issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 147 (2024)
11.06.2024
Decision to remove MP from office because of conflict of interest was not
arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable
European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the European Convention on
Human Rights.
The case concerned the decision to remove Mr Kokëdhima from office as a Member of Parliament
because of a conflict of interest with his ownership of a company that received income from public
resources.
The Constitutional Court had taken particular issue with the fact that Mr Kokëdhima had only sold
the shares in his company more than six months after his election. The Court could not find anything
arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable in that approach. Moreover, Mr Kokëdhima had to have known
about the applicable laws and practice in his case and therefore could have foreseen that continuing
to benefit from income generated from contracts with public authorities in his new role as an MP
would amount to a conflict in interest.
Principal facts
The applicant, Koço Kokëdhima, is an Albanian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Tirana.
Mr Kokëdhima was elected as a Member of Parliament on 2 August 2013 in a general election in
Albania.
He had been the sole shareholder of a private joint-stock company, Abissnet SHA, since 1999 and, as
such, sought guidance from the relevant authorities as to whether there was a potential conflict of
interest with his role as an MP. In particular, Abissnet SHA had concluded contracts for providing
internet and fixed telephony services to various public authorities between 3 January and 2 August
2013. He did not, however, receive any clear answer and Mr Kokëdhima sold his shares in the
company on 6 February 2014.
In February 2015 the Democratic Party’s Parliamentary Group requested that Parliament refer to the
Constitutional Court the question of whether Mr Kokëdhima’s position as an MP was incompatible
with his being the sole shareholder of Abissnet SHA.
In a judgment of June 2016 the Constitutional Court concluded that there had been a conflict of
interest within the meaning of Article 70 § 3 of the Constitution, which provided that MPs were not
allowed to engage in any profit-making activities that generated income from public assets. The
Constitutional Court noted in particular that even though Mr Kokëdhima’s company had not entered
into any new agreements with public authorities after 2 August 2013, it had nevertheless continued
to receive payments under the pre-existing contracts.
1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.
