CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 18 décembre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:18pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sFC1B4D41 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9A9EC9C9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:48pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s7B62E200 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sF11CDCAF { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAA8DEB86 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5D4358A { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify } .sCBC6AB24 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s132B84CB { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s64129EAB { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify } .s9AA12E20 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD107E55B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s71BC72F4 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5732EDF0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sAC7466F { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify } .sEBA8B701 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s893489D0 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9AB2A095 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify } .sA6CAF0 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify } .s168049A { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify } .sCC235651 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s48125EFE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s450434BC { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8B80EBE7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify } .s84F7F2FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:10pt } .sEF67F127 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s3CCA30AE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sD150073 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s218A4329 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:10pt } .s6224832E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:10pt } .sD5C4EFF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s86439055 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEE18EE45 { width:48.95pt; display:inline-block } .sEA2FDF23 { width:197.32pt; display:inline-block } .sF2E32F9B { width:36.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5F32E900 { width:208.31pt; display:inline-block }       FOURTH SECTION     CASE OF MARINI v. ALBANIA (Application no. 3738/02)       JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG     18 December 2007         FINAL     07/07/2008     This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article   44 §   2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision . In the case of Marini v. Albania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Mr   J. Casadevall,   Mr   G. Bonello,   Mr   K. Traja,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi,   Mr   J. Šikuta,   Mrs   P. Hirvelä, judges, and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 2 October 2007 and on 27   November   2007, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 3738/02) against the Republic of Albania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Albanian national, Mr Vlash Marini (“the applicant”), on 24 January 2002. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr S. Puto, a lawyer practising in Tirana. The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs S. Mëneri of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     The applicant alleged that the authorities had failed to fulfil the obligations they had entered into in establishing a company on a 50%-50% basis. He alleged, in particular, a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in several respects: failure to enforce a final judgment, excessive length of proceedings, lack of reasoning of court decisions and denial of his right of access to court. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he complained of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of his complaints under Article 6. Lastly, he complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and of Article 14 of the Convention. 4.     On 10 April 2006 the Fourth Section of the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.   THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Tirana. A.     Proceedings before the State Arbitration Commission 6.     In 1991 the applicant, an American and Albanian national, and the Albanian Government established a joint-venture company for a period of ten years. It was called “Marini-Albplastik” and specialised in the production of plastic materials. The company’s memorandum, dated 11   March 1991, was validated by a decision of the Council of Ministers on 23   April 1991. The new company was duly registered in the Commercial Register. 7.     The assets of the company consisted of a factory with its equipment, of a total value of 1,500,000 Albanian leks (ALL –approximately 12,497 euros (EUR)), which had previously belonged to a State-owned company named Mandimpeks. The applicant’s investment in the company consisted of capital amounting to 1,100,000 United States dollars (USD – approximately EUR 834,098), to be used for the renovation of the factory and the future purchase of new technology. The parties would each hold 50% of the shares. 8.     On 30   May 1991, in order to comply with the obligations entered into in the memorandum, the applicant, on behalf of Marini-Albplastik, signed a contract for the purchase of new technology for the production of plastic materials with Edil-Plastic, an Italian company. A lump sum of USD 228,000 (approximately EUR 173,000) was paid by the applicant. A second amount of money was to be invested subsequent to the first stage of the factory’s renovation. 9.     