declared a garage in Tirana acquired by his wife in 2007 for ALL 400,000. It had not been declared in any of the annual declarations of assets. The applicant had concealed that asset and made a false statement. 27. The IQC concluded that the applicant had not complied with the Assets Disclosure Act (Law no. 9049/2003) and section 32 of the Vetting Act, which justified his dismissal under section 61(3) of the Vetting Act, as well as, for the garage in Tirana, under Article D § 5 of the Annex to the Constitution. (ii)    Financial assessment
28. The period 1992-2002 was considered at the applicant’s request and based on the data he had provided. Considering his net income and income from his spouse’s professional activity, in 1992-2003, 2004, 2005, 2008 and 2009 he had not had enough income to incur the expenses and make the savings declared in the annual declarations. The data declared over the years often did not match the documentation before the IQC. For 1992-2003 there was a negative balance of ALL 2,772,865. Between 2004 and 2016 the balance was negative for four years and, during that period, the expenses with unjustified financial resources amounted to ALL 4,427,471. His spouse’s income had not been declared in the declaration of assets for 2006. The IQC dismissed the argument aimed at proving substantially lower living expenses. It considered that a minimum standard cost of living – ALL 440 per day per person (some EUR 3.50) until 2007 and ALL 352 by 2016 – had been applicable nationwide, irrespective of where one lived in the country. The applicant had made an insufficient declaration and lacked lawful financial resources to justify the assets and expenses, which justified the application of Article D § 3 of the Annex to the Constitution and his dismissal under section 61(3) of the Vetting Act. (b)   Background assessment
29. The applicant had filled out the background declaration incorrectly and untruthfully. Taking into account the CISD’s submission (see paragraph 12 above) and section 38(1) of the Vetting Act, he had had inappropriate contact with persons involved in organised crime and could be put under pressure by them. He had not provided convincing evidence to prove otherwise. 30. The applicant had failed to declare the 2016 criminal investigation (see paragraph 7 above) and specify mitigating circumstances if appropriate. Non-declaration constituted an inaccurate declaration within the meaning of Article DH of the Annex to the Constitution and section 39(2) of the Vetting Act (see paragraphs 54 and 63 below). A final judgment resulted from a proper judicial process with guarantees for the parties and an evaluation of evidence by a court, in compliance with the principle of adversarial procedure, with the participation of all the interested parties, who could exercise their rights. A prosecutor’s decision to discontinue an investigation did not have the same effect because it could be reopened at any moment. Law no. 10 192/2009 provided an exemption only when an acquittal was declared by a final court decision, similarly to section 3(15) of the Vetting Act (see paragraph 59 below). The legislation did not afford the CISD room for interpretation or discretion in the evaluation and listed only one exemption from the general rule as to considering a person as involved in organised crime, namely full acquittal by a court. The standard for the background assessment went beyond the fact of being punished for criminal acts. Under section 39(2) of the Vetting Act, the applicant had to declare any inappropriate contact in the background declaration, relying on the definition in section 3(15) of the Vetting Act. 31. The IQC endorsed as well-established the CISD’s findings as to the applicant’s “inclination towards criminal activities”; that he could be “easily put under pressure by criminal structures”; and that he had [had] “inappropriate contact”. While those findings had to be evaluated and used “with a critical eye and logical analysis”, they had been reached by the specialist agency under section 38(1) of the Vetting Act. The IQC did not ascertain otherwise during its own investigation and based on the documents before it. The applicant had not disproven those findings either. Thus, Article DH of the Annex to the Constitution and dismissal under section 61(2) of the Vetting Act had to be applied. (c)   Evaluation of professional competence and matters relating to ethics and integrity
32. Under this heading the IQC considered, inter alia, matters mentioned in the HCJ’s report, the applicant’s participation in proceedings concerning a private company and a monetary gift received from it, as well as a sentenza di patteggiamento (a form of simplified procedure comparable to plea bargaining) in Italy in 1999. (d)   Overall conclusion
33. The applicant’s ethics and integrity were questionable in that in addition to the statements in the vetting declarations, on several occasions in his statements before the IQC he had denied the truth about receiving a gift of over EUR 500, about giving decisions in cases involving the private company who had gifted it to him, or about the proceedings in Italy. Having regard to section 4(2) of the Vetting Act and making an overall assessment of the applicant’s actions and omissions, as well as the failure to show that there were lawful financial resources to justify the expenses and assets, the IQC concluded that he had undermined public trust in the justice system, in which he had been serving at high levels for many years. Consequently, the IQC decided to dismiss him under section 61(5) of the Vetting Act. Proceedings before the SAC
