CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 22 février 2024

.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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s56A455C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE157FEB0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s398E089 { height:77.75pt } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF VICKTORIA SH.P.K. v. ALBANIA (Application no. 31018/09)         JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 22 February 2024         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Vicktoria SH.P.K. v. Albania, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis, President,   Darian Pavli,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 1 February 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application against Albania lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 4   June   2009. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr A. Hakani, a lawyer practising in Tirana. 3.     The Albanian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.     The applicant company’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5.     The applicant company complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicant company complained that the length of the civil proceedings (see appended table) had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. It relied on Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. 7.     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). 8.     In the instant case proceedings started no later than 21 February 2005 and through frequent remittals lasted until 13 March 2015, when the Constitutional Court finally decided to dismiss the applicants’ complaints. Therefore, the proceedings lasted for ten years and twenty-one days before four levels of jurisdiction. 9.     The Court considers that the length of the proceedings is largely attributed to the authorities, in particular, domestic courts’ belated joinder of the two related sets of the proceedings despite the applicant company’s repeated requests to that effect. In view of what was at stake for the applicant company, that is the contestation of the value of its property used to pay out loans taken from a bank, the Court considers that the case was of importance for the applicant company and should have prompted the domestic courts to examine it with diligence. 10.     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   v.   Albania , no. 18381/05, 7 December 2010, and Gjonbocari and Others v. Albania , no. 10508/02, 23 October 2007). 11.     In the leading cases of Luli and Others v. Albania, nos. 64480/09 and 5 others, 1 April 2014, and Mishgjoni, cited above, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 12.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 13.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Luli and Others, cited above, and Mishgjoni , also cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that the application discloses a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the civil proceedings; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicant company, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 February 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     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 registration   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 Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses (in euros) [2] 31018/09 04/06/2009 VICKTORIA SH.P.K. 1994 Hakani Arben Tirana 21/02/2005   13/03/2015   10 year(s) and 21 day(s) 4 level(s) of jurisdiction   1,200 250     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.