Another ruling from Strasbourg is putting pressure on how some Vetting cases have been handled in Albania. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the dismissal of prosecutor Adnan Kosova was disproportionate and that the Albanian state violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
What the Strasbourg court decided
In the ruling announced on October 6, 2026, the ECHR concluded that the interference against Kosova had not been sufficiently justified by the Albanian authorities. The court found that his dismissal from the justice system had infringed his right to respect for private life.
The court did not use formulaic paragraphs as a standard of reasoning; it required “relevant and sufficient” reasons, which, according to the ruling, were lacking in this case. In essence, Strasbourg considered the measure taken against the prosecutor excessive in relation to the aims claimed by the Vetting process.
How the decision began and was overturned in Albania
Adnan Kosova had been a prosecutor since 1986 and had worked at the General Prosecutor’s Office in Tirana since 1998. He was initially confirmed in office by the Independent Qualification Commission on December 20, 2018, after the IQC found that his assets had been declared consistently and that there was a convincing explanation for their origin.
The decision was later appealed by the Public Commissioner. On March 13, 2020, the Special Appeals Chamber, by a 3-2 majority, overturned the confirmation and dismissed Kosova under the assets criterion. It was precisely this reversal that became the subject of review in Strasbourg.
The point of dispute: sale of the apartment in Korça
The core of the case concerned income from the sale of an apartment in Korça, used to buy the family home in Tirana. The 2002 contract listed 1 million lek, while Kosova had declared that the real price had been 2.5 million lek and that 1.5 million lek had been received earlier as a deposit.
According to Strasbourg’s assessment, the Special Appeals Chamber had taken an overly formal approach, treating the sale contract as the only reliable evidence. The court noted that proper consideration had not been given to the fact that, under domestic law, the deposit agreement did not have to be made in writing, as well as to data on real estate market prices in Korça during that period.
The difficulty of old evidence and the bill for the state
The court also pointed to a problem affecting the very standard of reassessment: the facts that had to be proven dated back about 20 years, before the entry into force of the 2003 law on asset declaration. According to its reasoning, this made it more difficult to reconstruct documentary evidence and required a less mechanical assessment by the Albanian authorities.
In the end, Albania was ordered to pay Adnan Kosova 6,000 euros in non-pecuniary damages and 5,000 euros for procedural costs. The ECHR also considered that, if he requests it, it would be appropriate for the Vetting proceedings to be reopened and the case reviewed in line with Article 8.
The ruling adds to the question marks over how some dismissals have been reasoned in the name of Vetting, especially when a strictly formal interpretation of evidence produces irreversible career consequences.
Beyond the financial compensation, Kosova’s case brings back to the center of debate whether the filters of justice reform have always been applied with the same standard and with full guarantees for the proportionality of decisions.