34. The applicant appealed to the SAC. The SAC notified him that the case would be reviewed following the usual written procedure, that is, without a public hearing and in his absence. By a decision of 18 April 2019, the SAC upheld the IQC’s decision of 17 July 2018 and held as follows. Evaluation of assets
(a)   Regarding the assets
35. The flat in Shkodër had been declared – in the first annual declaration and in the vetting declaration – as purchased in April 2000 for ALL 3,000,000, with the proceeds from the sales in November 2000 and the spouses’ work-related income. The purchase price was much lower than the alleged additional costs. They were also higher than the average similar costs in the year 2000 for a newly built flat. It did not appear from the purchase contract that the flat was in an uninhabitable condition, so the price referred to in the contract seemed inaccurate. The applicant had violated the Assets Disclosure Act and section 32 of the Vetting Act, which justified his dismissal under section 61(3) of the Vetting Act. 36. The other two flats had been sold for ALL 1,100,000, whereas the expenditure – allegedly carried out with that money – was ALL 1,800,000. Making its own financial assessment, the SAC confirmed that the applicant had spent that amount, but concluded that part of the expenditure (ALL 700,000) had not come from a lawful source. The applicant had had a negative balance for 1992-2003. The price indicated in the contract for the flat and the garage (ALL 1,200,000) was much lower than the average market price for a similar flat in Shkodër (ALL 3,512,200). Applying the available official data for 2000, the average construction cost approved for 2000 was ALL 25,825 per metre, which for that flat and garage amounted to ALL 4,080,350. Even accepting that the flat had been purchased unfinished, that was still higher than the declared value of ALL 3,000,000. 37. The applicant had stated that the purchase price (ALL 1,200,000) had been paid in April 2000 out of the family’s income, while the proceeds from the sales of the other flats in November 2000 had been used to cover the additional costs (ALL 1,800,000). In the 2003 declaration he had declared those proceeds as the resources used to purchase the flat. In the vetting declaration he had added his and his wife’s income. In April 2000 the applicant had not had sufficient savings or income to purchase the flat. 38. As to the flat in Tirana, the value (ALL 4,000,000) mentioned in the 2003 declaration did not match the price indicated in the purchase contract (ALL 1,950,000). There had been an insufficient declaration to HIDAACI, because the applicant had declared more than the double the amount in the contract, without proving the expenses for the work claimed. Those actions violated the Assets Disclosure Act and section 32 of the Vetting Act. The average cost of such a property was ALL 6,039,850. The SAC considered that the parties to the purchase contract had agreed to indicate a lower price in the contract corresponding to the minimum amount of tax to be paid. That asset was related to the financial analysis for 1992-2003, which resulted in a negative balance of ALL 1,339,709. Thus, the available income had been insufficient to acquire that flat in 2003 after having already acquired another one in 2000. The applicant had made an insufficient declaration under Article D §§ 3 and 5 of the Annex of Constitution, together with section 33(5)(b) of the Vetting Act, which justified his dismissal from office under section 61(3) of the Vetting Act. 39. The garage in Tirana had only been declared in the vetting declaration. The applicant should have declared it in his next annual declaration (see paragraphs 26 and 27 above). That omission could not be accepted as excusable forgetfulness but was a course of action (as to another garage not being declared in 2003-04, see paragraph 22 above), violating Article D § 5 of the Annex of Constitution and justifying dismissal from office under section 61(3) of the Vetting Act. The SAC considered, however, that the applicant had made a false and insufficient declaration because of the non-declaration of that garage in the periodic declaration (rather than concealment of an asset). (b)   Liquid assets
40. In 1992-2003, 2004, 2005, 2008 and 2009 the applicant had not had sufficient income to cover the family’s expenses and to make the savings declared in the periodic declarations. The IQC concluded that there had been an insufficient declaration on the part of the applicant and a lack of lawful resources to justify the acquisition of assets and expenses, in breach of Article D of the Annex of Constitution and section 61(3) of the Vetting Act. 41. The balance was negative for 1992-2003 (minus ALL 1,339,708, which was lower than that calculated by the IQC, minus ALL 1,972,969); in 2004 (minus ALL 469,964); in 2005 (minus ALL 1,331,632); in 2008 (minus ALL 696,475); and in 2009 (minus ALL 3,269,401), that is, amounting to a grand total of ALL 7,740,441 (between approximately EUR 60,000 and 62,000, depending on the applicable exchange rates). Under section 33(5)(b) of the Vetting Act, the applicant had not had sufficient lawful resources to justify the properties, savings and expenses over those years. Thus, he had made an insufficient declaration, justifying dismissal from office under section 61(3) of the Vetting Act. 42. According to the applicant, the SAC relied on a new financial analysis and amended, in peius, the IQC’s findings as to the difference between the income and expenses over the years (see paragraph 36 above and also paragraph 48 below). Background assessment
