CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 avril 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; 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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s73646DED { width:189.23pt; display:inline-block } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .sE3C7296F { width:4.67pt; display:inline-block } .sAA8ED199 { width:149.53pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s2753FA3F { width:163.53pt; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2E302ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt } .sF0B7A866 { width:458.25pt; display:inline-block } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s85E2A1C4 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #949494; border-collapse:collapse } .sD271F6F6 { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s3E08F9CA { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC54D2024 { border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF42CB81 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s85D71A24 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA2E08F25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sC70726DE { height:9.25pt } .s7857263B { height:21.9pt } .s4DA46575 { height:38.85pt } .s328DE8B1 { height:40.9pt } .s2E68E824 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:6.85pt; font-size:8pt } .s3DE46EBF { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD3B88E32 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA30831E3 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3A7C6575 { height:37.75pt } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s54519BA1 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9589A2DE { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB0EE02A9 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 56937/10 RUCI and BEJLERI against Albania and 191 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20   April 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Dmitry Dedov, President,   Darian Pavli,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended tables, Having regard to the pilot judgment delivered in the case of Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania , nos. 604/07 and 3 others, 31 July 2012 Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A detailed list of the applicants, including their representatives and the date of introduction of each application, has been set out in the tables appended to this decision (“the Appendix”). Background to the case 2.     In 2012 the Court delivered a pilot judgment in respect of Albania finding a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as well as of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the authorities’ prolonged non ‑ enforcement of final decisions awarding compensation in lieu of restitution of property expropriated by the former communist regime, and a breach of Article 13 of the Convention owing to the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard (see   Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania , nos. 604/07 and 3   others, 31 July 2012). 3 .     Further to the implementation of the Manushaqe Puto and Others pilot judgment, on 5 December 2015 the Albanian Parliament adopted the Treatment of Property and Finalisation of the Property Compensation Process Act (“the 2015 Property Act”), which introduced a new remedy for securing the enforcement of the right to compensation. According to the new remedy, for the purpose of enforcement, all final decisions which had recognised the right to compensation, without determining the amount of compensation, would be subject to a financial evaluation. It would be carried out by the Agency for Treatment of Property (the “ATP”) which had been established by the 2015 Property Act. The ATP would determine the value of the financial evaluation on the basis of the cadastral category of the property at the time of expropriation. Property valuation maps comprising the names of administrative units, cadastral zones, cadastral category and respective price per square meter were subsequently adopted. Unenforced final decisions which had determined the amount of compensation would be enforced in full, subject to indexation. 4 .     On 17 March 2020 the Court delivered a landmark decision in the case of Beshiri and Others v. Albania ((dec.), no. 29026/06 and 11   other applications), in which it found that, subject to, amongst other things, the amount of the compensation being no less than 10% of the value to which former owners would be entitled if the financial evaluation was to be carried out by reference to the current cadastral category of the expropriated property, the domestic remedy introduced by virtue of the 2015 Property Act was effective (ibid., § 196). The circumstances of the case 5.     The present applications were lodged with the Court between 2010 and 2015 and concern the prolonged non-enforcement of final decisions recognising the applicants’ right to compensation in one of the ways provided for by law in lieu of the restitution of their properties which had been expropriated by the former communist regime. They raise issues similar to those examined by the Court in the Manushaqe Puto and Others pilot judgment, cited above. 