When 60% of the renovation of the factory had been carried out, the State terminated the company’s activities and requested the applicant to propose new terms of cooperation. The applicant objected. Subsequently, in a decision of 3 April 1993 the Council of Ministers annulled its decision of 23   April 1991 and unilaterally rescinded the agreement establishing the Marini-Albplastik company. 10.     On an unspecified date, in order to obtain redress, the applicant applied to the State Arbitration Commission ( Arbitrazhi i Shtetit ), which was the competent body at the material time to deal with disputes involving State joint-ventures. 11.     On 7 May 1993 the State Arbitration Commission upheld the validity of the Marini-Albplastik company’s memorandum. Moreover, it ordered the State to pay the applicant ALL 41 million (approximately EUR 341,608) for the loss of profit incurred as a result of the cessation of the company’s activities during 1992 and ALL 68,400 (approximately EUR   569) to cover bank interest on the USD   228,000 investment. Furthermore, it ordered the State-owned company to finish the reconstruction work at the factory by 30   October 1993. Lastly, the State Arbitration Commission dismissed the applicant’s request to have his share of the investment refunded, on the ground that it was part of the assets of the company. 12.     The State appealed against the above-mentioned decision to the Plenary State Arbitration Commission ( Mbledhja e Përgjithshme e Arbitrarëve të Arbitrazhit Shtetëror ). On 7 July 1993 the latter upheld the part of the decision of the State Arbitration Commission ordering the State to comply with its obligation to pursue the activities of the joint venture, but quashed the part of the decision awarding the applicant compensation for bank interest and loss of profit and remitted the case to the State Arbitration Commission for a fresh calculation of the loss of profit. The first part of the decision of 7 May 1993 became final on the same date. 13.     On 5 November 1993 the State Arbitration Commission, following the guidelines given by the Plenary State Arbitration Commission in its decision of 7   July 1993, ordered the State to pay the applicant a lump sum of ALL 26   million (approximately EUR 217,286) for loss of profit in 1992. The decision became final on the same date. 14.     On an unspecified date in 1993 the bailiffs, in compliance with the above-mentioned final decision, froze the assets of the State-owned company and paid the applicant the sum of ALL 26 million due to him. 15.     Following the refusal of the Council of Ministers to serve the Plenary State Arbitration Commission’s decision of 7 July 1993 on him, the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court in order to obtain redress. On 8 November 1995 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s constitutional rights and ordered that he be served with the decision issued by the Plenary State Arbitration Commission. 16.     Two years after the decision of the Plenary State Arbitration Commission, the Council of Ministers served the decision on the applicant. B.     Proceedings regarding the validity of the State Arbitration Commission’s decision 17.     On an unspecified date the State-owned company that was the applicant’s partner in the joint-venture applied to the Tirana District Court to have the arbitration decision of 5 November 1993 declared null and void on the ground that it had been issued after the Arbitration Body had ceased to exist as a decision-making body on 4 November 1993. Moreover, it requested the court to annul the bailiffs’ order concerning the freezing of its assets with a view to enforcing the arbitration decision. 18.     On 27 November 1996 and 11 June 1997 respectively, the Tirana District Court and the Tirana Court of Appeal dismissed the company’s application and upheld the validity of the State Arbitration Commission’s decision in the applicant’s favour. The judgment became final at the latest on 26 June 1997. C.     Privatisation of the factory belonging to the joint-venture company 19.     On 13 September 1996 and 24 January 1997 respectively, the National Privatisation Agency ( Agjensia Kombëtare e Privatizimit ) sold to F. the premises of the factory and the plot of land adjacent to it, despite their being the assets of the Marini-Albplastik company. 20.     The applicant initiated proceedings contesting the privatisation decisions. 21.     On 10 June 1998, 18 December 1998, 1 December 1999, 19   December 2000 and 2 May 2001 respectively, the Tirana District Court, the Tirana Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court Civil Chamber, the Supreme Court Joint Colleges, and the Constitutional Court found the privatisation acts to be null and void and, inter alia , ordered that the factory be treated as part of the assets of the Marini-Albplastik company. Lastly, the domestic courts ordered F. to return possession of the factory and its adjacent plot of land to the partners of the Marini-Albplastik company. 22.     Following a request by the applicant, on 17 January 2000 the Tirana District Court issued a writ for the execution of the judgment of 10 June 1998. 23.     Notwithstanding the above-mentioned order, on 4   July 2001 the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance, without the applicant’s consent, concluded a twenty-year lease agreement with another company, D., which was to operate the factory at issue for the purpose of producing shoes (see the proceedings outlined in section F below). The D. company already occupied and operated the factory under a four-year lease agreement concluded with F. in 1998 (see the proceedings outlined in section D below). D.     Proceedings regarding the validity of the first lease agreement 24.     In 1998, while the proceedings on the legality of the decisions to privatise the factory were pending, F. concluded a four-year lease agreement with the D. company, on the basis of which the latter would operate the factory for the purpose of producing shoes. 