43. The applicant argued that the case material provided to him contained no evidence or facts proving the assertions made by the CISD and then upheld by the IQC. If there was evidence other than the 2016 discontinuation decision (see paragraph 7 above), the IQC had a legal obligation to make it available, thereby enabling him to put forward a meaningful defence. The IQC had failed to carry out its own in-depth investigation and to disprove the positive assessments made by law-enforcement agencies other than the CISD (see paragraph 14 above). 44. The SAC stated that even though the investigation in 2016 had been discontinued because the impugned act was not a criminal offence, the applicant could still be held liable for concealing that fact or for making an inaccurate and untrue declaration. The exemption under section 3(15) of the Vetting Act did not apply. Under Article DH of the Annex of Constitution, where a vetting subject had inappropriate contact with persons involved in organised crime, a presumption in favour of dismissal from office applied and that person had to prove the contrary. Had the applicant declared the proceedings as regards Article 244 of the Criminal Code, for the accuracy and truthfulness of the background declaration, section 38(5) of the Vetting Act had allowed him to list mitigating circumstances. Even though he had met with L.H. in early 2016, whereas the proceedings had then been opened and discontinued on 8 April and 29 July 2016 respectively, the fact remained that L.H. had not been acquitted by a final court decision. She had to be considered as “a person involved in organised crime” within the meaning of section 38(4)(d) of the Vetting Act, and the applicant had to make a background declaration. Furthermore, the applicant had also been the subject of the same investigation and was also “a person involved in organised crime” himself for the same purpose. While in one decision the Supreme Court had equated a non-challenged (and thus “final”) decision to discontinue prosecution to a final acquittal, in the SAC’s view, a verdict of acquittal or guilt had to be given by a court following a judicial procedure based on a complete evaluation of the facts. A final court decision on a person’s innocence was required to avoid being classified as a person “involved in organised crime”. 45. Referring to the statement in the CISD’s submission on certain information giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of his involvement or inappropriate contact with persons involved in organised crime, the applicant argued that had there been evidence other than relating to the proceedings in 2016, it should have been disclosed to the IQC and the latter should have disclosed it to him. The SAC stated that that element was not expressly relied on in the IQC’s decision and, in any event, resulted from the general assessment pursuant to section 39 of the Vetting Act based on the information from three law-enforcement agencies. Section 39(2) authorised non‑disclosure where disclosure would endanger a source’s safety or was the result of a condition defined by the government of another country that presumably provided the information. Article A § 1 of the Annex to Constitution permitted restrictions on a person’s constitutional rights during the vetting process. 46. Overall, the acts (inappropriate contact with persons involved in organised crime and an inaccurate declaration) were sufficient – in line with Article DH §§ 3 and 4 of the Annex to Constitution – for a presumption in favour of dismissal from office under section 61(2) and (3) of the Vetting Act. Conclusion
47. Overall, the serious problems relating to the background assessment on account of inappropriate contact with persons involved in organised crime and an inaccurate declaration justified the application of Article DH §§ 3 and 4 of the Annex of Constitution and dismissal under section 61(2) and (3) of the Vetting Act. The findings of the evaluation of professional competence justified the conclusion that the applicant had undermined public trust in the justice system and the application of section 61(5) of the Vetting Act. The SAC upheld the IQC’s decision of 17 July 2018, referring to Article D §§ 3 and 5 and Article DH §§ 3 and 4 of the Annex to the Constitution and section 61(2), (3) and (5) of the Vetting Act. 48. In June 2019 the applicant requested a copy of the case file from the SAC in order to prepare his application to the Court. According to him, there was no document in the file, which would set out the financial analysis referred to in the SAC’s decision (see paragraph 36 above). He requested a copy of such document to be provided to him. In July 2019 the SAC refused, stating that, under regulations approved by it in June 2018, the judge rapporteur’s report, his or her proposal regarding the decision to be made, the information distributed for deliberations and vote by the judges, the draft decision and the remarks made by the judges during the deliberations and the advisors’ reports were confidential and could not be disclosed to the parties. Other information