6.     Details of the final decisions and enforcement thereof, which have been updated in view of the information provided by most of the applicants, have been summarily set out in the Appendix. Relevant domestic law and practice The 2015 Property Act 7.     The 2015 Property Act was described in details in the Beshiri and Others decision, cited above, §§ 30-62. As stated in that decision, by way of in abstracto constitutional review, in January 2017 the Constitutional Court endorsed the new compensation scheme introduced by sections 6 (1) and (2) of the 2015   Property Act. It did not reach the required number of votes to decide on the calculation of the financial evaluation provided for in section   7 and, consequently, decided to dismiss that part of the complaint without prejudice ( vendosi refuzimin e kërkesës ). The operative provisions of the decision stated that the Constitutional Court decided to reject the request about repealing section 6 (1) (b) and section 7 (2) (a) and (b) ( vendosi refuzimin e kërkesës për shfuqizimin e nenit 6, pika 1, shkronja “b”, si dhe të nenit 7, pika 2, shkronja “a” dhe “b” ). However, it decided to strike down sections 6 (3) and (5) of the 2015 Property Act stating that (as reproduced from the Beshiri and Others decision, cited above): “70.     ... [those] provisions ‘were conceived as new expropriation since they envisaged a re-evaluation of properties that had already been restored to [former] owners or for which they had already received compensation’. It was for this reason that they gave rise to issues concerning a breach of the principle of legal certainty, especially as regards the lack of clarity and foreseeability. The Constitutional Court stated that ‘the legislator should consider the extent to which compensation in kind provided for in [the repealed] sections 6 §§ 3 and 5 is supplemented by other provisions in order to avoid any overlapping or contradiction between legal provisions’”. 8 .     Notwithstanding the Constitutional Court’s decision, on 7   December   2017 a fresh request for in abstracto constitutional review of sections 6 (1) (b) and 7 (2) (a) and (b) of the 2015 Property Act as well as of certain provisions of implementing decisions adopted by the Government was lodged with the Constitutional Court by an association of former owners (see, also, Beshiri and Others , cited above, §§   73, 81 and   89). Domestic case-law subsequent to the Court’s decision in Beshiri and Others (a)    Constitutional Court’s case-law 9 .     In response to the second request for the constitutional review of certain provisions of the 2015 Property Act and its implementing decisions (see paragraph 8 above), in decision no. 4 of 15 February 2021 the Constitutional Court held that, in so far as it had not examined the merits of the complaints concerning sections 6   (1) (b) and 7 (2) (a) and (b) of the 2015 Property Act and it had not taken a final decision regarding their compatibility with the constitutional provisions and the Convention in 2017, the principle of res judicata did not apply to its prior findings in respect of such complaints and, consequently, it was not prevented from examining the merits of those complaints. 10.     The Constitutional Court recalled that section 6 (1) and (2) embodied the main principles of the compensation formula (otherwise referred to as the financial evaluation in the 2015 Property Act). The provision of section 6 (1) (b) was a constituent element of the compensation formula provided in section 6 and regulated the evaluation of the property which had been restored. The remaining provisions of section 6 governed other situations relating to the application of the compensation formula (that is, the financial evaluation). It therefore concluded that the repeal of sections 6 (3) and (5) did not affect the application of section 6 (1) (b) and dismissed that part of the complaint. 11.     As regards section 7 (2), the Constitutional Court stated that the provisions of section 7 (2) (a) and (b) regulated instances where a former owner had obtained prior partial restoration of the expropriated property. The Constitutional Court noted that, based on updated information provided by the Government, a sizeable number of decisions, namely 10,120 out of 26,091, which had been subject to financial evaluation, were affected by a change of the cadastral category over time. Consequently, it was for the legislature - and not the executive branch of the State - to determine how the 10%   minimum threshold for the amount of compensation that this Court had directed in the Beshiri and Others decision was to be applied to that category, including to cases where former owners had obtained some prior partial restoration. It was for this reason that the Constitutional Court found that the method of calculation contained in section 7 (2) (a) and (b), which had not been amended following the Court’s decision in Beshiri and Others , did not comply with the 10% minimum threshold, and concluded that the interference with the former owners’ right to property was disproportionate. It therefore decided to repeal section 7 (2) (a) and (b) of the 2015 Property Act. The Constitutional Court deferred the entry into force of its decision by six months and directed the legislature to enact new legislation, within the same period, to fill the legal vacuum in the 2015   Property Act arising from the repealed provisions. 