25.     With a view to suspending the execution of the writ of 17   January 2000, the D. company lodged an application with the Tirana District Court for a stay of the enforcement proceedings. On 17 February 2000 the court upheld the application. 26.     In a decision of 11 May 2000 the Tirana District Court held that the applicant should comply with the terms of the lease agreement entered into by F. and the D. company. On 2 February 2001 the Court of Appeal upheld the above-mentioned decision. 27.     The applicant appealed against the decision to the Supreme Court. 28.     On 23   December 2002 the Supreme Court found that, since the privatisation decisions had been held to be null and void, F. had been in no position to conclude such an agreement: therefore the lease was null and void. The court quashed the decisions of the District Court and Court of Appeal and discontinued the proceedings. 29.     However, by that time the four-year lease agreement had terminated (on 2 October 2002) and the D. company now operated the factory under a new lease agreement, this time concluded with the Government (see the proceedings outlined in section F below). E.     The new memorandum of the Marini-Albplastik company 30.     On 1 February 2001, while the proceedings against the D. company concerning the validity of the first lease agreement were pending, the Ministry of Labour and the applicant agreed to establish a new Marini-Albplastik company. The new company was founded on the basis of the memorandum of the first Marini-Albplastik company, dated 11 March 1991, the State Arbitration Commission’s decision of 7   May 1993 and the District Court’s final judgment of 10 June 1998 in the applicant’s favour. 31.     By section 9 of the memorandum establishing the new company, “the parties recognised their responsibilities for the failure to comply with the obligations entered into in the first memorandum and agreed to pay the damages due (the State Arbitration Commission’s decision of 7 May 1993 and the Tirana District Court’s judgment of 10 June 1998)”. 32.     The parties agreed to joint ownership of the company on a 50-50 basis for a period of 10   years and the applicant was to act as the administrator of the company. 33.     In a decision of 18 May 2001 the Tirana District Court registered the new company as Marini-Albplastik Ltd, a plastic-manufacturing company jointly owned by the applicant and a State-owned enterprise that at the material time was under the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour. 34.     On 6 September 2001 the partners held the first general meeting of the company in order to quantify their shares in the capital. The representative of the State-owned company submitted that the State would register its share of the capital in the name of the Marini-Albplastik company once the applicant had invested his share. The applicant disagreed on the ground that the law provided that the partners should invest their shares of the capital at the same time. F.     Proceedings regarding the validity of the second lease agreement 1.     The second lease agreement 35.     On 4 July 2001, despite the registration of the new company on 18   May 2001 and in breach of the obligations assumed by the Ministry of Labour on 1 February 2001, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance, without the applicant’s consent, concluded a twenty-year lease agreement with the D. company. Under the new agreement, the D. company was to use the factory belonging to the Marini-Albplastik company for the purpose of producing shoes. 2.     Removal from the register of the Marini–Albplastik company’s assets 36.     In the light of the above, on 23 July 2001 the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance ordered the removal of Marini-Albplastik’s assets from the Immovable Property Register ( Zyra e Regjistrimit të Pasurive të Paluajtshme ). As a result, the factory and the adjacent plot of land were registered as State properties. 37.     The applicant lodged appeals against the order with the Immovable Property Registry Office, the Tirana District Court and other State bodies. On 6 August 2001 the Tirana District Court ordered a stay of execution of the order. 38.     In a letter of 27 July 2001 the Deputy Prime Minister advised the Minister for Labour, the Minister for Economic Affairs and the Immovable Property Registry Office to comply with the courts’ final decisions in the applicant’s favour. 39.     Notwithstanding the above, the assets of the applicant’s company were removed from the Immovable Property Register. 40.     On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an application with the District Court contesting the lawfulness of such a measure. 41.     On 24 June 2002 the District Court ordered the re-entry of the company’s assets in the register. 42.     On 14 January 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed the District Court’s decision on procedural points and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh consideration. 43.     On 19 March 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant, holding that his grounds of appeal fell outside the scope of Article   472 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). 44.     On an unspecified date the Tirana District Court, in the rehearing of the case, called the liquidator of the applicant’s company to intervene in the proceedings as a third party (see the proceedings outlined in section   H below). 45.     On 27 January 2005 the District Court, in a fresh set of proceedings, dismissed the applicant’s application on the ground that he represented a company in liquidation and thus had no standing before the court. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 12   May 2005. 46.     On 27 January 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant, holding that his grounds of appeal fell outside the scope of Article   472 of the CCP. G.     