Communicated on 7 September 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 29943/18 Rovena GASHI and Dritan GINA against Albania lodged on 26 June 2018

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the immediate suspension from their duties of two high profile prosecutors on the basis of a criminal investigation initiated against them for failing to submit an accurate assets declaration in the framework of the vetting (lustration) process. The applicants challenged the suspension order before the Appeal Chamber, a new established body under the Vetting Act no. 84/2016 to review appeals. Their appeal was dismissed and the decision cannot be appealed. The applicant ’ s assets declaration was published in an online newspaper without their consent.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case?

2. Did the Appeal Chamber (“AC”) satisfy the criteria laid down in the Court ’ s case-law to be seen as a “tribunal” within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention (see Olujić v. Croatia , no. 22330/05, 5 February 2009 and Ivanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 29908/11 , 21 January 2016 )?

3. Did the applicant have a fair hearing, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular was AC which dealt with the applicants ’ case, independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Were the provisions of Law no. 84/2016 clear and accessible as regards all stages of the proceedings before the AC, ensuring the applicants ’ rights protected under Article 6?

4. Has there been a violation of the applicants ’ right to respect for their private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention on account of their immediate suspension from their duties for an arbitrary indefinite period of time without any possibility of judicial review? (see Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, ECHR 2017 (extracts), No. 59320/00, § 50, ECHR 2004-VI; Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, ECHR 2005 ‑ X)? In the affirmative, was the interference in the exercise of the applicants right to respect for their private life prescribed by law and necessary, within the meaning of Article 8 § 2?

5 . Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the fact that the assets declaration of the applicants had been disclosed to the media?

6. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for his above-mentioned complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?