CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s1B9C96E3 { width:14.2pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .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 } .s715E7C6D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .s9A659E2E { width:118.41pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 75984/11 Gëzim BOÇARI against Albania   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19   March   2024 as a Committee composed of:   Georgios A. Serghides , President ,   Darian Pavli,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   75984/11) 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”) on 21 September 2011 by an Albanian national, Mr Gëzim Boçari (“the applicant”), who was born in 1949, lives in Tirana and was represented by Ms B. Boçari, a lawyer practising in Tirana; the decision to give notice of the application to the Albanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms. L. Mandia, and subsequently by Mr O. Moçka, General State Advocate; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The application concerns the length of proceedings concerning the execution of a domestic judgment and the Court’s judgment in the case of Gjonbocari and Others v. Albania (no. 10508/02, 23 October 2007). Decisions concerning ownership of the contested property 2.     On 6 July 2001 the applicant, together with six other persons, lodged an application with this Court. In its above-mentioned judgment of Gjonbocari and Others the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the authorities’ failure to enforce the Supreme Court’s judgment of 6   March 2003, which had ordered the Vlora Commission on Restitution and Compensation of Properties to take a decision concerning the applicants’ claim for restitution of certain property (see, in particular, §§ 52 and 53, 100 and 101 of Gjonbocari and Others ). 3.     In the meantime, on 31 August 2007, the Vlora Regional Restitution and Compensation Agency (“the Vlora Agency”) rejected the applicant’s property claims finding that legal documents supporting the claim had not been submitted, and because of the overlapping of the applicant’s claims with those of other claimants. That decision was upheld on appeal and the applicant started court proceedings against them. 4.     While these civil proceedings were pending, in another set of administrative proceedings, upon a request by third parties, the Vlora Agency in its decision no. 45/2009 of 11 March 2009, recognised third parties’ ownership on the property claimed by the applicant. 5.     Following the conclusion of these administrative proceedings, the Vlora Appeal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim on 21 April 2017, on the grounds that the decision adopted in the administrative proceedings, recognising the ownership of third parties, was adopted in order to comply with the Supreme Court’s judgment of 6 March 2003, and therefore also the Court’s judgment in the case of Gjanbocari and Others (see paragraph 2 above), and that as a final administrative decision it served as a title for enforcement. The Appeal Court also held that the administrative decision was a final resolution of conflicting claims of ownership on the same property. 6.     The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court and these proceedings are still pending. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 7. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of proceedings concerning the enforcement of the Supreme Court’s judgment of 6   March   2003 and the Court’s judgment of 23 October 2007 (see paragraph 2 above) and also claimed that these judgements had not been enforced. He also alleged absence of effective remedies under Article 13. 8.     The Government argued that the judgments at issue had been enforced by the Vlora Commission’s decisions which had resolved the applicant’s claim and those of third parties (see paragraphs 3-5 above). 9.     The Court notes that in its above-mentioned judgment in the case of Gjonbocari and Others it, inter alia , indicated to the Government to “secure, by appropriate means and speedily, the enforcement of the domestic court’s final judgment”, namely the Supreme Court’s judgment of 6 March 2003 ( idem ., § 101). The said judgment of the Supreme Court ordered the Vlora Commission to issue a decision   concerning the applicant’s and his siblings’ claim for restitution of some property confiscated from their parents ( idem ., §§ 6, 7 and 27). In that connection the Vlora Agency first dismissed the applicant’s claim on 31 August 2007, and following the Court’s judgment in the case of Gjonbocari and Others , on 11 March 2009 adopted decision no.   45/2009 by which it recognised third parties’ ownership on the property claimed by the applicant, and thus finally resolved that issue. The ensuing court proceedings, instituted by the applicant in respect of the Vlora Agency’s decision of 31 August 2007, cannot put into question the fact that the Vlora Agency, by adopting its decision of 11 March 2009, complied with the Supreme Court’s judgment of 6 March 2003. Therefore, following the Court’s judgment in Gjonbocari and Others , the proceedings at issue lasted one year, four months and fifteen days, which appears reasonable (see, for general principles, Frydlender v. France ([GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR   2000-VII). 10.     The Court also notes that the case involved complex factual and legal issues with several persons claiming title over the same plot of land, in the context of restitution. It also finds that the authorities have acted speedily following the Court’s judgment in Gjonbocari and Others. 11.     The Court also notes that the applicant was awarded just satisfaction for the length of the enforcement proceedings at issue in its judgment of Gjonbocari and Others . Following that judgment, the Vlora Agency complied with the Supreme Court’s judgment of 6 March 2003 and issued a decision on the applicant’s claim for the restitution of property. As to the manner in which the domestic authorities have enforced the Supreme Court’s judgment at issue, the Court does not discern any factors which would indicate that the authorities were responsible for the delays or otherwise failed to enforce the domestic judgment. 12.     It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 13.     As to the Article 13 complaint, the Court notes that it is inextricably linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared inadmissible (see   Ljubičić v. Croatia   (dec.), no. 17338/05, 10 May 2007). For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 11 April 2024.     Olga Chernishova   Georgios A. Serghides   Deputy Registrar   President