Proceedings for the enforcement of the writ of 17 January 2000 47.     In the light of the above, the D. company applied to the Tirana District Court for a stay of execution of the writ issued by the same court on 17 January 2000 (see paragraph 24 above). On 14 October 2002 the court allowed that request. 48.     The applicant appealed to the Tirana Court of Appeal. 49.     On 5 January 2003 the Court of Appeal found that the D. company was not a party to the proceedings that had led to the writ of 17 January 2000 and was therefore not eligible to make such a request. 50.     On 10 April and 9 May 2002, and on 23 November 2002 respectively, the Ombudsperson ( Avokati I Popullit ) and the Ambassador of the United States in Albania called on the authorities to honour the final judgments given in the applicant’s case. 51.     In a letter of 27 January 2003 the Minister for Economic Affairs requested the Bailiff’s Office not to enforce the writ of 17 January 2000 since the factory had been entered in the Immovable Properties Register as State-owned property and was therefore no longer an asset belonging to Marini-Albplastik but was subject to a lease agreement concluded with another company. 52.     On 5 February 2003 the Bailiff’s Office decided not to proceed with the enforcement of the writ. 53.     Following an appeal by the applicant on behalf of the company, the District Court on 28 March 2003 and the Court of Appeal on 5 June 2003 upheld the applicant’s grounds of appeal and ordered the Bailiff’s Office to proceed with the enforcement. 54.     The Bailiff’s Office appealed against those decisions before the Supreme Court. 55.     On 23 March 2004 the Supreme Court, Joint Colleges, quashed the decisions of the District Court and the Court of Appeal and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh examination, on the ground that the courts had failed to give notice of the proceedings to the State Advocate’s Office. 56.     On an unspecified date, in the new set of proceedings the District Court, having regard to its own decision to liquidate the company, called the liquidator of the Marini-Albplastik company to join the proceedings (see the proceedings summarised in section H below). The applicant contested this on the ground that the dispute concerned his interests and not those of the company in liquidation. 57.     On 1 October 2004, at the liquidator’s request, the District Court discontinued the proceedings. The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court on 10 February 2005 and 13 April 2006, respectively. H.     Proceedings regarding the liquidation of Marini-Albplastik 58.     In 2003 the State-owned company on various occasions unsuccessfully requested the applicant, in his capacity as administrator of the Marini-Albplastik company, to organise a general meeting of the company. 59.     On 21 February 2003, during a general meeting of the company, the representative of the State-owned company informed the applicant of its decision to rescind the agreement with the Marini-Albplastik company. The applicant contested this. Accordingly, the Ministry of Economic Affairs requested the court to order the winding-up of the Marini-Albplastik company and the liquidation of its assets, on account of the applicant’s lack of interest in the company’s activities. 60.     On 8 May 2003 the court appointed a liquidator and confirmed the liquidation of Marini-Albplastik. The District Court’s decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in a decision of 20 November 2003. The Supreme Court, on 20 July 2004, dismissed a subsequent appeal, holding that the grounds of appeal fell outside the scope of Article 472 of the CCP. 61.     On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court, claiming, inter alia , that the proceedings were unfair on the grounds that the Ministry of Economic Affairs, not being a shareholder of the Marini-Albplastik company, had no right to request the winding-up of the company and that the proceedings had been initiated against the applicant and not against the company, since the Ministry of Labour, the other shareholder, had not been given notice of the proceedings. 62.     On 14 October 2004 the liquidator of the Marini-Albplastik company requested the applicant, in his capacity as the company’s administrator, to submit the company’s accounts and its stamp. In view of the applicant’s reluctance to participate in the general meetings organised by the liquidator, the latter requested the Tirana District Court to validate the final accounts of the company and to order its removal from the Commercial Register. The applicant requested a stay of the proceedings until the Constitutional Court had determined the case. 63.     On 6 January 2005 the Tirana District Court dismissed the applicant’s request, validated the final accounts of the company and ordered the termination of the winding-up proceedings. Moreover, it ordered that the termination of the winding-up proceedings be entered in the Commercial Register. That decision was upheld by the Tirana Court of Appeal on 7 June 2005. 64.     On 27 April 2005 the Constitutional Court, in a formation of seven out of the nine judges provided for by the relevant law on its functioning and organisation, dismissed the applicant’s appeal since its vote was tied. The court’s reasoning was limited to the fact that the court could not reach a majority on any of the issues raised in the present case. The applicant was invited by virtue of section 74 of the Constitutional Court Act to lodge a fresh appeal (see paragraph 72 below). 65.     The applicant did not lodge a fresh constitutional appeal under section 74 of the Constitutional Court Act. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.     The Constitution 66.     