49. In April 2018 the applicant enrolled as an advocate and obtained a licence to practise as one. In 2020, he was listed in the register of non‑practising (pasivë) advocates. 50. On 13 January 2022 the Special Prosecution Office against Organised Crime and Corruption indicted the applicant for the offence of failure to declare, non-declaration, concealment or false declaration of assets, private interests of elected persons and public employees (Article 257/a § 2 of the Criminal Code). He was accused of making false statements in the vetting declaration of assets. It appears that those proceedings are pending. The Special Prosecution Office launched an investigation into the applicant’s assets pursuant to section 3(1)(d) of Law no. 10 192 of 3 December 2009 (see paragraph 70 below). A court ordered their preventive seizure. On 9 February 2022 the Special Court of Appeal against Organised Crime and Corruption upheld that decision, noting that there were convincing indicators pointing to his criminal liability for an offence under Article 257/a § 2 of the Criminal Code. 51. In separate proceedings, the applicant was convicted under Article 190 § 1 of the Criminal Code (falsification of seals, stamps or forms) for failing to disclose the 1999 sentence in Italy in his self-declaration under the Decriminalisation Act (see paragraph 8 above). On 26 September 2022 the Court of Appeal overturned his conviction and acquitted him. On 21 March 2023 the prosecution filed a cassation appeal against the acquittal with the Supreme Court, where the appeal is currently pending. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
Albanian law and practice
52. For a summary of the applicable domestic law and other references, see Xhoxhaj v. Albania (no. 15227/19, §§ 93-209, 9 February 2021). The provisions of particular pertinence to the vetting proceedings in the present case are as follows. Vetting processConstitution of the Republic of Albania

53. Article D of the Annex to the Constitution reads as follows:
“1. Persons to be vetted shall disclose their assets and have them evaluated in order to identify persons who possess or use more assets than can be lawfully justified, or those who have failed to make an accurate and full disclosure of their assets and those of related persons. 2. The person to be vetted shall file a new and detailed declaration of assets in accordance with the law. The High Inspectorate for the Declaration and Audit of Assets and Conflicts of Interest [HIDAACI] shall verify the declaration of assets and provide the [IQC] with a report concerning the lawfulness of the assets, as well as the accuracy and completeness of the asset disclosure. 3. The person being vetted shall provide convincing explanations concerning the lawful source of his or her assets and income. For the purposes of this law, assets shall be considered lawful if the income has been declared and subject to the payment of taxes. Additional elements of lawful assets shall be determined by law. 4. If the person being vetted has [total] assets greater than twice the value of lawful assets, the person shall be presumed guilty of a disciplinary breach, unless [he or she] submits evidence to the contrary. 5. If the person to be vetted does not file the declaration of assets within the time-limit prescribed by law, [he or she] shall be dismissed from office. If the person being vetted endeavours to conceal or make an inaccurate disclosure of assets in his or her ownership, possession or use, a presumption in favour of the disciplinary sanction of dismissal from office shall apply, which the person shall have the burden of disproving.”
54. Article DH of the Annex to the Constitution, entitled “Background Assessment”, reads as follows:
“1. Persons to be vetted shall submit a background declaration and are subject to a background assessment, in order to identify those with inappropriate contact with persons involved in organised crime [përfshirë në krimin e organizuar]. The background assessment for links to persons involved in organised crime shall be based on the background declaration and other evidence, including Albanian or foreign court decisions. 2. Persons to be vetted shall submit a completed detailed background declaration to the [IQC] covering the period from 1 January 2012 to the day of the declaration, as per the law. The background declaration may be used as evidence only in this process and in no circumstances in criminal proceedings. 3. If the person being vetted has had inappropriate contact with persons involved in organised crime, a presumption in favour of the disciplinary sanction of dismissal shall apply, which the person shall have the burden of disproving. 4. If the person to be vetted does not submit the background declaration in time in accordance with the law, [he or she] shall be dismissed. If the person being vetted takes steps to inaccurately disclose or hide contact with persons involved in organised crime, a presumption in favour of the disciplinary sanction of dismissal shall apply, which the person shall have the burden of disproving.”
