CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 10 décembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .s3E9356B0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:8pt; 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 } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .s54452357 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s4009AD62 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1F536D2 { 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; color:#0070c0 } .sA0611542 { color:#000000 } .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 } .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 } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s63C50DAF { margin-left:14.52pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6AFB8490 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEB3FA797 { width:8.43pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s28F2AD21 { margin-left:11.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF7610474 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s17E903BE { width:3.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC2E086EB { width:36.89pt; display:inline-block } .s829C9466 { width:149.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION CASE OF RAMAJ v. ALBANIA (Application no. 17758/06)   JUDGMENT (Merits)   Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Prolonged non-enforcement of a final and binding domestic judgment recognising the applicant’s title to a plot of land • Applicant’s inability to secure the cadastral registration of his title stemming from a number of structural problems •   Domestic authorities bore main responsibility for the non-registration of the part of the applicant’s plot not occupied by unauthorised constructions • Disproportionate and excessive burden imposed on applicant • Domestic authorities’ failure to strike a fair balance between competing interests Art 1 P1 • Deprivation of property • Legalisation and registration of illegal constructions by third parties on remaining part of the applicant’s plot amounting to de facto expropriation • Applicant’s failure to take any measures to prevent or stop the adverse possession or illegal construction while still possible • Applicant’s failure to apply for compensation under the relevant legal regime with respect of that part of the plot   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 10 December 2024   FINAL   28/04/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ramaj v. Albania, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis , President ,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Darian Pavli,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Diana Kovatcheva,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Mateja Đurović , judges , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   17758/06) 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 an Albanian national, Mr Bashkim Ramaj (“the applicant”), on 23 April 2006; the decision to give notice of the application to the Albanian Government (“the Government”); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 19 November 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application mainly concerns complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment and administrative decision that were delivered in the applicant’s favour and recognised his property rights over a plot of land. THE FACTS 2 .     The applicant was born in 1942 and lived in Tirana. He was represented by Mr B. Çami, a lawyer practising in Tirana. The applicant died on 31   August 2015 when the proceedings were pending before the Court. By a letter of 7 March 2024, Mr Ramaj’s representative informed the Court that the applicant’s son, who was also one of his three heirs, Mr Eduart Ramaj, wished to continue the proceedings in his stead, and would retain the same representative. 3.     The Government were represented by their then Agents Ms.   S. Mëneri and Ms E. Hajro, and subsequently by Mr O. Moçka, the General State Advocate. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 5 .     During the communist period a plot of land located in the area known as Uji i Ftohtë in the Vlora district and measuring 6,700 square meters (sq.   m) had been confiscated from the applicant’s father for the establishment of an agricultural enterprise. In 1991, following the reorganisation of agricultural enterprises, the applicant’s father was granted the right to use that plot. On 1   March 1993 a Council of Ministers’ Decision designated the whole area where the plot was located as a touristic area. 6 .     On 18 October 1996 the Vlora Land Commission (“the Land Commission”) restored the applicant’s father’s title   to the plot in question by issuing a Land Acquisition Certificate ( Akti i marrjes së tokës në pronësi – “AMTP”). 7.     Following the death of the applicant’s father, six of his eight heirs relinquished their property rights over the land in favour of the applicant, granting him the ownership of seven out of eight parts of the property at issue. 8 .     The applicant first applied to register the plot of land in question in 1998. The Immovable Property Registration Office ( Zyra e Regjistrimit të Pasurive të Paluajtshme – “the IPRO”) in Vlora failed to register the land. 9.     On 15 June 2000 the Land Commission annulled its decision of 18   October 1996 and, consequently, the applicant’s father’s ownership rights, on the ground that the applicant’s father did not have such rights to the property in question. 10.     On 18   November 2001 the Vlora IPRO confirmed that the documents pertaining to the applicant’s first request for registration had been lost by its employees. 11.     On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicant joined a civil action brought with the Vlora District Court (“the District Court”) by third parties who contested the Land Commission’s decision of 15 June 2000 in the parts that affected their property rights. 12.     On 20 May 2003 the District Court allowed the third parties’ claim but dismissed the applicant’s claim against the Land Commission’s decision as unfounded. 13 .     The applicant appealed against that decision. On 13 April 2004 the Vlora Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”), deciding on the merits, allowed his appeal and quashed the Land Commission’s decision of   15   June   2000 on the grounds of lack of reasoning and defaults in the procedure, and because it had not been approved by the majority of its members. The Court of Appeal’s decision was not appealed against and became final. Therefore, the applicant’s title to the plot of land was reconfirmed and the Land Commission’s decision of 18 October 1996 became enforceable. 14 .     The Albanian Prime Minister issued Orders no. 45 and no. 93 concerning the property issues in the Uji i Ftohtë area on 9   February 2004 and 27 April 2004 respectively. Those Orders suspended any activities with property titles in the area, including their registration by the IPRO. It was also decided to conduct an administrative review of such titles. No information has been provided to the Court as to the outcome or conclusions of that review. 15.     On 22 December 2004 the District Court issued a writ of execution in respect of the Court of Appeal’s decision of 13 April 2004 (see paragraph 13 above). On 6 April 2006 the Vlora Regional Land Commission (“the Regional Land Commission”), at the request of the bailiff’s office, repealed its decision of 15 June 2000 and confirmed the restoration of the applicant’s father’s title. That decision included a statement that a copy of the decision was to be sent to the IPRO. Following that, the enforcement proceedings were terminated. 16.     In the meantime, on 18 November 2004 the Central IPRO informed the applicant that a solution to the issue concerning his property would be determined once the Land Commission had concluded its review. 17.     On 22 November 2004 and 30 December 2004 the Vlora Municipality confirmed that the applicant had submitted the relevant documents, including the AMTP, the relevant court decision, the inheritance certificate and the documents in which his father’s heirs had relinquished their property rights in favour of the applicant. 18.     Following a request by the applicant, on 14 August 2006 the Vlora IPRO informed him that the 2004 Court of Appeal decision and the 2006 Regional Land Commission decision concerning the registration of his property had been sent to the Central IPRO. 19.     On 8 May 2007 the Central IPRO, in a letter addressed to the Albanian Ombudsman ( Avokati i Popullit ), stated that the transfer of titles in the area of Uji i Ftohtë had been suspended because of competing titles. It mentioned that a report had been drafted on the issue and that the applicant could not be provided with an ownership certificate until the issue had been addressed. It also informed the Ombudsman that all property transfers in the Uji i Ftohtë area had been suspended because of the existence of overlapping and conflicting title deeds   issued for the same plots of land. 20.     The applicant submitted a complaint to the Central IPRO about the situation, but on 4   November 2009 it informed him that his complaint was not complete. 21 .     On 23 April 2010 the Central IPRO informed the applicant of the start of an initial registration of properties in the area where his property was located. That procedure, which all immovable properties in the country would undergo after the fall of communism, would be considered a first registration. It would be based on legal documents and cartographic information already available to the IPRO’s offices or provided by the owners. 22 .     On 26 May 2010 the Vlora IPRO informed the applicant that he should submit an application for the registration of his property together with a map of it (see paragraphs 29 and 31 below). 23.     On 29 June 2010 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that he should submit an application to the Vlora IPRO. 24.     On 16 March 2011 the Central IPRO informed the State Advocate’s Office that the registration of the applicant’s title had been suspended and that the applicant had been kept constantly informed about the situation with his property. 25.     On 6 June 2011 the Central IPRO, in response to a query from the applicant, informed him that he was obliged to deposit the relevant documents with the local IPRO. 26.     On 27 July 2011, the State Advocate’s Office informed the applicant that the 2004 Court of Appeal’s decision had been executed when the Land   Commission had issued its decision in 2006. As to the registration of his property, any action in that respect had been suspended. 27.     On 28 August 2011 the Vlora IPRO required the applicant to present himself at its premises to provide further information, which he did. 28 .     On 13 April 2012 the Vlora IPRO informed the applicant that the initial registration of property in the area where his property was located was in progress, and that the relevant documents concerning his property which the applicant had submitted to the Land Commission would be forwarded to the relevant authorities. 29 .     On 20 April 2012 the applicant submitted another application for the registration of his property to the Vlora IPRO, together with a map of the property. 30 .     On 17 May and 18 June 2012 the Vlora IPRO informed the applicant that he was required to submit a formal application for the registration of his property (see paragraph 29 above, and paragraph 31 below). 31 .     On 5 September 2012, the applicant submitted a new application for the registration of his property to the Vlora IPRO, together with a map of the property. He also paid the application fee again. 32 .     On 6 September 2012 the Vlora IPRO forwarded the applicant’s request of 20 April 2012, including the relevant documents, to the designated company responsible for the initial registration of the properties in the area. 33 .     On 3 November 2012 the Vlora IPRO informed the applicant that his title would be registered once the initial registration process had been completed (see paragraphs 41 and 50 below). It further stated that the documents had already been submitted by the Regional Directory for the Administration and Protection of the Land. No request for further documents was made to the applicant. 