Nine former magistrates dismissed by vetting seek a return to the judiciary

Nine former magistrates dismissed by vetting are asking the Constitutional Court for their return to the system. While for at least four of them it was the Strasbourg Court that suggested the reopening of the process for them, the others seem simply to be trying their luck again, now that the Constitutional Court has inherited the competences of the Special Appeals Chamber (KPA).

In June 2026, the Special Appeals Chamber, known as the second and highest instance of vetting, concluded its mission. The KPA was considered a Chamber of the Constitutional Court, and for this reason its competences have passed to this Court.

So far there are at least nine former judges and prosecutors who have requested a review of the KPA’s decisions. Four of them, in fact, hold decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, which has found various violations in the process that led to their dismissal, suggesting a re-examination of the cases.

This list includes former Appeals judge Ervin Metalla, the former head of the Durrës Appeals Prosecution, Ferdinand Elezi, former prosecutor Gentjan Osmani, and the former president of the Puka Court, Izet Kadana. The latter, dismissed with problems in all three criteria, benefited from the fact that the judging panel against him had included Luan Daci, later convicted by the Special Court for falsifying the documents that enabled his selection to the KPA. For this reason, Strasbourg had found a violation of the “right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”

The European Court of Human Rights has also found in favour of former Supreme Court judge Shkëlzen Selimi, on the grounds that during the process he had not been informed of the charges raised against him. But in this case, it does not appear to have suggested the reopening of the process. Nevertheless, Selimi has requested that the entire procedure against him be re-examined from the beginning for all three re-evaluation criteria.

In the practice followed by the KPA, the review of its decisions was refused in all cases, except those for which Strasbourg had spoken in favour of a review. Nevertheless, it seems the former magistrates want to try their luck, since the Constitutional Court has now entered the game, which can hardly change the practice followed by the Special Chamber.

And there are at least three former judges who have complained to the Constitutional Court against the KPA’s decision: Bledar Avdullai, a former judge in Tirana, who has even submitted the request twice with the same object, Alltun Çela, the former president of the Saranda Court, and Luan Hasneziri, a former Serious Crimes judge.

A review of a decision, according to the KPA’s practice, can be requested if a new cause is discovered. And precisely this clause seems to have been used by the former chief prosecutor of Tirana, Elizabeta Imeraj. She requests that the Constitutional Court find that “keeping in force decision no. 11, dated 27.04.2022, of the Special Appeals Chamber, under the conditions of the full acquittal of the former brother-in-law (A.B.), produces constitutional consequences incompatible with the rule of law. Take the necessary measures for the effective restoration of the applicant’s constitutional rights in accordance with the competences of the Constitutional Court,” said Elizabeta Imeraj.

Imeraj, however, had been dismissed because for all three criteria — assets, integrity of the figure and professional abilities — the KPA had found that “public trust in the justice system has been undermined.”

Also on the list of cases addressed to the Constitutional Court is a request by SPAK, which has also taken over the functions of the former Public Commissioner in the vetting process. SPAK requests the review of the KPK decision that had left prosecutor Elona Alvora in office. Her confirmation had been opposed by the then Commissioner Irena Nino.

But the KPA, in July of last year, had decided to suspend Alvora from duty and send her to the School of Magistrates for training for a period of one year. Such a decision had been suggested in that process also by Adnand Xholi, as SPAK’s representative. Now that the prosecutor’s training period has ended, it remains to be seen what the decision will be on her fate in the ranks of the judiciary.