The relevant parts of the Albanian Constitution read as follows: Article 42 § 2 “In the protection of his constitutional and legal rights, freedoms and interests, or in defending a criminal charge, everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing, within a reasonable time, by an independent and impartial court established by law.” Article 131 “The Constitutional Court shall decide: ... (f) in a ruling that shall be final, complaints by individuals alleging a violation of their constitutional rights to a fair hearing, after all legal remedies for the protection of those rights have been exhausted.” Article 133 “(...) 2. The Constitutional Court decides with the majority of all its members.”   Article 142 § 3 “State bodies shall comply with judicial decisions.” B. The Constitutional Court (Organisation and Operation) Act (Law no. 8577) of 10 February 2000 67.     The Act provides that the Constitutional Court is the highest authority which guarantees compliance with the Constitution and rules on its final interpretation. 68.     The Court is composed of nine members, who are appointed by the President of the Republic with the consent of Parliament (section 7). 69.     A preliminary review of complaints lodged by individuals is conducted by a panel of three Constitutional Court judges, including the reporting judge (section 31). 70.     The Court decides on individual applications at a plenary session attended by all the judges. The quorum of the plenary session is two-thirds of the elected judges in office (section 32). The Court takes its decisions by a majority of all its members (Article 133 of the Constitution). 71.     The decisions of the Constitutional Court are taken by a majority of the judges present and abstentions are not allowed (section 72). 72.     Pursuant to section 74 of the Act, in the event of a tied vote the Constitutional Court must dismiss the appeal. The dismissal of an appeal for this reason does not prevent the appellant from resubmitting the complaints to the Constitutional Court, which subsequently adopts a decision provided that a majority of the sitting judges is attained. C.     The State Arbitration Act (Law no. 7424, dated 14 November 1990) 73.     The State Arbitration Act provided for the organisation and functions of the State Arbitration Commission ( Arbitrazhi i Shtetit ), which was the body with jurisdiction to determine disputes where the economic interests of the State were at issue. Under section 28 of the Act, its decisions, once final, were binding on the State Treasury or other State financial bodies and the Bailiff’s Office. 74.     Proceedings for the enforcement of final adjudications were initiated by filing a decision with the Bailiff’s Office. Under section 30 of the Act, the decisions of the State Arbitration Commission were subject to appeal before the Plenary State Arbitration Commission ( Mbledhja e Përgjithshme e Arbitrarëve të Arbitrazhit Shtetëror ). 75.     Law no. 7801 dated 2 March 1994 repealed the Act and dissolved the State Arbitration Commission. II.     RELEVANT COMPARATIVE LAW 76.     Materials available to the Court describe relevant aspects of the occurrence of tied votes in the upper courts’ decision-making in several Contracting States representing different legal traditions. There is no uniform practice in the contracting States with regard to the occurrence of a tied vote in decision-making before the Supreme and Constitutional Courts. Many States provide for measures to avoid tied votes and to ensure that a majority is obtained, such as establishing formations made up of an uneven number of judges (for example, in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Poland, Malta and the United Kingdom) and/or prohibiting judges from abstaining (for example, in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Moldova) and/or providing for an uneven number of judges to make a decision-making quorum (for example, in Italy, Andorra and Austria). Even in these circumstances, however, a tied vote could still occur. With a view to ensuring that a final decision can be reached, even in the event of a tied vote, different legal systems provide for different solutions, such as a casting vote for the president of the court/formation (for example, in Austria, Italy and Spain) or for the judge rapporteur (for example, in Andorra), or giving an interpretation to the tied vote (for example, in Germany, Poland, Slovakia and Moldova). In the event of a tied vote, the Albanian legal system provides for the adjournment of the case for an unspecified period of time until the circumstances that created the tied vote have ceased to exist (see paragraph 72 above). THE LAW 77.     Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complained about the authorities’ failure to enforce a final judgment, the excessive length of proceedings, the lack of reasoning of court decisions and the denial of his right of access to court. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he complained of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of his complaints under Article 6. Lastly, the applicant complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of Article 14 of the Convention. 78.     Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “1.     In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law....”       79.     Article 13 of the Convention reads as follows: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” 80.     Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention provides as follows: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” 81.     Article 14 of the Convention reads as follows: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” I.     THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS A.     Abuse of the right of individual petition 82.     