Law no. 84/2016 on the Transitional Re-evaluation of Judges and Prosecutors (“the Vetting Act”)
(a)   General provisions
55. Under sections 22 and 23, each vetting body is assisted by the Legal Service Unit, which carries out advisory and supporting activities in the decision-making process. Legal advisors assess the file and prepare a case report. Financial advisors study the file from a financial and economic point of view and prepare a financial report containing, in particular, a financial assessment of the vetting subject’s assets. Advisors and their related persons must submit an annual declaration of assets (section 26). They receive 80% of the monthly salary of the vetting bodies’ members (section 29). The vetting bodies’ staff have the right to the special State protection regarding their life, health and property, as defined in the relevant legislation (section 25). 56. Under section 45, members of the IQC and SAC investigate and assess (hetojnë dhe vlerësojnë) all facts and circumstances required for the re‑evaluation procedure. The vetting bodies, in order to establish facts and circumstances, may collect declarations from the vetting subject, witnesses, experts and the public (section 49). During the administrative investigation, the IQC and SAC may request information from any subject of public law (sections 49 and 50). They administer documents necessary for the investigation. Under section 52, if the IQC or SAC concludes that the evidence has reached the standard of proof (provat kanë nivelin e provueshmërisë) under section 45, the vetting subject has the burden of presenting evidence or other explanations to the contrary. 57. Under section 61, dismissal from office may be ordered if:
“1. the person being vetted has declared [total] assets greater than twice the value of lawful assets belonging to him or her and related persons;
2. there are serious concerns about the integrity background check, because the person being vetted has had inappropriate contact with individuals involved in organised crime which renders it impossible for him or her to continue in his or her position;
3. the person being vetted has made an insufficient disclosure of assets and integrity background [declaration] under sections 39 and 33 of this Act;
4. as regards the evaluation of professional competence, the person being vetted is professionally unfit;
5. on the basis of the overall conduct [of the proceedings; në rast se nga vlerësimi tërësor], within the meaning of section 4(2) ... the person being vetted has undermined public trust in the justice system and it is impossible to remedy the deficiencies by means of a training programme.”
(b)   Re-evaluation criteria
(i)      Evaluation of assets
58. Under section 32, where a vetting subject is objectively unable to present the document which justifies the legitimacy of the creation of an asset, he or she must certify to the vetting body that the document is missing, lost or cannot be reproduced or obtained in another way. The vetting body decides if non-presentation of the document is justified. (ii)    Background assessment
59. Section 3 of the Act defines
(a)  “inappropriate contact” as a meeting, electronic communication or another type of wilful contact which is not in compliance with the holding of office by the vetting subject;
(b)  “a person involved in organised crime” as any person who has been convicted or criminally prosecuted for a criminal offence listed in section 3(1) of Law no. 10 192 of 3 December 2009 as amended (see paragraph 70 below), except when he or she was declared not guilty by a final court decision (vendim gjyqësor të formës së prerë). The person is considered to be involved in organised crime even if (a) the criminal proceedings have been terminated by the prosecuting authority because of the person’s death, or because there was a legal bar on his or her being charged with or convicted of an offence (nuk mund të merret si i pandehur dhe nuk mund të dënohet) (see also paragraph 66 below); or (b) he or she has been found not guilty by the court because the criminal offence was committed by a person who cannot be charged and convicted (që nuk mund të akuzohet ose dënohet). (c) “organised crime, trafficking and corruption” as the criminal offences listed in Article 75/a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 65 below), which fall under the competence of the Serious Crimes Court or another court which may substitute it in the exercise of those competences. 60. Under section 34 of the Act, the objective of the background assessment is verification of a vetting subject’s declarations and other data, in order to identify vetting subjects with inappropriate contact with persons involved in organised crime, as provided for in Article DH of the Annex to the Constitution (see paragraph 54 above). Under section 35, a vetting subject must fill in the background declaration form and submit it to the Classified Information Security Directorate (“the CISD”). The CISD initiates the background check procedures, in compliance with sections 4(4), 37 and 38 of the Act. 61. Under section 36, the vetting bodies, in collaboration with the CISD, are responsible for administering the background checks. A working group set up by the CISD, State Intelligence Service and Internal Affairs and Complaints Service attached to the Ministry of the Interior carries out the tasks under the Act. Under section 37, the working group must abide by the general requirements of the background assessment such as (a) an accurate verification of identity, past and present, for every individual; (b) verification if he or she has demonstrated criminal tendencies of involvement in organised crime; (c) a general evaluation of whether the individual might be put under pressure by criminal structures; and (ç) the individual having been, being or attempting to be covertly involved (in organised crime) whether alone, in complicity with or as part of a criminal organisation. 