Published on 15 June 2026
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 37233/23
Lindita HOXHA
against Albania
lodged on 11 October 2023
communicated on 26 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 her judicial career in 1993, at the time of her vetting the applicant served as a judge of the Shkodra Court of Appeal.
On 6 August 2020 she was dismissed from office by the IQC. On 22 February 2023 the SAC upheld the dismissal by a majority. It found a total negative balance between the applicant’s income and expenses during three years (2006, 2010 and 2013) of 3,798,297 Albanian Lek and concluded under section 61(3) of the Vetting Act (law no. 84/2016) that she had failed to justify her assets and expenses.
In particular, in 2006 the applicant had taken a loan from a relative, S.B. To prove that the lender had had sufficient resources to provide the loan, the applicant submitted tax records showing his business’s turnover at the relevant time. However, the SAC concluded that she had failed to submit evidence about his actual net profit. Two dissenting judges argued that a reasonable net profit could be deduced from the turnover.
Another issue before the SAC was the applicant household’s ability to afford the costs of construction of a non-residential building erected by her husband in a rural area. The applicant submitted that the construction had been financed in part through a loan from B.H. but the SAC found no proof of the lender’s personal income and thus of his ability to give out the loan. Also, the applicant contests the method used by SAC for calculating the construction costs. The dissenting judges argued that the methodology used was applicable to residential property and should not have been applied to a non-residential building. They concluded that the applicant’s negative balance was smaller and that it was not proportionate to dismiss her on that account.
The SAC’s decision was served to the applicant on 12 June 2023.
She 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)?
Was the applicant’s dismissal “necessary in a democratic society” and proportionate as required by Article 8 § 2 of the Convention, in particular on account of the SAC’s conclusions regarding the third-party loans and the construction costs of the non-residential building?