12 .     The Constitutional Court further repealed certain provisions of implementing decisions adopted by the Government, since, by virtue of the 2015   Property Act, the legislature had not delegated to the Government the authority to determine a priority order of compensation forms or a combination of different compensation forms. (b)    Supreme Court’s case-law 13.     From 15 May to 8 June 2020 the administrative bench of the Supreme Court delivered a number of decisions concerning applications for the stay of enforcement of domestic courts’ decisions given in cases relating to the financial evaluation carried out by the ATP, namely decisions no.   210 of 15 May 2020, no. 122/462 of 1 June 2020, nos. 45/327 and 56/348 of 8   June 2020. 14 .     The Supreme Court’s administrative bench held that an application for the stay of enforcement of decisions given by the Administrative Court of Appeal would be granted on the condition that, amongst others, the impugned decisions were final. In those cases, in so far as the Administrative Court of Appeal had examined actions against the ATP decisions on financial evaluation as a first-instance court and given that an appeal against the Administrative Court of Appeal decisions had been lodged with the Supreme Court and was pending before it, the application for the stay of enforcement was rejected on the ground that the Administrative Court of Appeal decisions had not become final. The Administrative Court of Appeal decisions had annulled the financial evaluation carried out by the ATP and enjoined the ATP either to carry out a fresh financial evaluation or to award the payment of a specific sum of money as financial compensation. COMPLAINTS 15 .     Almost all applicants complained that there was a breach of Article   6   § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and most of the applicants complained that there was a breach of Article 13 of the Convention, on account of the authorities’ non ‑ enforcement of final decisions which had recognised their right to receive compensation in lieu of the restitution of properties. THE LAW 16.     The Court notes that the applicants complained under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows: Article 6 – Right to a fair trial “1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy “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.” Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Protection of property “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.” Joinder of the applications 17.     The Court, having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court. The complaint under Article 13 of the Convention as well as the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention As regards decision no. 651 of 31 October 1994 in respect of application no.   24086/15, application no. 41685/15 and decisions nos. 210 of 7 July 1995 and 210 of 26   February 2008 in respect of application no. 56491/15 18 .     As regards decision no. 651 of 31 October 1994 given in respect of application no. 24086/15 (see row no. 15 of the Appendix), application no.   41685/15 (see row no. 43 of the Appendix), as well as decisions nos.   210 of 7 July 1995 and 210 of 26 February 2008 given in respect of application no.   56491/15 (see row no. 61 in the Appendix), the Court takes note of the applicants’ wish to withdraw their complaints. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that the applicants do not intend to pursue their complaints in respect of the concerned decisions, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, and it finds no reasons of general interest concerning respect for human rights, within the meaning of the final sentence of Article 37 § 1, which would require the continued examination of those complaints. 19 .     It follows that, in so far as the complaints concerning decision no.   651 of 31   October 1994 given in respect of application no. 24086/15, decisions nos. 210 of 7 July 1995 and 210 of 26   February 2008 given in respect of application no. 56491/15 are concerned, that part of the application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases. As regards application no. 41685/15, it should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases. As regards the remainder of the applications 20.     At the outset, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the legal standing of the applicants or heirs, their shares of inherited properties or their right to compensation or any factual discrepancies in respect of domestic decisions, as the applications are in any event inadmissible for the following reasons. 21.     