62. Under section 38, the background assessment must be based on the most accurate evidence, intelligence and information available. The assessment must contain the circumstances supporting a finding, as well as any mitigating circumstances. A background assessment that fails to consider supporting and mitigating circumstances is incomplete. Section 38 lists (i) examples of situations of inappropriate contact, such as non-casual communication with a person involved in organised crime; (ii) examples of mitigating circumstances, such as where the vetting subject plausibly argues that he or she was unaware that the person was involved in organised crime, or has distanced himself or herself from that person; (iii) examples of situations where it could be concluded that the background declaration was not completed fully and truthfully, such as failure to declare contact which is established by relevant and credible intelligence which is corroborated or deemed reliable, and the vetting subject has had other contact which was either declared or established, or there is other evidence of a benefit, action or consequence from that contact which creates a reasonable suspicion that the obtained information is the only plausible explanation; and (iv) further mitigating circumstances or factors which could be considered a plausible explanation for contact or failure to declare. 63. Under section 39, the CISD, in collaboration with the working group, verifies whether the information is accurate and whether the vetting subject has had inappropriate contact with persons involved in organised crime or alleged members of criminal organisations (me personat e përfshirë në krimin e organizuar ose me persona të dyshuar të krimit të organizuar). The CISD submits a report to the IQC. That report determines whether the vetting subject has completed the background declaration fully and truthfully, and whether there is information in it or elsewhere which indicates that he or she has had inappropriate contact with persons involved in organised crime, and a recommendation about the appropriateness of continuing to hold public office. The report provides a description of that contact and factors considered under section 38 of the Act. Information shall not be made public (nuk bëhet publik) if it endangers the safety of a source or is a result of a condition from a foreign government. 64. The standard background declaration form includes the following questions: “Have you ever been involved in activities related to organised crime?”; “Have you had inappropriate contact in the form of a meeting, electronic communication or any other means for a deliberate meeting, with one or more persons involved in organised crime, which is not compatible with the exercise of duty?”; “Have you had appropriate contact with persons involved in organised crime in the exercise of your duty?”; and “Have you accepted/exchanged money, favours, gifts or assets with a person involved in organised crime?”. Other relevant legislation and practiceCode of Criminal Procedure

65. Under Article 75/a (a) of the Code, as amended by Law no. 35/2017, the Anti-Corruption and Organised Crime Court deals with certain crimes, including those under Articles 244 and 259 of the Criminal Code. 66. Under Article 328, upon termination of preliminary investigations, the prosecutor will dismiss the charge or case when, inter alia, the act is not a criminal offence, the person cannot be charged or punished or the defendant has died. 67. Under Article 329/c, added in 2017, where, after the decision to dismiss the charge or case, new information or evidence is discovered that shows that the decision was unfounded, a judge may revoke it, at the prosecutor’s request. Law no. 9049 of 10 April 2003 (Assets Disclosure Act)
68. Under section 4, public officials are required to submit annual declarations to HIDAACI in respect of private interests, the sources of their creation, as well as in respect of financial obligations, inter alia, as regards immovable assets and real rights over them; movable assets, registrable in public registers; items of special value over ALL 300,000; financial obligations to legal and natural persons; personal income for the year, from salary or participation in boards, commissions or any activity that brings personal income; private interests of the subject that match, contain, are based on or originate from the family relationship or cohabitation; and any declarable expenditure worth more than ALL 300,000 carried out during the year of declaration. 69. Under section 38, false disclosure of assets constitutes a criminal offence under the applicable criminal law (Article 257/a of the Criminal Code). Law no. 10 192 of 3 December 2009 “On preventing and combating organised crime, trafficking, corruption and other crimes through preventive measures relating to assets” as amended
70. Under section 3, the Law concerns persons for whom there is a reasonable doubt/suspicion based on indications (dyshim i arsyeshëm, i bazuar në indicie) of, inter alia, participation in armed gangs, criminal organisations and structured criminal groups, and the commission of crimes by them, and the commission of a number of other crimes, including under Article 244 of the Criminal Code, where there are indications of illegal assets. The offence under Article 259 of the Criminal Code was added to the list by Law no. 70/2017. Under section 24, a court orders the confiscation of a person’s assets if there is a reasonable doubt/suspicion based on indications of his or her involvement in the criminal activities specified in section 3 and it is not proven that the assets have a legal origin, or the person has not justified the possession of assets or income which are disproportionate to the level of income or the profits gained through legal resources declared by him or her. Assets may be confiscated even where the criminal proceedings for the above-mentioned offences are discontinued or the person is found not guilty, except when that is because the act did not exist or was not a criminal offence, or because that person did not commit the offence. Law no. 138/2015 “On ensuring the integrity of persons exercising, elected or appointed to public functions” (Decriminalisation Act)
