{"id":15610,"date":"2026-03-11T09:24:36","date_gmt":"2026-03-11T07:24:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/03\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-11-03-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-03-11T09:24:36","modified_gmt":"2026-03-11T07:24:36","slug":"review-of-echr-decisions-for-11-03-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/03\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-11-03-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of ECHR decisions for 11\/03\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

CASE OF MANJANI v. ALBANIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Manjani v. Albania:<\/p>\n

**1. Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Albania violated Article 8 (right to private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights by disproportionately refusing Mr. Manjani’s admission to the School of Magistrates. The refusal was based on a theft conviction from when he was a minor, for which he had already been legally rehabilitated. The Court found that this decision had a significant negative impact on his professional aspirations and personal development, and that the Albanian authorities did not adequately consider his age at the time of the offense or conduct a sufficiently individualized assessment of his situation.<\/p>\n

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n

* **Introduction:** Sets out the case’s subject matter: the refusal of admission to the School of Magistrates based on a past juvenile conviction.
\n * **Facts:** Details the applicant’s background, the circumstances of the theft conviction, and the legal proceedings related to his application to the School of Magistrates. It also covers the decisions of the High Prosecutorial Council, the Administrative Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Court of Albania.
\n * **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Outlines the relevant Albanian laws, including the Status of Judges and Prosecutors Act, the Criminal Code, and the Juvenile Justice Code. It also references international legal materials, such as Council of Europe recommendations and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 8:** Examines whether the refusal of admission violated the applicant’s right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention.
\n * **Admissibility:** Considers whether Article 8 applies in this case, given the impact on the applicant’s professional life and social identity.
\n * **Merits:** Assesses whether the interference with the applicant’s right to private life was justified under Article 8 \u00a7 2, i.e., whether it was “in accordance with the law,” pursued a legitimate aim, and was “necessary in a democratic society.”
\n * **Other Alleged Violations:** Briefly addresses the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) but finds it unnecessary to rule on them separately.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** Deals with the issue of just satisfaction, including damages and costs. The Court awards the applicant EUR 4,500 for non-pecuniary damage but rejects his claims for pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

**3. Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n

* **Applicability of Article 8:** The decision clarifies that restrictions on professional life can fall under Article 8 if they affect an individual’s social identity and relationships with others. It emphasizes that professional life is often linked to private life.
\n * **Reason-Based and Consequence-Based Approaches:** The Court confirms that both the reasons behind a measure and its consequences can trigger Article 8.
\n * **Individualized Assessment:** The judgment underscores the importance of individualized assessments, especially when dealing with past juvenile offenses. A blanket ban without considering the specific circumstances is unlikely to be considered proportionate.
\n * **Rehabilitation:** The decision highlights that rehabilitation is a crucial factor and that national laws should not undermine the reintegration of convicted persons into society.
\n * **Best Interests of the Child:** The Court reiterates the importance of considering the best interests of the child, especially when dealing with offenses committed as a minor.
\n * **Proportionality:** The decision stresses that any interference with private life must be proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. The authorities must strike a fair balance between the individual’s rights and the interests of society.<\/p>\n

This decision serves as a reminder that past mistakes, especially those made during youth, should not automatically preclude individuals from pursuing their professional aspirations, particularly when they have demonstrated rehabilitation and pose no present threat.<\/p>\n

I hope this analysis is helpful.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF MAMAIS v. GREECE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the Mamais v. Greece decision:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Greece in violation of Article 4 \u00a7 1 of Protocol No. 7 (ne bis in idem -protection against double jeopardy) and Article 6 \u00a7 2 (presumption of innocence) of the Convention. The case concerned a Greek national who was fined by an administrative authority for illegal extraction of stones, despite having been acquitted in criminal proceedings for the same act. The Greek administrative courts did not consider the criminal acquittal because the full reasoning behind the acquittal was not provided. The ECtHR held that the administrative proceedings were criminal in nature and that the applicant had been essentially tried twice for the same offense. The Court also found that the administrative courts’ actions violated the applicant’s right to the presumption of innocence.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n

* **Subject Matter and Facts:** The judgment begins by outlining the core issue: the administrative court’s failure to consider a criminal acquittal due to the absence of detailed reasoning in the acquittal judgment. It then details the factual background, including the criminal complaint against the applicant, the administrative fine imposed by the Mining Inspectorate, the applicant’s challenges to the fine, and the conflicting judgments of the criminal and administrative courts.
\n * **Relevant Legal Framework:** The decision cites Article 5 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (CAP) and Article 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), which are central to the case. Article 5 CAP addresses the binding nature of criminal judgments on administrative courts, while Article 142 CCP concerns the finalization of court records and judgments.
\n * **The Court\u2019s Assessment:** This section is divided into:<\/p>\n

* **Admissibility:** The Court addresses and dismisses the Government’s objection that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies.
\n * **Merits:** The Court examines whether the administrative proceedings were “criminal” in nature, whether there was a “final” acquittal on the merits, whether the offenses were the same, and whether the proceedings were duplicated. The Court concludes that the ne bis in idem principle was violated because the applicant was essentially tried twice for the same offense. It also finds a violation of the presumption of innocence.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** The Court addresses the applicant’s claims for damages and awards EUR 9,800 for non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n

* **Ne Bis in Idem:** The ECtHR reaffirms that Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 prohibits trying an individual for a second “offense” arising from identical or substantially the same facts as the first offense.
\n * **Criminal Nature of Proceedings:** The Court emphasizes that even administrative penalties can be considered “criminal” in nature if they involve punishment and deterrence, not solely compensation.
\n * **Presumption of Innocence:** The decision underscores that administrative courts must respect the presumption of innocence stemming from a criminal acquittal and cannot hold an individual liable for the same offense for which they were acquitted.
\n * **Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies:** The Court clarifies that an applicant should not be penalized for failing to submit the full text of acquittal judgments if they made timely and reasonable efforts to obtain them.<\/p>\n

This decision highlights the importance of administrative courts considering criminal acquittals and respecting the principles of ne bis in idem and the presumption of innocence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

CASE OF MANJANI v. ALBANIA Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Manjani v. Albania: **1. Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Albania violated Article 8 (right to private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights by disproportionately refusing…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[129],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15610","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-echr-decisions","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15610","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15610"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15610\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15610"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15610"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15610"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}