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 PRACTICE6. 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.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT ALLEGED VIOLATION of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the right OF ACCESS TO the constitutional COURT7. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
8. The general principles concerning access to the Albanian Constitutional Court as regards the dismissal of constitutional complaints because a majority could not be reached – before the changes introduced by Law no. 99/2016 (see paragraph 6 above) – have been summarised in Marini (cited above, §§ 118-23).
9. The applicant argued that he had been deprived of access to the Constitutional Court, as it had failed to reach the required five‑member majority. Such an approach had left him without a final determination of his claims and had violated the fair‑trial guarantees under the Convention.
10. The Government contended that the dismissal of the case for failure to reach the required five‑member majority had been based on the law in force at the material time and had the aim of ensuring the consistency of the Constitutional Court’s case‑law and the adoption of well‑founded decisions.
11. The Court sees no weighty arguments to distinguish the present case from the case of Marini. The applicant’s constitutional complaint was dismissed because the members of the panel were divided and could not reach the five‑member majority required by law. This left the applicant without any final determination of his case and, accordingly, restricted his right of access to the Constitutional Court (compare Marini, cited above, § 122, and Prodhim Veshje No. 2 SH.A. v. Albania, [Committee], no. 34649/14, § 10, 17 October 2023). There was no immediate prospect that the situation would change, since two of the judges had recused themselves because of their earlier participation in the Supreme Court’s Bench adjudicating the underlying case. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the impugned decision of the Constitutional Court, dismissing the applicant’s constitutional complaint as a consequence of the failure to reach the required five‑member majority, amounted to an unjustified denial of the applicant’s right of access to the Constitutional Court.
12. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL‑ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW13. The applicant also raised other complaints under Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention.
14. Having regard to its findings concerning the applicant’s right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see paragraph 12 above), the Court notes that the applicant now has an opportunity to seek the reopening of the proceedings in the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 17 below). That would allow, in principle, for a comprehensive examination of the applicant’s remaining complaints under the Convention. In these circumstances, and in line with its subsidiary role, the Court considers that it is not necessary to consider the applicant’s remaining complaints at this time. It is open to him to lodge a new application with the Court, as the case may be, following a fresh determination of his constitutional complaint at the national level.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION15. The applicant claimed 45,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and EUR 15,000 in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the domestic courts and EUR 12,685 for those incurred before the Court.
16. The Government argued that the claims were unfounded and excessive.
17. The Court reiterates that a judgment in which it finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to the breach and make reparation for its consequences. Given the nature of the applicant’s complaint and of the violation found, the Court considers that the most appropriate form of redress in the present case would be the reopening of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, should he so request (compare Shkalla v. Albania, no. 26866/05, §§ 77-79, 10 May 2011, and Meli v. Albania, nos. 41373/21 and 48801/21, § 83, 16 July 2024).
18. The Court considers that the applicant must have suffered some non‑pecuniary damage as a result of the violation found. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, it awards to the applicant EUR 3,600 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
19. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 2,500 covering costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court and in the domestic courts, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Declares the complaint concerning the applicant’s right of access to the Constitutional Court admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning access to the Constitutional Court;Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints;Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: EUR 3,600 (three thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage; EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses; that from the expiry of the above‑mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 May 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Olga Chernishova Úna Ní Raifeartaigh
Deputy Registrar President