CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 mai 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s1B9C96E3 { width:14.2pt; 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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s527DE03B { width:127.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 40730/11 Nikolin KOTE and Vilson KOTE against Albania (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17   May   2023 as a Committee composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis , President ,   Darian Pavli,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 15   June 2011, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants were represented by Ms S. Meneri, a lawyer practising in Tirana. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy to complain about it were communicated to the Albanian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the application should be declared inadmissible. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §   43, ECHR 2000-VII; Gazsó v. Hungary , no. 48322/12, § 15, 16 July 2015; and Topallaj v. Albania , no. 32913/03, § 75, 21 April 2016). The Court notes that the proceedings started on 10 October 2008 and ended on 15 June 2012, having thus lasted for slightly over three years and eight months before three levels of jurisdiction, a period which cannot be considered excessive. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. As regards the applicant’s complaint about the lack of effective remedy, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right. Hence, the applicant does not have an arguable claim in respect of the complaint under Article 6 that has already been found inadmissible by the Court. It follows that this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§   3 and 4 of the Convention (see Marini v. Albania , no.   3738/02, § 150, 18   December 2007). For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 8 June 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Ioannis Ktistakis   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Start of proceedings or date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of Albania (2 October 1996) End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction 40730/11 15/06/2011 Nikolin KOTE 1967   Vilson KOTE 1972   Meneri Suela Tirana 10/10/2008 15/06/2012   3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 6 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction