CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 1 avril 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s85A66119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sA3C2123C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s5C5E66B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9059D239 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3281263B { height:27.5pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .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 } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC8702D41 { width:154.61pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2BA2B0A7 { height:19.35pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt }       FOURTH SECTION               CASE OF LULI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA   (Applications nos. 64480/09, 64482/09, 12874/10, 56935/10, 3129/12 and 31355/09)           JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   1 April 2014       FINAL   01/07/2014   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Luli and Others v. Albania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Ineta Ziemele, President, George Nicolaou, Ledi Bianku, Nona Tsotsoria, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, Paul Mahoney, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges and Françoise Elens-Pasos, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 11 March 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in six applications (nos. 64480/09, 64482/09, 12874/10, 56935/10, 3129/12 and 31355/09) 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 Albanian nationals, whose details are specified in the appended table (“the applicants”). 2.     The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their then Agent, Ms L. Mandia of the State Advocate’s Office. 3.     The applicants alleged that their rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention were breached on account of the length of the proceedings. 4.     Notice of the applications was given to the Government   on 7   March   2012 (as regards applications nos. 64480/09, 12874/10, 56935/10 and 3129/12) and on 10 July 2012 (as regards application no. 64482/09). 5.     It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the applications at the same time (Article 29 § 1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     Applications nos. 31355/09, 64480/09 and 64482/09: Luli and Others 6.     All three applications were lodged with the Court by the same applicants. They were initially registered under application no. 31355/09 (not communicated to the Government). 7.     After a preliminary examination of the case file and taking account of the applicants’ additional clarifications as well as the conduct of the domestic proceedings, it was considered necessary to divide the case into three applications, two additional application numbers having been allocated (nos. 64480/09 and 64482/09). These latter two cases have been communicated to the Government. 8.     The facts in respect of each application have been described below. 1.     Application no. 31355/09: Luli and Others 9.     On 6 March 1996 the Durrës Restitution and Compensation of Properties Commission (“the Durrës Commission”) recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to a plot of land measuring 174,000   sq.   m, 4,200 sq. m of which was restored. The applicants would have the right to first refusal ( e drejta e parablerjes ) of a further 5,800 sq. m and they would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law for the remaining 158,200 sq. m (“the first Commission decision”). 10 .     On the same day, the Durrës Commission, consisting of the same composition, delivered another decision which bore the same number and Commission stamp (“the second Commission decision”). According to the second decision, the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to a plot of land measuring 17,400 sq. m, 4,200   sq.   m of which was restored. The applicants would have the right to first refusal of 5,800 sq. m, no other award having been made. 2.     Application no. 64480/09: Luli and Others 11 .     On 6 December 2005 the Durrës District Court recognised the existence of the applicants’ inherited property rights to a plot of land measuring 400,000 sq. m situated in the city of Durrës ( vendim për vërtetim fakti ). This plot of land was made up of two smaller plots: one measuring 260,000 sq. m (“Plot A”) and the other measuring 140,000 sq. m (“Plot B”). Proceedings concerning the restitution of Plot B 12.     On an unspecified date the applicants made an application for the recognition of property rights to Plot B (see paragraph 11 above). 13.     On 30 July 2007 the Durrës Regional Agency for Compensation and Restitution of Properties (“the Durrës Regional Agency”) recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to Plot B, 53,200 sq. m of which was restored. The applicants would also be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law in respect of a further 22,960   sq. m, no decision having been taken in respect of the remaining 63,840 sq. m. 14.     