Communicated on 7 February 2020 Published on 24 February 2020

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 26512/12 Ilir BEQJA against Albania lodged on 5 April 2012

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

On 1 August 2009 the applicant was elected as a member of parliament (“MP”) for a four-year term. On 21 October 2010 Parliament decided to make a referral request to the Constitutional Court in reliance on Article 78 § 1 of the Constitution. A total of 140 MPs were present, 139 MPs cast their votes and 70 MPs voted in favour of the referral request .

On 7 October 2011 the Constitutional Court, following Parliament ’ s decision, declared an incompatibility between the applicant ’ s office of a member of parliament and the fact that he had been involved in profit ‑ making activity financed from State funds on account of him being a majority shareholder in a company which had been awarded a public procurement contract in October 2009 and had received funds from the local government budget in 2010. It held that the applicant had acted in breach of the requirements laid down in Article 70 § 3 of the Constitution.

On 21 October 2011 the Central Electoral Commission decided in favour of the applicant ’ s disqualification from holding a parliamentary seat.

The applicant complains about a breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of his parliamentary disqualification.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a breach of the applicant ’ s right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, for example, Lykourezos v. Greece , no. 33554/03, §§ 50-52, 15 September 2006)? In particular:

(a) Was Parliament ’ s decision to make a referral request to the Constitutional Court lawful? In particular, was the decision taken in accordance with Article 78 § 1 of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court ’ s decision no. 29/2009?

(b) Was the Constitutional Court ’ s interpretation of Article 70 § 3 of the Constitution foreseeable?

The parties are invited to provide background information and any doctrinal interpretation or commentary as to the purpose and application of Article 70 § 3 of the Constitution.

(c) Did the Constitutional Court give adequate reasons for finding that the applicant had breached the requirements of Article 70 § 3 of the Constitution?