Published on 10 May 202 1

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 35703/17 Hajrie NURAJ against Albania lodged on 13 May 2017 communicated on 21 April 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns a denial of the applicant ’ s right of access to court in an employment dispute between the applicant and a sovereign embassy on account of state immunity.

Between 2012 and 2014 the applicant was employed as a secretary at a sovereign embassy in Tirana. In November 2014 her employer decided to terminate the contract of employment on grounds of breaches of confidentiality and work discipline. The applicant brought a claim for damages against the employer for unfair termination of the employment contract.

In February 2015 the Tirana District Court did not accept the embassy ’ s plea of state immunity and declared that it had jurisdiction to hear the claim. Following the embassy ’ s appeal to the Supreme Court, in June 2016 the Supreme Court, relying on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 and, in particular, Article 11 of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property 2004, declared the civil action outside the national courts ’ jurisdiction on account of the state jurisdictional immunity, which the embassy had not waived expressly. The court stated that, having served as translator and secretary for the Ambassador, the applicant had access to confidential information and her duties were linked to the exercise of sovereign authority of a foreign State. The termination of employment related to breaches of confidentiality of such information .

On 21 December 2016 the Constitutional Court, having regard to the Supreme Court ’ s decision, declared the applicant ’ s constitutional appeal inadmissible.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a breach of the applicant ’ s right of access to court under Article 6 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Did the Supreme Court place any restriction on the applicant ’ s right of access to court?

(b) If so, did the impugned restriction pursue a legitimate aim (see Cudak v. Lithuania [GC], no. 15869/02, § 62, ECHR 2010)?

(c) If so, was the impugned restriction proportionate to the aim pursued (see Sabeh El Leil v. France [GC], no. 34869/05, §§ 57-67 29 June 2011)?