On 15 November 2007, following the applicants’ appeal, the Agency for Compensation and Restitution of Properties in Tirana (“the Central Agency”) quashed the Durrës Regional Agency’s decision of 2007 and remitted the case for re-examination. 15.     On 16 May 2008 the Durrës Regional Agency recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights in respect of only 76,160   sq.   m of Plot B, no decision having been taken in respect of the remaining 63,840 sq. m. The applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law in lieu of restitution of the area of Plot B measuring 76,160 sq. m. 16.     On 28 February 2011 the Central Agency quashed the Durrës Regional Agency’s decision of 2008. The applicants were informed of their right to appeal, within 30 days of notification, to the Tirana District Court. 17.     It would appear that, following the applicants’ appeal, the proceedings are currently pending before the Tirana District Court. 18.     On 29 March 2011 the Central Agency, having regard to the Constitutional Court’s decision no. 27/2010 (see paragraph 59 below), decided that it was outside of its jurisdiction to examine a decision given in a separate set of proceedings which, in 2003, had recognised a third party’s inherited property rights to the plot of land measuring 63,840 sq. m which the applicants alleged belonged to them. 3.     Application no. 64482/09: Luli and Others Proceedings concerning the restitution of Plot A 19.     On an unspecified date, after the Durrës District Court’s decision of 6 December 2005 (see paragraph 11 above), the applicants applied for the recognition of property rights to a plot of land measuring 242,600   sq.   m. This plot of land, taken together with the plot of land measuring 17,400 sq. m referred to in the second Commission decision (see paragraph 10 above), totalled Plot A. 20.     On 30 July 2007 the Durrës Regional Agency recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to the plot of land measuring 242,600   sq. m and further restored them a plot of land measuring 7,788 sq. m. 4,200 sq. m of Plot A had already been restored by virtue of the second Commission decision (see paragraph 10 above). The applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law for 245,772 sq. m of Plot A, no decision having been taken in respect of the remaining 2,240   sq.   m. 21.     On 15 November 2007, following the applicants’ appeal, the Central Agency quashed the Durrës Regional Agency’s decision 2007 and remitted the case for re-examination. 22.     On 30 April 2008 the Durrës Regional Agency recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to the plot of land measuring 242,600   sq.   m and further restored them a plot of land measuring 7,788   sq.   m. 4,200 sq. m of Plot A had already been restored by virtue of the second Commission decision. The applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law for 248,012 sq. m of Plot A. 23.     On 4 July 2008, on his own motion, the Central Agency’s director quashed the Durrës Regional Agency’s decision of 2008 and sent the case back for re-examination. 24.     On 23 December 2009 Regional Agency offices were abolished by law and the Central Agency was entrusted with the examination of restitution and compensation claims. No further decision appears to have been taken to date. B.     Application no. 12874/10: Pistulli 25.     On 8 June 1995 the Lezhë Commission recognised the applicant’s father’s property rights to a plot of land measuring 25,850 sq. m, 11,500   sq.   m of which was restored. The applicant would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law in respect of a plot measuring 5,000   sq.   m ( t’i kompesohet sipërfaqja prej 5,000 m 2 me mënyrat e parashikuara në [këtë] ligj ). The Commission further recognised the applicant’s right to first refusal of the remaining property. 26.     On 19 April 2000 the applicant registered her title to a plot of land measuring 5,830 sq. m in her name. However, she was unable to use that land as it was occupied by the Port Authority of Shëngjin (“the Port Authority”). 27.     On 16 October 2000 the Ministry of Public Economy and Privatisation ordered the registration of the immovable property of the Port Authority. However, the Port Authority was unable to register the immovable property as the property rights had been recognised and registered in favour of the applicant. 28.     On 3 July 2006 the applicant brought civil proceedings before the Lezhë District Court (“the District Court”) requesting the Port Authority to vacate the plot of land measuring 5,830 sq. m. 29.     On 19 February 2007 the District Court accepted the applicant’s request. The Port Authority appealed. 30.     On 23 October 2007 the Shkodër Court of Appeal quashed the lower court’s decision on grounds of procedural irregularities and remitted the case for re-examination by a different bench. 31.     On 19 November 2007 the applicant appealed against the decision to the Supreme Court. 32.     On 6 November 2009, following the applicant’s request about the progress of her appeal, the Supreme Court informed her that the case was still pending for examination before that court. 33.     On 9 April 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed her appeal. 