71. Under sections 2 to 5, as amended by Law no. 38/2016, persons to be appointed to public office must complete and sign a self-declaration form declaring the absence of grounds preventing their appointment, such as, inter alia, the absence of a final criminal conviction – within or outside Albania – with a sentence of imprisonment for a number of offences listed in the Law. A false declaration is punishable under Article 190 of the Criminal Code. 72. The standard self-declaration form contains the following questions: “Have you ever been convicted by a final judicial decision by an Albanian or foreign judicial authority?”; “Have you been sentenced to imprisonment by a non-final court decision by an Albanian or foreign judicial authority, for a criminal case not resolved by a final court decision?”; “Have you ever been under investigation or trial by a foreign authority, for committing a criminal offence?”; and “Have you ever been detained or arrested by law-enforcement agencies for committing a criminal offence?”. Constitutional Court’s decision no. 2/2017
73. As regards the integrity background assessment, the Constitutional Court made the following findings:
(a)  The assessment would be based on a declaration completed by the person being vetted and other evidence, such as domestic or foreign court decisions. Under section 36(1) of the Vetting Act, the vetting bodies, in cooperation with the CISD, would be responsible for the integrity background check. Referring to the Venice Commission’s amicus curiae brief (see paragraph 74 below), the Constitutional Court accepted that the institutions mentioned in section 36 of the Vetting Act would play an active role in carrying out the integrity background assessment. (b)  Having regard to Article Ç § 4 of the Annex to the Constitution and sections 45, 50 and 51 of the Vetting Act, the vetting bodies would maintain overall supervision over the integrity background check. The other bodies involved in the vetting process would assist the vetting bodies in fulfilling their mandate. In all circumstances, with reference to section 4(2) of the Vetting Act and Article 179/b § 5 of the Constitution, ultimate decision‑making would rest with the IQC and the SAC, which would be established as independent and impartial institutions. The vetting bodies would perform supervisory and evaluating functions and would not be bound by the findings made by other auxiliary institutions. In so far as law‑enforcement agencies had an auxiliary role and their activity was subject to supervision by and control of the vetting bodies, they would not be able to commence their activities without the prior constitution of the vetting bodies. (c)  Given their purpose, functioning, expertise and tasks, the auxiliary bodies would help the vetting bodies in exercising their constitutional functions and fulfilling their mission pursuant to the principles of cooperation, interaction and coordination of all institutions involved in the vetting process. They would not perform their tasks beyond the scrutiny of the IQC and the SAC. This was all the more important to avoid any potential interference by the executive power with the vetting process, notably as regards the integrity background check. (d)  The vetting bodies were the only bodies empowered to dismiss a judge or prosecutor from office. Only they could determine whether the declarations had been filed within the prescribed time-limit. At the end of the proceedings, they would give a reasoned decision describing the entire decision-making. Other relevant material
74. The relevant parts of the Venice Commission’s amicus curiae brief for the Constitutional Court on the Vetting Act (Opinion no. 868/2016 of 12 December 2016, CDL-AD(2016)036) provide as follows:
“28. ... If the process of vetting is conducted or controlled by the executive, the entire process of vetting may be compromised. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the involvement of the executive, in law and in practice, is limited to the extent that is strictly necessary for the effective functioning of the vetting bodies.
...
35. ... The concern however remains that in certain circumstances, according to Article 39(2) concerning the background assessment, information collected as a result of the background check ‘shall not be disclosed if it endangers the safety of a source or is a result of a condition from a foreign government’. In this case, the re-evaluation institutions may lack the possibility of independent re-evaluation and would only be able to rely on the assessment/evaluation made by the National Security Authority. Thus, the rule of prohibition of disclosure may only be possible if the information in question is favourable to the assessee ... 54. The use of such assessments for the purposes of the re-evaluation should be under the supervision and control of the Independent Commission and subject to the appellate control of the Appeal Chamber. While the Venice Commission does not see any objection to the use of such a working group, some concerns may be formulated concerning the use of working groups consisting only of security personnel on which no representative of the Independent Commission itself appears to be included. Moreover, there may be also concerns about Article 39(2) last sentence, that information is not to be disclosed if it endangers the safety of a source or is the result of a condition from a foreign government. This is reasonable but only on condition that the information is favourable to the assessee ...”