The Court recalls that, as a part of implementation of the Manushaqe Puto and Others pilot judgment, the authorities introduced a domestic remedy by adopting the 2015   Property Act (see   paragraph 3 above). The Court examined this domestic remedy in the Beshiri and Others decision and found that, on the basis of the available information at the material time, that remedy was effective, within the meaning of Article   35 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention (see paragraph 4 above). 22.     The Court notes that, subsequent to the delivery of the Beshiri and Others decision, on 15 February 2021 the Constitutional Court delivered a decision in response to another request for in abstracto constitutional review of certain provisions of the 2015 Property Act, repealing its section   7   (2) (a) and (b) and certain provisions of implementing decisions. The Court considers that the Constitutional Court’s findings do not warrant a departure from its findings that the new compensation remedy still remains an effective remedy, within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, for the reasons given below. 23 .     The Court notes that the Constitutional Court reconfirmed the core features of the compensation scheme, as stated in section 6 of the 2015   Property Act. It did not question the reference to the original cadastral category of the expropriated property as the main basis for carrying out the financial evaluation. 24.     The Court is satisfied that, in deciding to repeal section 7 (2) (a) and (b) of the 2015 Property Act which regulated the determination of financial evaluation when a former owner had obtained prior partial restoration of the expropriated property, the Constitutional Court acted consistently with and, indeed, sought to give effect to the Court’s direction that the amount of compensation should not be less than 10% of the value to which former owners would be entitled if the financial evaluation was carried out by reference to the current cadastral category of the expropriated property (see Beshiri and Others , cited above, § 196). Furthermore, the Constitutional Court directed the legislature to replace the repealed provisions within a period of six months. 25 .     The Court does not consider that the repeal of applicable provisions in the implementing decisions adopted by the Government raises any novel issues. It has already stated in the Beshiri and Others decision, amongst other things, that it was not its task “to determine the hierarchy of compensation forms to be awarded by the domestic authorities”, and that the domestic legal framework “ought to describe and circumscribe with sufficient clarity the exercise of discretion by the ATP - or other implementing authorities - in making decisions relating to the award of compensation” (ibid., §§ 179 and 180). The Court further recalls that, in view of the considerable burden on the State budget which financial compensation represented, it urged the respondent State in the Manushaqe Puto and Others pilot judgment, “as a matter of priority, to start making use of other alternative forms of compensation, which would eventually ease pressure on the budget, and/or to introduce other methods of compensation” (ibid., § 113). 26.     The Court finds that, in view of the reasons described above, namely the reconfirmation of the main features of the compensation scheme, the endorsement of the amount of compensation to be awarded to former owners in line with the direction made in the Beshiri and Others decision and the statutory stipulation for various forms of compensation, no issues affect the effectiveness of the remedy provided for by the 2015 Property Act as such, which continues to remain accessible and efficient to all former owners and provides for an appropriate form of redress. The deferred entry into force of the Constitutional Court’s decision will allow the authorities, in particular the legislature, to pass legislation which would ensure compliance with the Court’s Beshiri and Others decision and maintain the effectiveness of the remedy provided for by the 2015 Property Act. The Court therefore considers that the applicants’ complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (see paragraph 15 above) is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (see,   also, Beshiri and Others , cited above, §   221). 27.     As regards the applicants’ remaining complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see paragraph 15 above), the Court observes that, depending on the actual stage of the proceedings in respect of each application, the following situations can be distinguished. 28 .     In the first place, as regards decision no. 110 of 29 June 1995 given in respect of application no. 30046/15 (see row no. 29 of the Appendix), no.   241 of 12 September 1995 given in respect of application 161/17 (see   row no. 121 of the Appendix), no. 67 of 6 April 2006 given in respect of application no. 35959/17 (see row no. 126 of the Appendix), as well as all applications described in Table 2 (rows nos. 157-92 of the Appendix), the Court observes that the domestic proceedings concerning the determination of the compensation amount are pending before the national courts. It considers therefore that it would be premature for it to deal with these complaints, which must be rejected under Article 35   §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention (see Beshiri and Others , cited above, §   219). The subsequent Supreme Court’s case-law further confirms that, where an appeal has been filed with the highest court, the lower courts’ decisions would become final and enforceable upon the delivery of a decision by the Supreme Court (see   paragraphs 13 and 14 above). 