34.     On 28 March 2011, in the rehearing proceedings, the District Court discontinued the proceedings ( vendosi pushimin e çështjes ) for lack of appearance of the applicant despite notification of the date and time of the hearing. C.     Application no. 56935/10: Dushallari 35.     On 27 November 2007 the Gjirokastra Regional Agency recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to some plots of land. 36.     On 16 January 2008 the Gjirokastra State Advocate’s Office (“the State Advocate’s Office”) was informed of the above decision and, on 11   February 2008, appealed against it arguing that the decision had been taken in breach of the law. 37.     On 12 September 2011 the Central Agency’s director stayed the proceedings until the adoption of a decision by the Constitutional Court in a case concerning the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Property Act 2004 (see paragraphs 60 and 61 below). 38.     On 28 February 2012 the Central Agency relied on, inter alia , the Constitutional Court’s decision no. 43/2011 (see paragraph 62 below) to declare the case outside of its jurisdiction. 39.     The proceedings are currently pending before the Tirana District Court following an appeal by the State Advocate’s Office on an unspecified date in March 2012. D.     Application no. 3129/12: Kekenezi 1.     Proceedings concerning the vacation of the plot of land and the house 40.     In 1957 K. bought a plot of land and a three-bedroom house located thereon from the State. The property had been confiscated from D. and expropriated by the State in 1948. 41.     On 26 October 1992 the applicant bought the property from K. and it was entered in the mortgage register. 42.     On 2 August 1993, under the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression Act (Law no. 7514 of 30 September 1991), the financial unit of Tirana Municipality allocated to D.’s heir, M., the land and the house purchased by the applicant. 43.     On 25 August 1993 M. donated the property to her brother, H. 44.     On an unspecified date in 1996 H. lodged a civil action against the applicant for the vacation of the land and the house. 45.     By a final decision of 14 January 1998 the Court of Cassation ruled in favour of H., ordering the vacation of the land and the house. It upheld the lower court’s decision which had recognised H. as the legal owner and had declared null and void the sale contract of 26 October 1992. 46.     On 23 September 2000 the Tirana Commission recognised H.’s title to the above properties. 47.     On 24 September 2002 the applicant’s supervisory review request was rejected by the Supreme Court Joint Benches. 2.     Proceedings concerning the nullity of the Tirana Municipality’s decision and the donation contract 48.     On an unspecified date, most likely in 2006, the applicant lodged a civil action seeking the nullity of a number of legal acts which had affected his property rights. 49.     On 23 October 2007 the Court of Appeal found that the applicant had no locus standi to bring legal proceedings. According to the court, the sale contract of 26 October 1992 was null and void on the following grounds. In the first place, by virtue of the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression Act 1992, K. was not allowed to transfer property rights to third parties. Secondly, the sale contract had not been concluded in accordance with the law (before a notary public). Thirdly, the Court of Cassation’s decision of 14 January 1998 had ordered the vacation of the land and the house by the applicant. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court within the thirty-day statutory time-limit (see paragraph 55 below). 50.     On 7 April 2011 the Supreme Court, by way of a reasoned decision, upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision. 51.     On 22 July 2011 the Constitutional Court, sitting as a bench of three judges, rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal, finding that the lower courts had correctly ruled that the applicant lacked locus standi . II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     The 2004 Property Act as amended 52.     Section 18 of the 2004 Property Act, as amended by law no. 9684 of 6 February 2007, provided for the right of a claimant and of the State Advocate’s Office to appeal against a Regional Agency’s decision recognising property rights and awarding compensation, as appropriate, within 30 days of its notification, to the Central Agency. 53.     The Central Agency’s director would decide on the appeal within 30   days of its introduction ( jo më vonë se 30 ditë nga regjistrimi i ankimit, Drejtori i Përgjithshëm merr vendim për objektin e ankimit ). B.     Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) 54.     Under Article 324 of the CCP a claimant may seek the annulment of an administrative decision. A claimant may also challenge the authorities’ refusal to take an administrative decision within the prescribed time-limit. 55 .     Article 443 of the CCP provides that the time-limit for lodging an appeal with the Supreme Court is 30 days. C.     