THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BITRAJ v. ALBANIA
(Application no. 10024/17)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
5 May 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bitraj v. Albania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,
 Darian Pavli,
 Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 10024/17) 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 31 January 2017 by an Albanian national, Mr Klaidin Bitraj (“the applicant”), who was born in 1974, lives in Tirana and was represented by Mr D. Matlija, and Mr T. Alexandridis, lawyers practising in Tirana.
the decision to give notice of the complaints to the Albanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr O. Moçka, General State Advocate,
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 31 March 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns an alleged violation of the applicant’s right of access to the Constitutional Court and other fair‑trial guarantees under Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. 2. On 8 March 2006 the Vlora District Court (“the District Court”) found the applicant guilty of murder, committed in conspiracy with others, and of unlawful possession of firearms. It sentenced him to 25 years’ imprisonment. 3. Following several remittals, on 18 June 2014 the Vlora Court of Appeal reduced the sentence imposed by the District Court on 8 March 2006 for the offence of unlawful possession of firearms, but upheld the aggregate sentence imposed by the District Court. The applicant’s total prison sentence of 25 years remained unchanged. On 5 November 2015 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicant as he had not put forward any arguable grounds on which an appeal on points of law could be based. 4. On 4 August 2016 the Constitutional Court, sitting in a formation of seven out of nine judges after two judges withdrew from the examination of the case, dismissed without prejudice the applicant’s complaint for failure to reach the required five‑member majority. The reasoning in the decision was limited to stating the voting results (four votes against three in favour of dismissing the constitutional complaint) and the fact that the court had been unable to reach the required five‑member majority on any of the issues raised in the appeal. 5. The applicant was informed of the possibility, under section 74 of the Constitutional Court Act, of lodging a fresh complaint at a later date. DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
6. In the case of Marini v. Albania (no. 3738/02, 18 December 2007) the Court held that the dismissal of a constitutional complaint without prejudice on the basis that the court had not reached “the required majority of votes of all members for any of the outcomes” had violated the right to a fair trial. Following that judgment, Law no. 99/2016, which entered into force on 1 March 2017, amended section 73(4) of the Constitutional Court Act. In accordance with those amendments, it is no longer possible to dismiss without prejudice an individual complaint as a consequence of a failure to reach a five‑member majority. In such cases the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice in a final and definitive manner. The former section 74 of the Constitutional Court Act, which provided for the possibility of lodging a fresh appeal in such cases, was repealed.

Outcome for Article 6: violation