29.     Secondly, the Court notes that, in so far as application nos. 43859/13 and 18669/16 are concerned (see rows nos. 5 and 97 of the Appendix), the domestic authorities did not recognise by means of a final decision the applicants’ right to compensation in respect of which it cannot be said that they have a “legitimate expectation” to receive compensation, and thus a “possession” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see   Kopecký   v.   Slovakia   [GC] , no.   44912/98, § 49, ECHR   2004 ‑ IX; and   Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic   (dec.), no.   39794/98, § 73, ECHR   2002 ‑ VII). As regards application no. 18669/16, the applicants have not provided any updated information that they have lodged a fresh property claim in accordance with the 2015 Property Act seeking the recognition of their right to compensation. It follows that the   complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. Consequently, the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of such domestic decisions is manifestly ill ‑ founded and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 30 .     Thirdly, in so far as the applicants in applications nos. 11666/20 and 22859/20 (see rows nos. 186 and 155 of the Appendix) claimed that the court decisions acknowledging the existence of a legal fact gave rise to a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court considers that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 as those court decisions did not confer on the applicants property rights or any other rights whatsoever (see   Bici   v.   Albania , no. 5250/07, §§ 46-52, 3   December 2015, and, mutatis mutandis , Marku v.   Albania , no. 54710/12, § 37, 15 July 2014). This complaint must thus be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. Consequently, any complaint about the non-enforcement of such domestic decisions brought under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 31 .     Lastly, the Court finds that, regardless of the applications’ date of introduction, the remaining applications found in the Appendix, save for specific individual decisions given in respect of the applications which have been examined separately in paragraphs 18-19 and 28-30 above, were or are required under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention to avail themselves of the new domestic remedy introduced by virtue of the 2015   Property Act in compliance with the relevant domestic rules. The applicants have either failed to exhaust domestic remedies or failed to inform the Court of any action they have taken in this regard. This equally applies to those cases in which the ATP did not carry out a financial evaluation due to the lack of required documentation or on account of other reasons, or to those cases in which the ATP decided that the applicants were deemed to have been fully compensated, in respect of which the applicants were similarly required to follow the relevant domestic procedures. The Court finds no exceptional circumstances capable of exempting the applicants from the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies (see Beshiri and Others , cited above, §§   216 ‑ 18). It follows that these complaints must be rejected under Article   35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 32.     Notwithstanding the above conclusion, the Court recalls the stipulations made in paragraph 222 of the decision Beshiri and Others , cited above, regarding the conditions which the authorities ought to satisfy in order for the remedy to continue to remain effective, in particular the award of compensation of no less than 10%   of the value to which former owners would be entitled if the financial evaluation was carried out by reference to the current cadastral category of the expropriated property. Other alleged violations of the Convention 33 .     In so far as the applicants in application no. 18669/16 (see row no.   97 of the Appendix) appear to complain about an alleged unfairness of domestic court proceedings, the Court notes that, on the basis of the material in the case file, the last domestic decision was given by the Supreme Court on 26   February 2013, more than six months before the date of the introduction of the application on 31 March 2016. It follows that this complaint under Article 6 § 1 is out of time and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention . 34 .     Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as the complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the alleged unfairness of domestic court proceedings in respect of applications nos.   7645/16, 9833/16 and 14390/16 (see   rows nos. 86, 89 and 95) and the complaints under Article 14 of the Convention in respect of applications nos. 21990/16, 24962/16, 27133/17 and 32114/17 (see rows nos. 98, 172, 177 and 178 of the Appendix) do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike out of its list of cases the complaints concerning decision no.   651 of 31   October 1994 given in respect of application no.   24086/15, decisions nos. 210 of 7 July 1995 and 210 of 26   February   2008 given in respect of application no. 56491/15, and application no.   41685/15; Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 3 June 2021. {signature_p_1}   {signature_p_2} {   Olga Chernishova   Dmitry Dedov   Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX Table 1 No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Article Description of final domestic decisions Enforcement details Represented by 1.     56937/10 Lodged on 21/07/2010 Gani RUÇI Fazilete BEJLERI (née RUÇI) Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 1007 of 21 April 2003 the Gjirokastër Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 40,000 sq. m which would be compensated by means of State bonds in the amount of 976,000 Albanian leks (“ALL” – approx. 7,776 euros “EUR”). The applicants have not provided any response to a letter sent by the Registry on 2 January 2020 requesting information about the authorities’ determination of financial evaluation. Artan Hajdari 2.     60985/12 Lodged on 17/09/2012 Zamira MARKU Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 742 of 4 March 1996 the Tirana Commission, supplementing its decision no. 400 of 2   October 1995, recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 69,400 sq. m, of which 5,000   sq.   m which was occupied by unlawfully constructed buildings were restored, 5,000 sq. m would be compensated in kind and the remaining 59,400 sq.   m would be compensated in accordance with the law. The applicant has not provided any response to a letter sent by the Registry on 2 January 2020 requesting information about the authorities’ determination of financial evaluation. Spiro Dodbiba 3.     80562/12 Lodged on 28/11/2012   Ismail REKA Tahire DAJA [1] Lirije LACEJ Njazi REKA Arben BARONI Zana HARXHI Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 1557 of 30 September 2003 the Supreme Court, modifying the Tirana Commission decision no. 549 of 3 May 1996, recognised the applicants’ right to compensation in respect of 6,870   sq. m. The Agency for Treatment of Property (“ATP”) has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision, and the applicants have not taken any action concerning the enforcement of the ATP’s decision on the financial evaluation. Viktor Gumi 4.     80606/12 Lodged on 28/11/2012   Mustafa VOKOPOLA Fatbardha VOKOPOLA Ferit VOKOPOLA Neire VOKOPOLA Nafize VOKOPOLA Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 856 of 20 September 2008 the Fier Agency, which had replaced the Commission, recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 97,000   sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law. The applicants have not provided any response to a letter sent by the Registry on 2 January 2020 requesting information about the authorities’ determination of financial evaluation. Artur Hajdari 5 .     43859/13 Lodged on 01/07/2013 Ibrahim DAKLI Endri KOTHERJA Ruzhdije DAKLI Drita DAKLI Sami DAKLI Shpresa DAKLI Valentina DAKLI Besa DAKLI Bardhul DAKLI Lauresha DAKLI Elona DAKLI Rukiela DAKLI Artan KURTI Silvana DRACINI Mirela DRACINI Minerva KOTHERJA Hysni KOTHERJA Hyqmet KOTHERJA [2] Pranvera KARAPICI Zana SHAMI Sabire GABECI Engjell DAKLI Arjana DAKLI Naim DAKLI Nexhmije DAKLI Suljan DAKLI Eris DAKLI Lulezim DAKLI Arben DAKLI Burbuqe KOTHERJA Drita DAKLI Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 135/6 of 9 February 1996 the Elbasan Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 40,940 sq. m, of which 17,979 were restored (2,215 sq. m having been restored by means of two prior decisions given in 1994 and 1995), no right to compensation having been recognised in respect of the remaining 20,746 sq. m. Following a civil action concerning the recognition of the applicants’ right to compensation, on 23   September 2010 the Tirana Court of Appeal accepted the civil action and ordered the Property Agency, which had by that time replaced the Commission, to decide on the applicants’ right to financial compensation in respect of 20,746 sq. m. No   decision having been taken by the Property Agency, in November 2012 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint alleging a breach of their right of access to court on account of the non-enforcement of the Tirana Court of Appeal decision. On   19   February 2013 the Constitutional Court held that “the Property Agency’s obligation to take a decision, in implementation of the Tirana Court of Appeal decision, constitutes a formal aspect of the process and not a final decision relating to the right to compensation. Consequently, the failure to adopt such a decision does not prevent the applicants from seeking the substantial right to compensation, by