34 .     On 1 June 2015, the Vlora IPRO informed the applicant that his property overlapped with eight other properties registered to private parties. The overlapping properties consisted of agricultural land, two olive groves and residential land ( truall ). Four of the properties, consisting of 1,542.3   sq.   m, which had been registered based on Law no. 9482/2006 on the legalisation of informal constructions, also overlapped with other properties belonging to third parties that had been registered pursuant to a decision of the Commission for the Restitution and Compensation of Property dated 15   January 2008. There is no information in the case file as to the precise extent of the overlap between those properties and that of the applicant, or the extent to which they overlap with each other. The Government did not provide any submissions on the procedures employed for those registrations, when they occurred or the origin of the registered titles. 35 .     On 16 October 2015 the State Advocate’s Office informed the applicant that it had required the Central and Vlora branches of the IPRO to speed up the registration of his property. 36.     On 12 December 2015 the Vlora IPRO informed the applicant that his title to the property had not been registered after the initial registration of the properties in the area was concluded. It further requested him to submit a map of his property. 37 .     On 22 December 2022, in response to further questions posed by the Court, the applicant’s representative replied that the applicant had not taken any legal action against third parties seeking the cessation of any infringement of his property rights or to regain possession of his property. 38.     In its latest letter of 6 January 2023, the IPRO reiterated its previous argument that the applicant’s title had not been registered because there already were registered titles concerning the plot of land in question, without providing any additional information. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE and international materials domestic law and practice The Constitution 39.     The relevant parts of the Albanian Constitution read as follows: Article 41 “1. The right of private property is guaranteed. 2. Property may be acquired by gift, inheritance, purchase, or any other ordinary means provided for by the Civil Code. 3.   The law may provide for expropriations or limitations in the exercise of a property right only in the public interest. 4. Expropriations, or limitations of a property right that are equivalent to expropriation, are permitted only in return for fair compensation.” Article 42 § 2 “In order to protect their constitutional and legal rights, freedoms and interests, or when an accusation has been made against them, everyone has the right to a fair and public trial, within a reasonable time, by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” Article 142 § 3 “State bodies shall comply with judicial decisions.” The Civil Code 40 .     The relevant parts of the Albanian Civil Code read as follows: Article 83 “For a transfer of ownership and rights in rem over immovable property to be valid,   the transaction should be carried out by notarised deed and be registered.” Article 192 “Contracts which create, alter, transfer, or revoke property rights over immovable property must be entered in the land register.” Article 193 “The following must be registered in the land register: ... dh) Court decisions or the decisions of State authorities that include the granting or recognition of titles to immovable property, the division of immovable property, the annulment of legal acts transferring previously registered ownership, as well as any orders of bailiffs’ offices for the seizure of immovable property or its sale by auction.” Article 197 “The following must also be registered: ... b) Proceedings for the acquisition, recognition, modification or termination of property rights or other rights in rem over immovable property; ...” Article 296 “The owner has the right to bring an action to reclaim his property from anyone who possesses it. Each co-owner has the same right concerning common property, in order to have it restored to all co-owners.” The Land Act (Law no. 7501/1991), as amended by Laws no. 7715/1993 and no. 7855/1994 41 .     The relevant parts read as follows: Section 3 “Agricultural land is given into ownership or in use to local legal or natural persons without compensation.” Section 5/a “The Village Land Commissions submit the documentation relating to the land allocation to the district’s cadastral section in accordance with the specified provisions and criteria.” Section 10 “Land whose ownership or use is transferred to any legal or natural person shall be registered in the cadastre. Also, any changes made after the initial registration shall be registered in the land cadastre.” Law no. 8053/1995 on agricultural land 42 .     The purpose of this Law was to regulate the free transfer of agricultural land to agricultural families or individuals who were already making use of it. Land situated in tourist areas was excluded, except in cases where land belonging to families had been used for the establishment of state farms during the communist regime. Law no. 9948/2008 on the review of the legal validity of titles to agricultural land 43.     Law no. 9948 was adopted in 2008 in order to respond to perceived abuses and inconsistencies that had occurred in the original process whereby the land commissions had granted AMTPs. The law’s scope was to undertake a thorough review of the “validity” of titles so acquired. The authorities in charge of conducting the review were newly created local commissions for the evaluation of titles. 44.     In accordance with section 4 of the law, the transfer of agricultural land should be effected only via the issuing of an AMTP. 45.     Only titles created in accordance with the relevant legal provisions were to be considered as valid. The Law provided for procedures for reviewing any title that had not been issued in accordance with it and the consequences thereof. The reviewing process was scheduled to be completed on 31 December 2019. 46.     