THE LAW
ALLEGED ABUSE OF THE RIGHT OF APPLICATION
75. The Government argued that the applicant had abused his right of application under Article 34 of the Convention because his complaints – relating to access to the CISD’s report and practising as an advocate – were based on untrue facts. In particular, the applicant’s allegation that he could not practice law was untrue because he had a licence to practice as an advocate and had not been disbarred; he had not informed the Court accordingly. Despite his allegation before the Court, he had been provided with the CISD’s report in the vetting proceedings. 76. The applicant claimed that the thrust of his complaint concerned the provisions of the Lawyers Act imposing a ban on practising as an advocate after dismissal from office in vetting proceedings and the risk of being disbarred without any possibility of re-enrolling; and that his other complaint before the Court was related to access to the evidence justifying the conclusions in the CISD’s report. 77. The Court considers that in view of the explanations given by the applicant, there are no reasons to conclude that he had withheld information concerning the very core of the case, in a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court. The Court notes that the thrust of his other complaint before the Court is about the alleged non-disclosure of documents or evidence which prompted the CISD to make the findings in its report. Having regard to the relevant case-law (see X and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 22457/16, § 145, 2 February 2021; G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, § 172, 28 June 2018; Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 97, ECHR 2012), the Court dismisses the Government’s objection. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION
78. The applicant complained that he had not had a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law in the vetting proceedings, in breach of Article 6 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:
“1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law ...”
AdmissibilityComplaints relating to the right to a fair hearing

79. The Government referred to the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies, stating, in substance, that the applicant’s procedural grievances were abusive, unsubstantiated or otherwise ill-founded because he had not sought an extension of the time-limit for studying the case file and making submissions, or an adjournment of the IQC’s hearing on 10 July 2018. Moreover, he had not requested access to any confidential information that might be in the case file before the vetting bodies or “in his file”. 80. The applicant submitted that the Government’s arguments concerning the admissibility of the complaint were unfounded. He had made every reasonable effort to exercise his procedural rights to the extent permitted by Albanian law. 81. Having regard to its findings in Xhoxhaj v. Albania (no. 15227/19, §§ 236-46, 9 February 2021), the Court considers that the civil limb of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable and that the criminal limb of Article 6 is inapplicable. It also considers that the Government’s remaining submissions concern the well-foundedness of the allegations under Article 6 of the Convention. In so far as the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies is concerned, and for the same reasons as outlined in Xhoxhaj, cited above, § 250, the Government’s objection should be dismissed. 82. The Court considers that the complaint concerning the guarantees of a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. Other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention
(a)   Independent and impartial tribunal established by law
83. The applicant complained that the vetting bodies, generally and as regards the benches hearing his case, had not been independent and impartial. The parties’ observations are similar to those in Xhoxhaj (cited above, §§ 260-75). The Court considers that the applicant has not raised any meritorious argument and finds no reason to depart from its findings in Xhoxhaj (§§ 294-317). Accordingly, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 84. The Court notes that in his application the applicant referred – as part of his arguments relating to the applicability of Article 6 and as regards the requirement of an independent and impartial tribunal – to certain supposed defects in the appointment procedure for certain members of the vetting bodies. In his observations of November 2020 he further argued, on similar grounds, that the SAC in his case had not been a tribunal “established by law” (see also Besnik Cani v. Albania, no. 37474/20, §§ 66-73, 4 October 2022, and Sevdari v. Albania, no. 40662/19, §§ 109-13, 13 December 2022). The Government argued that the complaint was belated. Thus, leaving aside the question of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted (ibid.), the Court considers that the applicant has not shown that he complied with the then applicable six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, in a similar context and in the same vein, Xhoxhaj, cited above, §§ 252-57). Accordingly, this complaint has been lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. (b)   Public hearing before the SAC
85. The Government stated that the SAC had notified the applicant that the case would be examined following the usual written procedure. He had not requested a public hearing and thus failed to exhaust domestic remedies. The applicant argued that the Vetting Act did not provide for an oral and public hearing before the SAC and did not allow a vetting subject to request one. The parties’ other submissions are similar to the observations made in Xhoxhaj (cited, above, §§ 337-38). 86. The Court does not need to address the Government’s preliminary objection because it has previously found in Xhoxhaj (cited above, § 343) no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention since the nature of the proceedings did not require a public hearing on appeal. The circumstances of the present case are similar. Accordingly, this complaint is manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

Outcome for Article 6: violation