ECtHR: Vetting dismissal of former prosecutor was disproportionate
On 23 June 2026, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in Osmani v. Albania, finding that the dismissal of former Serious Crimes prosecutor Gentjan Osmani in the context of Albania’s transitional judicial vetting process violated Article 8 ECHR.
The applicant was represented by a team of Saccucci & Partners led by Avv. Giulia Borgna and composed also of Prof. Avv. Andrea Saccucci and Avv. Valentina Cafaro.
The case concerned the asset-assessment component of the Albanian vetting mechanism. Mr. Osmani had initially been confirmed in office by the Independent Qualification Commission, but that decision was later reversed by the Special Appeal Chamber, which dismissed him from office in 2019 on the basis of alleged insufficiency of lawful income to justify certain family expenses and savings in 2011 and 2013.
The Strasbourg Court held that the sanction of dismissal was overtly disproportionate. The irregularities identified in the vetting proceedings related essentially to the manner in which family savings had been declared, rather than to evidence of hidden assets, illicit wealth or corruption. The Court also attached importance to the fact that the applicant’s spouse, who had been assessed in relation to the same family financial situation, was ultimately confirmed in office by the vetting bodies.
The judgment is significant beyond the individual case. Albania’s vetting reform was introduced as an exceptional and far-reaching measure aimed at restoring public confidence in the judiciary and prosecutorial system through the re-evaluation of all serving judges and prosecutors. The European Court has accepted, in principle, the legitimacy of such an extraordinary mechanism. However, Osmani confirms that the public interest in judicial and prosecutorial integrity cannot dispense with the need for an individualised and proportionate assessment in each case.
In particular, vetting bodies must distinguish between genuinely unexplained or illicit assets and formal inconsistencies in financial declarations, especially where the assets concerned derive from lawful sources. Dismissal from judicial or prosecutorial office remains the most severe consequence of the vetting process and must therefore be supported by relevant and sufficient reasons, applied consistently, and proportionate to the actual seriousness of the deficiencies found.
For more information about the case and its systemic implications, please contact Saccucci & Partners at studio@saccuccipartners.com.