High Council of Justice Act (“the HCJ Act”, law No. 8811 dated 17 May 2001, as amended by Law No. 9448 dated 5 December 2005, “On the organisation and operation of the HCJ”) 56.     Section 1 provides that “the HCJ is ... responsible for the protection, appointment, transfer, dismissal, education, moral and professional appraisal, career and the assessment of performance of judges of first-instance courts and of courts of appeal.” 57.     Under section 2, the HCJ is also empowered to take disciplinary measures against judges. In this connection, it is assisted by an Inspectorate as provided for in section 14. Under section 16, the HCJ Inspectorate verifies complaints submitted by individuals to the HCJ or to the Minister of Justice against judges’ actions. In the event of good cause for the institution of disciplinary proceedings, the Inspectorate draws up a report and submits it to the Minister of Justice who decides on the start of disciplinary proceedings. The report is also submitted to the HCJ meetings. D.     Domestic case-law 1.     Domestic case-law as regards the interpretation of the 2004 Property Act, as amended 58 .     On 26 March and 14 September 2009 the Supreme Court and the Ombudsman requested the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of some provisions of the 2004 Property Act, as amended. 59 .     On 26 May 2010 the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional some provisions of the 2004 Property Act, as amended, which had empowered the Central Agency’s director to review prior decisions taken by former land Commissions or Regional Agency offices (decision no.   27/2010). It found that such powers were contrary to the principle of legal certainty. 60 .     On 22 July 2010 Parliament therefore enacted amendments to the 2004 Property Act which restored the Central Agency’s director’s powers to review prior decisions taken by land Commissions or Regional Agency offices. 61 .     On 6 December 2010 and 2 February 2011 the constitutionality of these amendments was challenged before the Constitutional Court. 62 .     On 6 October 2011 the Constitutional Court annulled the provisions of the 2004 Property Act as introduced on 22 July 2010. It found that the Central Agency did not have the characteristics of a judicial or quasi-judicial body, so that it could not be empowered to review decisions of former land Commissions or regional Agency offices. It further found that such review powers were contrary to the principle of legal certainty and the protection of property (decision no. 43/2011). 2.     Domestic case-law as regards the length of proceedings 63.     On 7 November 2011 the Constitutional Court found that there had been a breach of the appellant’s right to a fair hearing as regards the length of the criminal proceedings (decision no. 47/2011). No award was made to the appellant, nor was any other means of redress provided. 64 .     On 5 March 2012 the Constitutional Court found that there had been a breach of the appellant’s right to a fair hearing as regards the length of the civil proceedings (decision no. 12/2012): the civil action had been pending before the District Court since 2006. No award was made to the appellant, nor was any other means of redress provided. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 65.     Given that applications nos. 64480/09 ( Luli and Others ), 64482/09 ( Luli and Others ), 12874/10 ( Pistulli ), 56935/10 ( Dushallari ) and 3129/12 ( Kekenezi ) raise the same issue, that is the reasonableness of the overall length of the proceedings under Article 6 § 1, which was communicated to the parties, the Court decides that the applications should be joined pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 66.     As regards application no. 31355/09 ( Luli and Others ), the applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the first Commission decision. As regards the remaining applications, the applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. Article 6 § 1, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: ““In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” A.     Admissibility 1.     The applicants’ complaint about the non-enforcement of the first Commission decision in application no. 31355/09 (Luli and Others) 67.     The applicants complained that the first Commission decision had not been enforced. The Court will determine whether the applicants have an enforceable right by virtue of that Commission decision. 68 .     The Court notes that on 6 March 1996 the Durrës Commission, sitting with the same composition, delivered two different decisions, each having the same number and bearing the official stamp. The first Commission decision recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to a plot of land measuring 174,000   sq.   m and the second Commission decision to a plot of land measuring 17,400 sq. m. 69.     Despite the applicants’ claim that the first Commission decision awarded them an enforceable right, it is not the Court’s task to speculate about the authenticity of either decision, that being the task of the domestic authorities. 70.     