The Government submitted that the application should be declared inadmissible since the right of individual petition had been abused. They maintained that the applicant had distorted the facts of the case and deliberately misconstrued the domestic courts’ decisions. With reference to the registration of the joint venture in 1993, the Government submitted that it had never been registered in the Commercial Register under the new provisions of Law no. 7667 of 1993, which had entered into force after the joint venture at issue had been established but had retrospective effect. Thus, the applicant could not claim any civil rights from an unlawful company notwithstanding that the State Arbitration Commission had ignored that fact in its decision and found that the State bore some responsibility for the management of the joint venture. 83.     The applicant contested the Government’s argument. 84.     Article 35 § 3, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “The Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Article   34 which it considers ... an abuse of the right of application.” 85.     The Court reiterates that, except in extraordinary cases, an application may only be rejected as abusive if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey , judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, §§ 53-54; I.S. v.   Bulgaria (dec.), no. 32438/96, 6 April 2000; and Varbanov v. Bulgaria , no.   31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X). 86.     It considers that the Government’s objection stems from the difference of legal opinions on the interpretation of domestic courts’ decisions and the Court does not consider this to amount to an abuse of the right of application. Accordingly, the Government’s objection is dismissed. B.     Alleged breach of Article 17 of the Convention 87.     According to the Government, the applicant was in any event precluded by Article 17 of the Convention from invoking the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention in so far as he had requested the Court to find the domestic courts’ decisions unconstitutional, a request which was outside this Court’s jurisdiction. 88.     The applicant did not comment on this issue. 89.     Article 17 reads as follows: “Nothing in [the] Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.” 90.     The Court reiterates that the purpose of Article 17, in so far as it refers to groups or to individuals, is to make it impossible for them to derive from the Convention a right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at destroying any of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. Therefore, no person may be able to take advantage of the provisions of the Convention to perform acts aimed at destroying the aforesaid rights and freedoms. This provision, which is negative in scope, cannot be construed by converse implication as depriving a physical person of the fundamental individual rights guaranteed by Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention (see Lawless v. Ireland (no. 3) , judgment of 1 July 1961, Series   A no. 3, pp. 45-46, §   7). 91.     In the present case, the applicant has not relied on the Convention in order to justify or perform acts contrary to the rights and freedoms recognised therein, but has complained, inter alia , of having been deprived of the guarantees granted in Article 6 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Court has no option but to dismiss the Government’s objection. C.     Application lodged out of time 92.     The Government argued that the application had been submitted outside the six-month time-limit prescribed by the Convention. They maintained that, in so far as the applicant’s main argument was the failure to enforce the State Arbitration Commission’s decision of 1993, which constituted the basis for the applicant’s further complaints, that decision was the last decision for the purposes of Article 35. Thus, the application should be taken to have been lodged well outside the time-limit provided for in Article 35 of the Convention. 93.     The applicant contested the Government’s argument, submitting that the failure to enforce the State Arbitration Commission’s decision was one of several complaints made in the present application and that the other complaints had an independent existence. Moreover, even assuming that the Government’s argument was grounded, he submitted that the six-month time-limit was not applicable to alleged continuous violations, such as the non-enforcement of a final decision. He relied on Hornsby v. Greece, judgment of 19 March 1997, Reports 1997 ‑ II, p.   508, §   35, and Qufaj Co. Sh.p.k. v. Albania (dec.), no.   54268/00, ECHR 2003 ‑ XI. 94.     The Court observes that the present application was lodged with it on 24 January 2002. The final judgments, for the purpose of calculating the six-month time-limit, in respect of the different sets of proceedings, were issued in 2005 and 2006. 95.     As to the complaint about the non-enforcement of final judgments, the Court considers, as did the applicant, that the authorities’ failure to comply with final judgments led to a continuing situation, so that the six-month rule did not apply (see, among other authorities, Iatridis v.   Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, §   50, ECHR 1999 ‑ II). 96.     The objection must therefore be dismissed as regards all the applicant’s complaints lodged on 24 January 2002. D.     Failure to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of the length-of-proceedings complaint 97.     The Government invited the Court to dismiss the complaint about the excessive length of proceedings on the ground that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. In this connection, they alleged that the applicant had failed to lodge a constitutional complaint in accordance with Article   131 of the Constitution. Without citing any practice of the domestic courts, they emphasised the effectiveness of a complaint to the Constitutional Court, which had jurisdiction to deal with fair-trial issues and could thus have provided redress if the applicant had complained to it about the excessive length of the proceedings. 