Background
Adnand Kosova, an Albanian prosecutor, underwent transitional vetting of his assets, integrity, and professional competence. The principal dispute concerned the source of funds used to buy his family’s Tirana flat. Kosova maintained that part of the purchase price came from a deposit paid in 1998 toward the later sale of his Korça flat. Although the 2002 sale contract recorded a price of ALL 1,000,000, his asset declarations stated that the total sale price was ALL 2,500,000.
The Independent Qualification Commission accepted Kosova’s explanation, found that he had properly declared his assets, and confirmed him in office. On appeal, however, the Special Appeal Chamber treated the 2002 sale contract as the only reliable evidence, found that Kosova had not proved the lawful origin of ALL 1,500,000, and dismissed him. The Chamber did not revisit the favorable findings on his integrity or professional competence.
The Court’s Holding
The European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that Kosova’s dismissal violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the interference with his private life was lawful, pursued legitimate aims, and occurred within a vetting reform responding to a pressing social need, the national authorities did not provide relevant and sufficient reasons showing that dismissal was proportionate.
The Court found the Special Appeal Chamber’s approach unduly formalistic. It relied almost entirely on the sale contract while failing adequately to weigh Kosova’s consistent asset declarations, the absence of a domestic requirement that the deposit agreement be written, evidence of contemporaneous property values, uncertainty surrounding the applicable tax rules, and the difficulty of reconstructing documentation for a transaction approximately twenty years old. Because this single asset issue was the sole basis for dismissal, despite favorable integrity and competence findings, the sanction was disproportionate.
The Court awarded Kosova EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses, but rejected his unsubstantiated pecuniary-loss claim. It did not order reinstatement; instead, it stated that, if Kosova requested it, reopening and re-examination of the vetting proceedings in accordance with Article 8 would be appropriate.
Key Takeaways
- Judicial-vetting bodies must assess the evidence as a whole and may not treat one formal document as conclusive without adequately addressing relevant contrary evidence.
- The age and historical context of financial transactions matter when officials are required to reconstruct documentary proof during extraordinary vetting.
- Even when a vetting system pursues legitimate and pressing public interests, dismissal must remain proportionate to the particular deficiency established.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that Albania’s extraordinary judicial-vetting process remains subject to individualized proportionality review under Article 8. A legitimate anti-corruption reform does not dispense with the need for reasoned evaluation of all material evidence, especially where dismissal rests on a decades-old transaction and the official otherwise satisfies the integrity and professional-competence criteria.
The Court’s indication that reopening would be appropriate also identifies a potential route for remedy where the original vetting bodies have completed their mandates.