Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 41047/19 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
THANZA v. ALBANIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
THANZA v. ALBANIA
Wird zitiert von ... (4) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 19955/05
GRAYSON AND BARNHAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 41047/19
19955/05 and 15085/06, §§ 41-42, 23 September 2008; and Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine, nos. - EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 58812/15
POLYAKH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 41047/19
58812/15 and 4 others, § 296, 17 October 2019). - EGMR, 12.07.2013 - 25424/09
ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 41047/19
However, in so far as the SAC was the ultimate authority for the interpretation of the Vetting Act, it was indispensable to provide adequate reasoning with due regard to solid evidence and other relevant considerations (see, mutatis mutandis, Mihalache v. Romania [GC], no. 54012/10, §§ 93-98 and 102-16, 8 July 2019, and the cases cited therein, and Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, §§ 94-102, ECHR 2013) on that fundamental aspect of the vetting case.
- EGMR, 08.07.2019 - 54012/10
MIHALACHE v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 41047/19
However, in so far as the SAC was the ultimate authority for the interpretation of the Vetting Act, it was indispensable to provide adequate reasoning with due regard to solid evidence and other relevant considerations (see, mutatis mutandis, Mihalache v. Romania [GC], no. 54012/10, §§ 93-98 and 102-16, 8 July 2019, and the cases cited therein, and Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, §§ 94-102, ECHR 2013) on that fundamental aspect of the vetting case. - EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 39804/06
LADY S.R.L. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 41047/19
It is for the national courts to assess the relevance of proposed evidence, its probative value and the burden of proof (see Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano, cited above, § 198; Lady S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 39804/06, § 27, 23 October 2018; and Xhoxhaj, cited above, § 325). - EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 57986/00
TUREK c. SLOVAQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 41047/19
The SAC stated nothing in relation to any circumstances which could prompt recourse to section 39 in the present case, or suggest that it was applied in a manner consistent with the applicant's rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (compare Regner, §§ 150-61, and Corneschi, §§ 90-113, both cited above; see also Turek v. Slovakia, no. 57986/00, § 115, ECHR 2006-II (extracts), and Bobek v. Poland, no. 68761/01, § 57, 17 July 2007).
- EGMR - 18559/20 (anhängig)
ZAGANJORI v. ALBANIA
The case concerns the transitional vetting process by the Independent Qualification Commission (IQC) and the Special Appeal Chamber (SAC) (see Xhoxhaj v. Albania, no. 15227/19, 9 February 2021; Besnik Cani v. Albania, no. 37474/20, 4 October 2022; Sevdari v. Albania, no. 40662/19, 13 December 2022; Nikëhasani v. Albania, no. 58997/18, 13 December 2022; and Thanza v. Albania, no. 41047/19, 4 July 2023).Was the applicant's dismissal from office "necessary in a democratic society" as required by Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, did the vetting bodies adduce relevant and sufficient reasons (see, for applicable principles, Xhoxhaj v. Albania, no. 15227/19, §§ 359-413, 9 February 2021, and Thanza v. Albania, no. 41047/19, §§ 150-58, 4 July 2023)?.
- EGMR - 23101/20 (anhängig)
MALAJ v. ALBANIA
The case concerns the applicant's transitional vetting process by the Independent Qualification Commission (IQC) and the Special Appeal Chamber (SAC) (see Xhoxhaj v. Albania, no. 15227/19, 9 February 2021; Besnik Cani v. Albania, no. 37474/20, 4 October 2022; Sevdari v. Albania, no. 40662/19, 13 December 2022; Nikëhasani v. Albania, no. 58997/18, 13 December 2022; and Thanza v. Albania, no. 41047/19, 4 July 2023).Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have an adequate possibility in the SAC proceedings to rebut the Public Commissioner's grounds of appeal in compliance with the principle of adversarial proceedings (compare with Sevdari v. Albania, no. 40662/19, §§ 120-23, 13 December 2022, and Thanza v. Albania, no. 41047/19, §§ 97-108, 4 July 2023, with further references)?.
- EGMR - 57935/18 (anhängig)
BROCI v. ALBANIA and 2 other applications
The applicants, Supreme Court judges, were dismissed from office on account of the findings on the assessment of assets and conflict of interest (application no. 57935/18), or on the assessment of assets and the background assessment (applications nos. 34288/19 and 41560/19), within the transitional vetting process by the Independent Qualification Commission (IQC) and the Special Appeal Chamber (SAC) (see Xhoxhaj v. Albania, no. 15227/19, 9 February 2021; Besnik Cani v. Albania, no. 37474/20, 4 October 2022; Sevdari v. Albania, no. 40662/19, 13 December 2022; Nikëhasani v. Albania, no. 58997/18, 13 December 2022; and Thanza v. Albania, no. 41047/19, 4 July 2023).Was the applicant's dismissal from office proportionate on account of a "conflict of interest" based on a legal or ethical requirement applicable at the time and which undermined the public's trust in the justice system (see Xhoxhaj, cited above, § 387)? Did any major shortcoming in the decision-making process on the decisive aspects of the vetting case entail a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see, for the applicable approach, Thanz v. Albania, no. 41047/19, § 158, 4 July 2023), for instance, as to notifying the applicant of - and an adequate opportunity to put forward a defence on - the allegations about the conflict of interest in V.Ç.
- EGMR - 37896/19 (anhängig)
SELIMI v. ALBANIA
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.