98.     The applicant disagreed with the Government. He maintained that, to date, the Constitutional Court had never examined a complaint about the excessive length of proceedings so as to substantiate the effectiveness of such a remedy. He referred to the fact that the Government had failed either to mention any case-law of that court or to specify any provisions of domestic law as a basis for their arguments on the matter. 99.     The Court considers that the effectiveness of the constitutional complaint is decisive to the question of whether the applicant had an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention. Therefore, the Court holds that both questions should be examined together on the merits. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 100.     The applicant complained of a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the failure to enforce final decisions given in his favour, the excessive length of the proceedings, the lack of reasoning of the Supreme Court’s decisions, and the restriction of his right of access to a court under two limbs: the dismissal of his constitutional complaint as a consequence of a tied vote, and the order for the company’s liquidation, which had prevented him from taking legal proceedings in order to defend his interests. 101.     In his observations of 11 December 2006 the applicant challenged the impartiality of the Supreme Court, arguing that the decision of 27   January 2006 had been given by the same panel that had already ruled on his case on 19 March 2004. A.     Admissibility 1.     Impartiality of the Supreme Court 102.     The Court observes that the applicant’s complaint challenging the impartiality of the panel of the Supreme Court that gave a decision in his case on 27   January 2006 was lodged only on 11 December 2006, that is to say after the six-month time-limit provided for by the Convention. In these circumstances it must be rejected as having been lodged outside the six -month time-limit pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 2. Lack of reasoning 103.     The applicant argued that the Supreme Court, in its decisions of 19   March 2004, 20 July 2004 and 27 January 2006, had dismissed his appeals using standard wording (“the grounds of the appeal fall outside the scope of Article 472 of the CCP”). In his view, taking into consideration the fact that his appeals dealt with several issues, the above wording did not clarify the grounds for the domestic court’s decisions. Having regard to the fact that, in his view, the grounds of appeal fell at least within the scope of Article 472 (a) of the CCP, this de plano dismissal formula disregarded the domestic legal and Convention obligation to give reasons for its decisions. 104.     The Government contested the applicant’s argument. They submitted that in so far as the Supreme Court had upheld the Court of Appeal decisions against which the applicant had appealed, it should be considered to have endorsed the latter court’s reasoning; thus, there was no need to repeat the reasons given by that court. 105.     The Court reiterates that the right guaranteed to a litigant under Article 6 of the Convention includes the right to have reasons for decisions handed down by a domestic court in his case. However, the corresponding obligation on a domestic court to give reasons for its decisions cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument adduced by a litigant. The extent to which the duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision at issue (see, for example, Helle v.   Finland , judgment of 19   December 1997, Reports 1997-VIII, p. 2929, §   56). 106.     The Court observes in this connection that the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court on the ground that the lower courts’ decisions were defective in law. The Court considers that the limited reasons given by the Supreme Court in its de plano decision formula, however, implicitly indicated that the applicant had not raised one of the points of law provided for by the relevant domestic provision, which is an admissibility requirement for leave to appeal being granted. The Court observes that where a Supreme Court refuses to accept a case on the basis that the legal grounds for such a case are not made out, very limited reasoning may satisfy the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Nerva v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42295/98, 11 July 2000). 107.     For the above reasons, the Court considers that the applicant’s complaint under this aspect of Article 6 of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and therefore inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 3.     Other complaints 108.     As to the remainder of the applicant’s complaints under this provision, namely the denial of access to a court, the failure to enforce final decisions and the excessive length of proceedings, the Court considers that they are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further finds that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. Moreover, the Court considers that while the length of proceedings complaint concerned the same factual situation as the non-enforcement complaint, the Convention issues are largely different. Thus, it will examine the merits of the two complaints separately.   B.     Merits 1.     Denial of access to court (a)     The parties’ submissions 109.     The applicant complained that in the domestic court proceedings his right of access to court had been infringed under two limbs. In the first place he complained about the order for the company’s liquidation, which had prevented him from taking legal proceedings in order to defend his interests. Moreover, he argued that during the domestic proceedings he had been represented by the liquidator, who had acted against his interests. 110.     Secondly, the applicant maintained that the tied vote in the Constitutional C