The European Court of Human Rights has held that Albania violated Article 8 of the Convention by refusing to admit a candidate to prosecutorial training solely on the basis of a conviction committed when he was a minor. In Manjani v. Albania, the Court concluded that the authorities had failed to conduct an individualised assessment and that the resulting ban was disproportionate.
The applicant, Shiqiri Manjani, was convicted of theft in 2006 at the age of 15 and received an eight month prison sentence, the execution of which was suspended. The sentencing court noted that he had admitted the offence, posed a low risk to the public and had caused minimal harm, as the property had been returned. In 2017 he was formally recognised as legally rehabilitated. He subsequently trained and worked as a lawyer and, from 2019, served as a judicial police officer within a prosecutor’s office.
In 2020 Mr Manjani applied to join the three-year training programme for magistrates at the School of Magistrates of Albania. He disclosed his conviction during the application process and successfully passed the entrance examination. However, following a background check, the High Prosecutorial Council of Albania refused his admission on the basis that his prior conviction rendered him ineligible.
The refusal was upheld by the national courts, including the Supreme Court of Albania, which held that legislation barred individuals convicted of serious offences from entering the justice system regardless of rehabilitation. The Constitutional Court of Albania subsequently dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint.
Before the Strasbourg court, Mr Manjani argued that the refusal interfered with his right to respect for private life under Article 8. The Court held that the absolute and permanent exclusion from prosecutorial training had a serious impact on his ability to shape his professional identity and pursue his chosen career.
While the Court accepted that maintaining the integrity of the judiciary constituted a legitimate aim, it found that the domestic authorities had failed to undertake a sufficiently thorough and individualised assessment. Their analysis focused solely on the existence of a conviction and did not adequately consider the applicant’s age at the time of the offence, the non-violent nature of the conduct, the passage of time, or his subsequent rehabilitation and professional conduct.
The Court also emphasised that offences committed as a minor require particular consideration of the principles of reintegration and the best interests of the child, as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. By treating juvenile and adult convictions identically, the domestic authorities failed to take these principles properly into account.
In those circumstances, the Court held that the ban on Mr Manjani’s admission to the School of Magistrates was disproportionate and that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.