The Court further notes that there was no mention of the first Commission decision during twenty years of domestic proceedings which are the subject of application no. 64482/09. Indeed, having regard to their application for the recognition of the plot of land measuring 260,000   sq. m, the applicants implicitly accepted that the enforceable decision was the second Commission decision. In this connection, the applicants sought the recognition of the inherited property rights as regards a plot of land measuring 242,600 sq. m. This plot of land, taken together with the plot of land measuring 17,400 sq. m which had been recognised by virtue of the second Commission decision, totalled the plot of land measuring 260,000   sq. m which the applicants claimed to be theirs. 71 .     In these circumstances, the Court concludes that the applicants have not provided the Court with any reason to consider that the first Commission decision was an enforceable one. It rejects this application as manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article   35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 2.     The applicants’ complaints about the length of proceedings (a)     As regards application no. 3129/12 ( Kekenezi ) 72.     The Government submitted that this applicant could not claim to be a victim of the unsuccessful length of proceedings. 73.     The applicant did not comment. 74.     The Court recalls that Article 6 § 1 is not applicable to proceedings concerning an application for a re-opening of civil proceedings (see, for example, Kaisti v. Finland (dec.), no. 70313/01, 14 September 2004). However, if the proceedings are re-opened, the requirements of Article 6 must be respected as those proceedings, unlike the re-opening proceedings, result in a decision which directly affects the civil rights and obligations of the person concerned. 75.     Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the final decision regarding the proceedings concerning the vacation of the plot of land and the house was taken on 14 January 1998, whereas the application was lodged with the Court on 7 January 2012, that is more than six months after the date of the final decision. It follows that any complaint regarding this set of proceedings has been introduced out of time within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 (see, mutatis mutandis , Rizi v. Albania (dec.), 43-46, 8 November 2011). 76.     As regards the proceedings concerning the nullity of the Tirana Municipality’s decision and the donation contract, the Court considers the applicant’s action akin to an action for review and re-opening of the set of proceedings, which had been decided upon by way of the final Court of Cassation’s decision of 14 January 1998. In these circumstances, the Court considers that Article 6 § 1 does not apply to this set of proceedings and any complaint must be rejected as incompatible ratione materiae in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. (b)     As regards non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in the remaining applications 77.     Relying on Article 324 of the CCP, the Government submitted that the applicants in applications nos. 64480/09 ( Luli and Others ), 64482/09 ( Luli and Others ) and 56935/10 ( Dushallari ) had not exhausted domestic remedies as regards the length of the proceedings. They further contended, relying on the Constitutional Court’s decision no.   12/2012 (see paragraph 64 above), that the applicants in application no.   12874/10 ( Pistulli ) did not lodge a constitutional appeal as regards the length of the proceedings. Finally, the Government maintained that the applicant in application no. 12874/10 ( Pistulli ) should have lodged a complaint with the High Council of Justice. 78.     The applicants argued that there was no effective remedy to exhaust. i.     As regards an application under Article 324 of the CCP in respect of applications nos. 64480/09 (Luli and Others), 64482/09 (Luli and Others) and 56935/10 (Dushallari) 79.     The Court reiterates that under Article 35 § 1 it may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted. The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, amongst many other authorities, McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107, 10 September 2010). Where the Government claims non-exhaustion it must satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see, amongst many other authorities, Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no.   10249/03, § 71, 17 September 2009). 80.     The Court recalls that it has already rejected the same argument in the case of Mishgjoni v. Albania (no. 18381/05, § 70, 7 December 2010) on the grounds that the Government failed to provide any relevant domestic decisions which finding in a claimant’s favour in such situations and capable of providing redress (see also paragraph 81 below). It sees no reason to depart from those findings as the Government have still not submitted relevant case-law. The Court therefore rejects this objection. ii.     As regards an application to the Constitutional Court in respect of application no. 12874/10 (Pistulli) 81 .     