applying and submitting the required documents, as prescribed by the relevant legal framework”. It thus found no breach of the right of access to court as the applicants had failed to seek compensation. In October 2015 the applicants lodged another civil action seeking an amendment to the operative provisions of the Elbasan Commission decision to the effect that they were to be awarded compensation. On 31   May 2018 the Durrës Court of Appeal decided that the applicants should be compensated in respect of 20,746 sq. m, which was occupied, in accordance with the law. A   cassation appeal is pending before the Supreme Court. In the absence of a final recognition of the right to compensation, the applicants have not applied for the award of compensation. Endri KOTHERJA   6.     67691/14 Lodged on 08/10/2014   Samedin KURTI Teuta XHEMALCE (née KURTI) Agron KURTI [3] Ylvi KURTI Shpëtim KURTI Fatbardha VRAPI (née KURTI) Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 141 of 20 February 2009 the Lushnja District Court, modifying the Lushnja Commission decision no. 14 of 10 February 1995, recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 16,000 sq. m, of which 4,769.75 was restored and the remaining 11,230.25 sq. m would be compensated. The ATP, following the financial evaluation of the decision, decided that the applicants were deemed to have been compensated. Sokol Puto     7.     10739/15 Lodged on 23/02/2015 Tomorr QOSJA Besim QOSJA Haxhire GARUNJA Luiza DOSTI Ilirjan QOSJA Myzejen ZINXHIRIJA Fatime DURO Ismete KRASNIQI Bedrije MATUSHI Qemal KRASNIQI Xhevahir KRASNIQI Feridan KRASNIQI Brikena KRASNIQI Marsida KRASNIQI Brunela TREBICKA Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 38 of 21 March 2006 the Elbasan Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 10,560 sq. m, of which 1,332 sq. m were restored and the remaining 9,228 sq. m would be compensated. The ATP, following the financial evaluation of the decision, decided that the applicants were deemed to have been compensated. Sokol Puto 8.     11526/15 Lodged on 03/02/2015     Artan BARE Thimo BARE Dhimiter BARE Nikolina MUSTAFAJ Marjana HYSENBEGASI Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 34 of 10 February 2007 the Vlora Agency recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 22,800   sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law. The applicants have not provided any response to a letter sent by the Registry on 2 January 2020 requesting information about the authorities’ determination of financial evaluation. Artan Hajdari By decision no. 35 of 10 July 2007 the Vlora Agency recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 2,400   sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law. 9.     11528/15 Lodged on 03/02/2015     Ahmet SHEHU Ballkeze MEHMETI Ahmet SHEHU Hedije ZEKA Afërdita SHEHU Lutfije SHEHU Marije SHEHU Elis SHEHU Aida SHEHU Xhynejd SHEHU Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 437 of 22 April 1996 the Berat Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 1,322 sq. m which would be compensated in kind or in State bonds. The applicants have not provided any response to a letter sent by the Registry on 2   January 2020 requesting information about the authorities’ determination of financial evaluation. Isuf Haxhiu By decision no. 577 of 1 October 1996 the Berat Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 582 sq. m which would be compensated in kind or in State bonds. By decision no. 294 of 19 April 2002 the Berat District Court, amending the Berat Commission decision no. 12 of 30   March 1999, recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 905 sq. m which would be compensated in the amount of ALL 57,672,280 (approx. EUR 459,453). 10.     11541/15 Lodged on 03/02/2015     Agron KALLAJXHI Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 1203 of 28 February 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 910 sq. m, of which 630 sq. m were restored, 130   sq. m would be compensated and 150 sq. m that were occupied by buildings would be compensated in kind. The applicant has not provided any response to a letter sent by the Registry on 2   January 2020 requesting information about the authorities’ determination of financial evaluation. Artan Hajdari 11.     13206/15 Lodged on 13/03/2015   Vladimir SHURAJA Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 149 of 1 June 1999 the Përmet Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 580 sq. m, of which 198 sq. m were restored and 382 sq. m would be compensated in kind. The applicant has not provided any response to a letter sent by the Registry on 2   January 2020 requesting information about the authorities’ determination of financial evaluation. Oltion Toro 12.     16525/15 Lodged on 31/03/2015   Tomor KOKOMANI Lumturie DUDI Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 353 of 17 December 2007 the Durrës Agency restored the applicants 5,826 sq. m and recognised their right to compensation in respect of 63,843 sq. m. The ATP has not carried out the financial evaluation of each decision. Suela Mëneri   By decision no. 646 of 20 February 2002 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ right to compensation in respect of 12,666 sq. m 13.     