Published on 23 October 2023

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 12756/22 Agron LAMAJ against Albania lodged on 24 February 2022 communicated on 6 October 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The applicant is an attorney. At the relevant time he represented a client who was involved in two parallel and allegedly interconnected proceedings relating to an inheritance and the ownership of an asset.

2. Acting on behalf of his client, in November 2020 the applicant submitted before the Supreme Court a request that, until resolution of the inheritance dispute which was pending before them, the examination of the parallel ownership dispute which was pending before the District Court of Pogradec be stayed.

3. On 8 January 2021 the Supreme Court ruled that the request to stay the examination of the ownership dispute was abusive as the court could not stay proceedings that were ongoing before a district court. In addition to rejecting the request, it fined the applicant with 50,000 Albanian Lek (approximately 400 euro at the time) and declared that any appeals against the fine would be heard by the Supreme Court itself.

4. On 30 April 2021 the Supreme Court, sitting in a bench of three judges that included two judges who had also been part of the bench of 8 January 2021, rejected the applicants appeal against the fine.

5. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal arguing, among others, that the Supreme Court’ bench of 30 April 2021 had not been impartial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

6. By a decision of 25 October 2021, served to the applicant on 16 November 2021, the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal on the grounds that his client’s dispute was still pending before the regular courts and thus remedies had not been exhausted.

7. Three out of the seven judges appended a dissent stating that the proceedings regarding the applicant’s fine were final and the court should have examined his complaints. They relied on a precedent of 8 April 2021 in which the court had declared a similar complaint admissible.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable, under its civil limb, to the circumstances of the present case ( see Angerjärv and Greinoman v. Estonia , nos. 16358/18 and 34964/18, §§ 95-98, 4 October 2022)? In the affirmative, has the applicant been deprived of his right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to the dismissal of his constitutional appeal for non-exhaustion of legal remedies (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, § 81, 5 April 2018, and mutatis mutandis , Arribas Antón v. Spain , no. 16563/11, § 44 - 52, 20 January 2015)?

2. In view of the composition of the Supreme Court’s bench of 30 April 2021, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to an impartial tribunal under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ( see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 61, 25 September 2018, and Toziczka v. Poland , no. 29995/08, § 36, 24 July 2012)? In that connection, which domestic rules govern the composition of the Supreme Court’s panels that hear appeals against fines imposed by the Supreme Court itself?