The Court notes that the Constitutional Court’s findings in decision no. 12/2012 were declaratory and did not offer any redress. In particular, it did not make any awards of non-pecuniary damage for the delay experienced by the appellant, nor could it offer a clear prospect of expediting the impending proceedings. The Court therefore rejects this objection (see, mutatis mutandis , Gjyli v. Albania , no. 32907/07, § 58, 29   September 2009). iii.     As regards an application to the HCJ in respect of application no. 12874/10 (Pistulli) 82.     In the first place, the Court notes that the HCJ’s responsibility extends solely to judges of first-instance courts and to the courts of appeal, no authority being extended to the measures of appointment, dismissal, appraisal and discipline of Supreme Court judges. Secondly, while the HCJ Act empowers the HCJ to institute disciplinary proceedings against a judge of the first-instance court or of the court of appeal, no provision enables it to provide redress for excessively long (pending or terminated) proceedings and the Government submitted no information (relevant case-law) to the contrary. 83.     The Court therefore rejects this objection. (c)     Conclusion 84.     The Court considers that the applicants’ complaints concerning applications nos. 64480/09 ( Luli and Others ), 64482/09 ( Luli and Others ), 12874/10 ( Pistulli ) and 56935/10 ( Dushallari ) in respect of the length of proceedings are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. Not being inadmissible on any other grounds, the complaints must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 1.     The parties’ submissions 85.     The applicants complained that their respective proceedings were excessively long. 86.     The Government relied on the Constitutional Court’s decisions, amendments to the Property Act and the process for collecting and assessing the evidence for the recognition and compensation of property rights to argue that there had been no breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 2.     The Court’s assessment (a)     General principles 87.     The Court will assess the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and having regard to the criteria laid down in its case-law, in particular the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities. On the latter point, what was at stake for the applicant has also to be taken into account (see, amongst others, Vilho Eskelinen and Others   v.   Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 67, ECHR 2007 ‑ II). (b)     Application of those principles to the present cases i.     As regards applications nos. 64480/09 and 64482/09 (Luli   and Others) 88.     The Court notes that the proceedings in application no. 64480/09 started on an unspecified date in, most likely, 2007 and appear to be currently pending before the Tirana District Court. They have thus lasted for more than 6 years before two levels of jurisdiction. 89.     The Court notes that the proceedings in application no. 64482/09 started on an unspecified date in, most likely, 2007 and appear to be currently pending before the Central Agency. They have thus lasted for 6 years before one level of jurisdiction. 90.     The Court could agree that the determination of the applicants’ property rights was somewhat complex, but it does not consider that this explains the overall length of the proceedings. As to the applicants’ appeals, the Court recalls that applicants are entitled to make use of all relevant domestic procedural steps, but they should do so with diligence and must bear the consequences when such procedural applications result in delay (see McFarlane , cited above, § 148). 91 .     The Court considers that the length of the proceedings is, in fact, to be attributed to the repeated referrals for fresh examination by the administrative body, which action reveals “a serious deficiency in the Albanian legal system” (see Marini , cited above, § 145; and, mutatis mutandis , Kaçiu and Kotorri v. Albania , nos. 33192/07 and 33194/07, §   154, 25 June 2013 in the context of criminal proceedings). In view of what was and, continues to be, at stake for the applicants, that is the recognition of their property rights, the Court recalls that it is for the Contracting States to organise their legal systems in such a way that the competent authorities can meet the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, including the obligation to hear cases within a reasonable time and, where necessary, join them, suspend them or reject the further institution of new proceedings (see also Mishgjoni, cited above, § 59; and Gjonbocari and Others , cited above, §   67). 92.     The Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. ii.     As regards application no. 12874/10 (Pistulli) 93.     The Court notes that the proceedings concerning the vacation of the land started on 3 July 2006 and ended on 28 March 2011. They lasted for 4   years, 8 months and 25 days before three levels of jurisdiction. 94.     The Court recognises that the overall length of proceedings may not at first sight appear unreasonable. However, in the present circumstances, the Court is concerned with the period between 19 November 2007, when the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court, and 9 April 2010, when that court dismissed the appeal. That period totalled 2 years, 4 months and 21 days. 95.     