20826/15 Lodged on 25/04/2015   Luan MUMAJESI Isuf MUMAJESI Besnik MUMAJESI Petrit MUMAJESI Arben MUMAJESI Majlinda MUMAJESI Fatbardha MUMAJESI (née IDRIZI) Pullumb MUMAJESI Enver MUMAJESI Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 159 of 20 July 2007 the Property Agency, modifying the Tirana Commission decision no. 409 of 4 August 2006, restored the applicants 1,820 sq. m and recognised their right to compensation in respect of 49,770 sq. m. The applicants have not provided any response to a letter sent by the Registry on 2 January 2020 requesting information about the authorities’ determination of financial evaluation. Avenir Peka   14.     20833/15 Lodged on 15/04/2015   Margarita HANXHARI Aferdita ADAMI (HANXHARI) Laura GJOKA (HANXHARI) Athanas HANXHARI Vasilika LUSHI Silvana CIKO Jordana KOJA - VOLK Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 574 of 22 May 1996 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 2,586 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law. In 2006 the applicants received financial compensation in respect of 200 sq. m. The applicants have not provided any response to a letter sent by the Registry on 2 January 2020 requesting information about the authorities’ determination of financial evaluation. Avenir Peka Xhevdet Sheta   15 .     24086/15 Lodged on 14/05/2015   Siri BESHIRI Ilmije HAMZARAJ Anil DIZDARI Alkion DIZDARI Daniele BESHIRI Patrizia BESHIRI Cristina BESHIRI Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 651 of 31 October 1994 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 10,755 sq. m, of which 3,200 sq. m were restored and 7,555   sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. The applicants have expressed their wish to withdraw their complaints in respect of this decision.     Sokol PUTO   By decision no. 166 of 10 July 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 159,798 sq. m, of which 120,086 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. The ATP has not carried out the financial evaluation of the decision. 16.     24091/15 Lodged on 14/05/2015   Skender KËRÇIKU Silvana TAFILICA Ismete KËRÇIKU Ingrid LIKA Alban KËRÇIKU Saimir KËRÇIKU Adrian KËRÇIKU Lejla POJANI Naim KËRÇIKU Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 197 of 21 April 2000 the Tirana Commission, modifying its decision no. 302 of 29   March 1996, recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 320,000 sq. m, of which 19,732   sq.   m were restored and the remaining 300,268 sq. m would be compensated by means of State bonds in the amount of ALL 1,068,264 (approx. EUR   8,497). The ATP, following the financial evaluation of each decision, decided that the applicants were deemed to have been compensated. Sokol Puto   17.     25427/15 Lodged on 20/05/2015   Milena NISHKU Rozeta XHAGJIKA Irena ÇELA Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 616 of 9 May 2001 the Durrës District Court, modifying the Durrës Commission decision no. 469/2 of 9 February 1995, restored the applicants 152   sq.   m and recognised their right to compensation in respect of 3,952 sq. m. It further ordered a third party to vacate the plot measuring 152 sq. m. On 10   December 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the Durrës District Court decision. The applicants have not provided any response to a letter sent by the Registry on 2 January 2020 requesting information about the authorities’ determination of financial evaluation. Suela Mëneri By decision no. 132 of 5 May 2003 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 140,000 sq. m which would be compensated in State bonds in the amount of ALL   341,600 (approx. EUR 2,723). 18 .     26340/15 Lodged on 22/05/2015     Gazmend HASEKIU Manushaqe BEJTJA Nimete TURHANI Engjellushe BUMCI Fatbardha VARDARI Mahmut XHANI Ajla SHISHMANI Arben XHANI Ibrahim HASEKIU Ardjan HASEKIU Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   By decision no. 1425 of 20 September 2005 the Elbasan District Court, modifying the Elbasan Commission decision no. 166/2 of 9 March 1994, recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 10,500 sq. m, of which 7, 197 sq. m were restored and the remaining 3,303 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. It would appear that the ATP has not carried out the financial evaluation of the decision. Altin Turhani 19.     27960/15 Lodged on 05/06/2015     Elizana NISHKU Milena NISHKU Andi NISHKU Genti NISHKU Kostandin NISHKU Ilir NISHKU Artan NISHKU Pavel NISHKU Galina PAPA Pranvera XHOXHI Gjergji ÇAUSHI Darina RESULI Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 128 of 15 July 1995 the Tirana Property Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 916 sq. m, of which 804   sq. m were restored and the remaining 112   sq.   m would be compensated in accordance with the law. The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of each decision. Suela Mëneri   By decision no. 609 of 13 May 2005 the Tirana Court of Appeal, modifying the Commission decision no.   354 of 1 December 1995