THIRD SECTION
CASE OF GËLLÇI v. ALBANIA
(Application no. 15468/23)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
25 February 2025
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Gëllçi v. Albania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, President,
 Darian Pavli,
 Diana Kovatcheva, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 15468/23) 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”) on 5 April 2023 by a national of Albania and the United States of America, Mr Thoma Gëllçi (“the applicant”), who was born in 1961, lives in Tirana and was represented by Mr D. Matlija, a lawyer practising in Tirana;
the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, concerning the applicant’s pre-trial detention, to the Albanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr O. Moçka, General State Advocate, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 4 February 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, regarding the grounds for the applicant’s pre-trail detention. Such detention was ordered in the context of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on charge of abuse of office, on account of his alleged involvement as the director of the Albanian Public Television (Televizioni Shqiptar) in concluding public tender contracts concerning purchase of technical equipment. 2. In these proceedings, at the prosecutor’s request, on 7 October 2021, the First Instance Court for Anticorruption and Organised Crime ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The first-instance court held that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had organised the public tender at issue without previously obtaining permission from the Albanian Media Authority, as required by law. He was also suspected of having extended the deadline for the enforcement of the contract without that possibility being provided for by law. The applicant had, thus, given additional time to the winning party, placing the other bidders at disadvantage, and misused the public money, contrary to the public interest. 3. As to the grounds for ordering the applicant’s detention on remand, the first-instance court held that not all evidence had yet been collected by the prosecution, and that the applicant, if at large, could tamper with the evidence and put pressure on witnesses. The prosecution had collected documentary evidence, but some potential witnesses had not yet given their statements. The court also held that the applicant had frequently travelled outside Albania, and posed a risk of fleeing once he had learned of the charges against him. 4. The applicant was arrested on 7 October 2021 and on 11 October 2021 he appeared before the first-instance court. He submitted that he had been dismissed from office five months before and therefore had no possibility to tamper with the tender records. He added that the suspicions against him were based exclusively on documents which had already been seized by the prosecution, and, therefore, there was no risk of him tampering with any witness or other evidence. As regards the risk of absconding, he argued that he had surrendered to the authorities and the confiscation of his passport and/or another security measure would be sufficient to ensure that he would not abscond. He argued that his detention in prison was disproportionate on account of his health and age. He asked the court to order a more lenient security measure. 5. On the same date, the first-instance court confirmed the applicant’s pre-trial detention, holding that the circumstances under which it had ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention had not changed in the meantime, and that such security measure was still justified by the seriousness of the offence and the possible punishment. 6. By way of two submissions of 28 and 29 October 2021 the applicant reiterated his previous arguments (see paragraph 4 above) before the Court of Appeal for Anti-Corruption and Organised Crime. He added that since his placement in detention on 11 October 2021, the prosecutors had not carried out any investigative measure, including his own questioning. He also argued that the prosecutors had not specified which evidence was in danger of being tampered with and had failed to explain why such evidence had not been collected in the past twenty months since the investigation had been opened. As regards the risk of absconding, the applicant stated that he had been in the United States during the prior summer months and had come back to Albania despite being aware of the investigation against him. He reiterated that a less stringent measure against him would satisfy the risks relied on by the prosecutors. 7. On 30 October 2021 the appeal court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and endorsed the reasoning and conclusions of the first-instance decision. It held that the applicant knew the victims of the alleged offense, the party that had been unduly favoured in the tender and the other suspects, therefore there was a risk that they would collude and tamper with the evidence. In the court’s view, the mere “ban on leaving the country” or any other less stringent measure was insufficient to address the said risks. The appeal court added that the applicant’s personality was “particularly dangerous” given that the criminal offences held against him involved the abuse of office and misuse of public funds and carried a sanction of up to seven years’ imprisonment. 8. The applicant’s further requests of 10 November 2021, 9 December 2021, 9 February 2022, and 19 April 2022, that his pre-trial detention be lifted or substituted by other measures were dismissed by the domestic courts on the ground that the conditions under which the pre-trial detention had been ordered had not changed. 9. On 27 January and 9 November 2022, the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, respectively, dismissed the applicant’s appeals on admissibility grounds. The final decision was served on the applicant on 5 December 2022. 10. On 2 June 2022 the first-instance court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to one year and four months’ imprisonment. 11. On 30 August 2022 at the applicant’s request, the first-instance court lifted his detention and ordered his immediate release.

Outcome for Article 5: violation