In the particular circumstances of the present case, it transpires from the case-file that no procedural steps were ever taken by the Supreme Court during that period. It would seem that the Supreme Court was totally inactive. The Government did not provide any explanations whatsoever for such an excessive period of inactivity and delay before the Supreme Court. The Court again recalls that the Convention places a duty on the Contracting States to organise their legal systems so as to allow the courts to comply with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 including that of “a hearing...within a reasonable time” (see paragraph 91 above). Furthermore, there is no indication that the inactivity and delay was due to the complexity of the case or the applicant’s conduct. On the contrary, on 6 November 2009 the applicant enquired of the progress of her appeal before the Supreme Court. 96.     The Court further notes that it has already found a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the length of proceedings before one instance or level of jurisdiction (see, for example, Paulsen-Medalen and Svensson v. Sweden , 19 February 1998, §§ 38-42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ I; Bunkate v. the Netherlands , 26 May 1993, §§ 22-23, Series A no. 248 ‑ B; Abdoella v. the Netherlands , 25 November 1992, §§ 18-25, Series A no. 248 ‑ A; Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland , 13   July   1983, § 32, Series A no. 66; and, Guincho v. Portugal , 10   July   1984, § 41, Series A no. 81). Having regard to the particular circumstances of the present case, the unreasonable delay before the Supreme Court which accounted for half of the overall proceedings and the lack of explanations justifying such delay, the Court considers that the authority concerned failed to act with the required diligence under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention on account of the excessive period of delay before the Supreme Court. iii.     As regards application no. 56935/10 (Dushallari) 97.     The Court notes that the proceedings started on an unspecified date in, most likely, 2007 and appear to be currently pending before the Tirana District Court. They have thus lasted for 6 years before two levels of jurisdiction. 98.     The Court notes that this case, like applications nos. 64480/09 and 64482/09 ( Luli and Others ), concerned the determination of the applicant’s property rights. As to the conduct of the applicant, she cannot be blamed for the length of the proceedings. As concerns the conduct of the authorities, following the lodging of the appeal by the State Advocate’s Office’s on 11 February 2008, it took more than 3 years and 6 months for the Central Agency’s director to stay the proceedings on 12 September 2011. While this lapse of time could, to a certain extent, be explained by the waiting period for the outcome of the constitutionality proceedings between March 2009 and October 2011, no argument was advanced by the Government as to why the Central Agency’s director had not taken any decision prior to 12   September 2011. In this connection, the Court recalls that the domestic law requires the Central Agency’s director to examine the appeal within 30 days of its introduction. Furthermore, the Court notes that, since March 2012, the proceedings have still been pending before the District Court. 99.     The Court finds no sufficient explanation for the delays experienced before the Central Agency and the District Court. There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the length of the proceedings. IV.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION 100.     The applicants complained that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads 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.” A.     As regards applications nos. 64480/09 ( Luli and Others ), 64482/09 ( Luli and Others ) and 56935/10 ( Dushallari ) 101.     The Government submitted that this complaint should be declared incompatible ratione materiae, the applicants’ property rights not having been recognised by a final domestic decision. 102.     The Court reiterates that an applicant may allege a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 only in so far as the impugned decision related to his “possessions” within the meaning of this provision. “Possessions” can be either “existing possessions” or assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he or she has at least a “legitimate expectation” of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right (see, amongst others, Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania , nos. 604/07, 43628/07, 46684/07 and 34770/09, § 92, 31 July 2012). 103.     Where there is a dispute as to whether an applicant has a property interest which is eligible for protection under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court is required to determine the legal position of the applicant (see J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44302/02, § 61, ECHR 2007 ‑ III). No legitimate expectation can be said to arise where there is a dispute as to the correct interpretation and application of domestic law and the applicant’s submissions are subsequently rejected by the national courts (see Kopecký   v.   Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 50, ECHR 2004 ‑ IX). 104.     The Court notes that the domestic proceedings for the recognition of the applicants’ inherited property rights are still pending. No final decision having been taken, it cannot be said that the applicants have “existing possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The belief that, in the future, the authorities may issue a decision recognising the applicants’ inherited property rights cannot be regarded as a form of “legitimate expectation” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court recalls that there is a difference between a mere hope of restitution, however understandable that hope may be, and a legitimate expectation, which must be of a more concrete nature than a mere hope and be based on a legal provision or a legal act such as a judicial decision (see Kopecký , cited above, § 49; and Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39794/98, § 73, ECHR 2002 ‑ VII ). 105.     The Court therefore rejects this complaint as being premature in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. B.     As regards application no. 12874/10 ( Pistulli ) 106.     The Government submitted that this complaint should be declared inadmissible for a failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 107.     The applicant did not comment. 108.     The Court recalls that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention provides, inter alia , that it may only deal with an application after all domestic remedies have been exhausted. 109.     In the instant case, the applicant instituted proceedings for the vacation of her plot of land. On 28 March 2011 those proceedings were discontinued by the District Court on account of the applicant’s failure to appear. There is no indication that the applicant lodged an appeal against the District Court’s decision or instituted fresh legal proceedings to pursue her claim. The Court therefore concludes that, irrespective of the outcome of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of those proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. C.     As regards application no. 3129/12 ( Kekenezi ) 110.     The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the domestic courts’ interpretation of the domestic law in the proceedings concerning the vacation of the plot of land and the house had unfairly dispossessed him of his property rights. 111.     Having regard to the findings in paragraphs 74-76 above, the Court notes that the applicant’s property rights were finally adjudicated upon by way of the Supreme Court’s final decision of 14 January 1998, whereas the application was lodged with the Court on 7 January 2012, that is more than six months after the date of the final decision. The applicant’s unsuccessful request for review cannot alter the running of the six-month time-limit (see, inter alia , Rizi v. Albania (dec.), no. 49201/06, §§ 42-46, 8   November   2011). Neither does the second set of proceedings concerning the nullity of legal acts, which was rejected on the ground that the applicant lacked locus standi , affect the previous determination of his property rights. Indeed, in the second set of proceedings the domestic courts referred to the Supreme Court’s final decision of 14 January 1998 concerning the determination of the applicant’s property rights. 112.     In these circumstances, the Court considers that this complaint was lodged beyond the six-month time-limit. It should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. IV.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLES 46 AND 41 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Article 46 of the Convention 113.     Article 46 of the Convention provides: “1.     The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties. 2.     The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.” 114 .     The Court observes that it found a breach of Article 6 § 1 as regards the length of proceedings on account of frequent remittals by a higher court to a lower one in the case of Marini , cited above. In Gjonbocari and Others , cited above, the Court found a breach of Article 6 § 1 as regards the length of proceedings on account of the failure of the judicial system to manage properly the multiplication of proceedings on the same issue. The Court further found a breach of Article 6 § 1 as regards the length of proceedings on account of the HCJ’s failure to examine the applicant’s case in the case of Mishgjoni , cited above. 115 .     Furthermore, the Court held in the cases of Gjonbocari and Others and Marini , cited above, that there existed no domestic remedy as regards the length of proceedings. In the instant case, it rejected the Government’s objections as regards the applicant’s failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The Court notes that these conclusions demonstrate that excessive length is becoming “a serious deficiency in domestic legal proceedings”. There are already d