Published on 8 January 2024
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 37896/19
Shkëlzen Kujtim SELIMI
against Albania
lodged on 8 July 2019
communicated on 15 December 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant, a district court judge in 1999-2011, was appointed to the Supreme Court of Albania in 2011. In 2018-19 the Independent Qualification Commission (IQC) and the Special Appeal Chamber (SAC) dismissed him from office for having had, and failing to declare, “inappropriate contact” within the meaning of the Vetting Act, with F.D. and A.I. prosecuted for drug trafficking. While the applicant had taken no stance as to whether he had had any contact with A.I., he had had a steady relationship and had misused his position in the justice system, through direct actions and his influence over other officials, so that A.I.’s extradition to Italy failed in 2015. Also, the applicant had been rapporteur in the proceedings in 2014 in which the Supreme Court set aside a detention order and remitted the matter to another court, thereby deciding in A.I.’s favour and influencing the rejection of the extradition request. The applicant’s interaction with A.I., F.D. and some others negatively characterised his social environment and indicated that he could be easily put under pressure by criminal organisations because persons involved in those organisations had social relations with him in a non-random and steady manner.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in the vetting proceedings considered in their entirety and in the light of the criterion of overall fairness (see Thanza v. Albania, no. 41047/19, §§ 112-23, 4 July 2023)? Reference is made, in particular, to the matters mentioned below.
1.1. Did the IQC and SAC disclose to the applicant sufficiently the facts and circumstances on which they relied, and supporting material, such as written or oral submissions or documents provided by the relevant national authorities, in their findings regarding A.I.’s extradition case, connections to “persons involved with organised crime” or other “criminal elements” (compare Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, §§ 146-61, 19 September 2017)?
1.2. Having regard to the above:
(a) To the extent that any evidence relied upon by the vetting bodies was not disclosed to the applicant, were sufficient counterbalancing measures and safeguards put in place, to ensure compliance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (compare Regner, §§ 148 and 151, and Thanza, §§ 112-23, both cited above)?
(b) In particular, was the applicant afforded a timely and adequate opportunity to put forward a defence regarding the allegations about his allegedly inappropriate relationship with A.I.? On what basis did the IQC make a finding that the applicant had knowingly engaged in “inappropriate contacts” with A.I. and shift the burden onto him to prove the contrary? Did this impose an unreasonable burden of proof on the applicant?
2. Was there 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)? In particular, was it “necessary in a democratic society” and based on relevant and sufficient reasons on account of:
(a) “inappropriate contacts” with A.I. and/or the applicant’s alleged failure to declare such a contact or make truthful submissions in this respect during the vetting proceedings?
(b) the applicant’s ongoing contacts with F.D. after the latter’s prosecution for a firearm possession in 2011 and/or subsequent prosecution for a drug trafficking offence?
The Government are requested to submit copies of the Albanian court decisions taken in A.I.’s extradition case (on the extradition request and his detention on remand).
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy