CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 23 octobre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s66CC5A41 { width:26.02pt; display:inline-block } .s87818EE6 { width:187.95pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 54188/08 Vjollca CEKANI against Albania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 October 2012 as a Committee composed of:   George Nicolaou, President,   Ledi Bianku,   Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 October 2008, Having regard to the comments submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Ms Vjollca Cekani, is an Albanian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Gjirokastër. 2.     The Albanian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ms L. Mandia of the State Advocate’s Office. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     Further to the applicant’s dismissal, on 23 July 2008 the Gjirokastër Court of Appeal ordered her employer, the Gjirokastër city hall, to pay the applicant the equivalent of seven months’ salary, no reinstatement having been ordered. 4.     On 23 October 2008 an enforcement writ was issued. It was calculated that the amount to be paid to the applicant was 800,000 Albanian leks (“ALL”), in addition to the bailiff’s tax. The conduct of the enforcement proceedings 5.     By a letter of 24 July 2009 the applicant’s employer informed the bailiff’s office that regular instalments had been transferred to the applicant’s bank account. Consequently, ALL 400,000 due had been paid since 1 December 2008, the remaining amount was going to be paid in regular instalments. 6.     On 12 July 2010 the applicant declared in writing that ALL 800,000 had been paid. 7.     On 20 September 2010 the applicant requested in writing that the enforcement proceedings be concluded on the grounds that the decision had been enforced in full. Consequently, on 21 September 2010 the bailiff’s office decided to conclude the enforcement proceedings. The decision became final, no appeal having been lodged against it. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 8.     The relevant domestic law and practice has been described in the cases of Qufaj Co. Sh.p.k. v. Albania (no. 54268/00, §§ 21-26, 18 November 2004) and Gjyli v. Albania (no. 32907/07, §§ 19-28, 29 September 2009). COMPLAINT 9.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Gjirokastër Court of Appeal’s decision of 23 July 2008 had not been enforced. THE LAW 10.     The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of a final decision in her favour. 11.     The Government contended that the final decision in the applicant’s favour was enforced within a reasonable time. 12.     Having regard to the general principles emanating from its case-law as regards the enforcement of final domestic courts’ decisions (see, for example, Qufaj Co. Sh.p.k. , cited above, § 38; and, Gjyli , cited above, §§   43-44), the Court considers that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded for the reasons set out below. 13.     It results from the documents, undisputed by the parties, that the authorities acted with expedition and diligence to ensure compliance with the final debt judgment. For example, the authorities made regular payments to the applicant’s bank account starting from 1 December 2008. By 24   July   2009 they had paid half of the outstanding amount. By 21   September 2010 the debt judgment had been executed in full and, at the applicant’s request, the enforcement proceedings were concluded. Furthermore, at the time of the introduction of the application, the applicant complained about the non-enforcement of a final court decision, which decision was subsequently enforced in full. Never did the applicant in the proceedings before the Court complain about the length of the enforcement proceedings, which the Court does not consider incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Denisov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 18512/02, 1 February 2005; Zhovtan v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 17044/02, 22 November 2005; and, mutatis mutandis, Kovalenko and Boyko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 15066/03, 30   November 2010). 14.     In view of the above, the Court concludes that the case does not disclose any appearance of a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Fatoş Aracı   George Nicolaou   Deputy Registrar   President