In those cases where, after the evaluation of the documents, it was assessed that the title to the agricultural land had been issued in breach of the Law, the local commission for the evaluation of titles decided whether the title was invalid wholly or in part (section 9(1)). The local commission would then initiate court proceedings requesting the annulment of the relevant AMTP (section 10). Immovable Property Registration Legislation Law no. 7843/1994 on the registration of immovable property 47.     This Law created local registration offices in each administrative district, as well as a central registration office. The Law provided for the registration of immovable property, which was carried out by the local IPROs (section 2 of the Law). It delegated the registration of all contracts related to the transfer of property rights (section   2(c)) and the issuance of certificates of ownership (section   5(a)) to the local IPROs. 48.     After an immovable property was registered, any further transaction would have to be registered in accordance with the legal requirements. That registration would give the owner the right to dispose of the property (section   9). 49 .     The priority in registration of multiple titles or claims to a property was to be determined by the chronological order in which the registration requests were submitted, regardless of when they had been drafted (section 10) – “first come first registered” ( “përparësia e regjistrimit përcaktohet në varësi nga radha e paraqitjes” ). 50 .     Section 24 laid out the procedures for the initial registration of properties. “Initial registration” was the first registration of the immovable property in accordance with the Law and the Civil Code (section 1). All properties in the country were subject to initial registration. The Law did not provide any timeframe for such registration. Title to and the boundaries of a property were determined in deeds issued under the Land Act, the Privatisation Act, the Compensation and Restitution Act or a court decision. Any individual wishing to register his or her property title had to lodge a request with the relevant IPRO and provide the relevant documents. Provisional registration was carried out until the initial registration phase had been finalised. 51.     Section 27 provided for the procedures to be followed when there were competing claims to the same property. However, it stated that if the issue had been resolved by a final court decision, the IPRO should refrain from further actions. The IPRO had an obligation to enter a note in the Immovable Property Register concerning the overlapping claims. 52.     Section 38 stipulated that if a physical person acquired title to an immovable property on the basis, inter alia, of a court decision, he or she should be registered as its owner upon request. Law no. 33/2012 on the registration of immovable property 53 .     This Law repealed Law no. 7843/1994. Under section 37 priority in the registration of immovable property did not change from previous Law (see paragraph 49 above) and was determined by the time the documents were presented to the registry, regardless of their drafting date. The IPRO could not accept a new registration request in respect of a property, title to which had already been registered by a third party. When there was overlap with an existing title, the IPRO, by a reasoned order, could refuse to register the part of the property concerned until the issue was resolved through judicial proceedings. The IPRO had to provide guidance to the individual concerned in relation to the judicial resolution of his or her issue. Law no. 111/2018 on the Cadastre 54 .     This Law repealed Law no. 33/2012 and is currently in force. It established the State Cadastre Agency (“the Cadastre”), which replaced the IPRO and the Legalisation Agency (section 67(3)). 55.     Section 24(4) provides that the Cadastre should refuse to register any transfer of ownership that has no chronological continuity and that could create an overlap with another property. 56.     If inaccuracies affecting a large number of properties are identified in the cadastral map, the Cadastre must, either proprio motu or upon the request of an interested party, undertake the improvement of the relevant cadastral zone register (section 35). 57.     Under section 37 the improvement of the register should be implemented in two steps. The first should include the review and adjustment of the cadastral maps with the relevant titles and the factual situation of the properties. During the second step it should be assessed whether the title deeds match with the situation in practice. The local cadastre office is responsible for correcting any possible mistakes and other minor inaccuracies in the cadastral documents for any title created by a public authority before the Law came into force. 58 .     The registration of a transfer of title to an immovable property, based on a final judicial decision or a decision of an administrative authority, is carried out after verifying the submitted documents and that the relevant procedures laid out in sections 24 and 25 of the Law and Article 193 of the Civil Code have been complied with. Otherwise, the registration request will be denied. A claim may be brought against such a decision (section 47) before the administrative courts. Law no. 20/2020 on the finalisation of transitional property processes 59 .     Two of the Law’s main objectives are: the finalisation of the registration of all titles granted to agricultural land (section 2(1)(a)) and resolving issues arising from overlapping titles (section 2(1)(dh)). Such overlaps arise from, for example, errors in the cadastral maps or the existence of two or more titles to the same property. 60.     Section 4(2) gives the definition of an AMTP, a Land Acquisition Certificate, which is a type of administrative act that was issued before the entry into force of the Law and that aimed at transferring ownership of state-owned land to private parties in accordance with legal provisions. 61.     The Law undertakes to consolidate the legal relationship between title deeds originating from previous laws or by-laws (section 6(1)(a)). 62 .     Under section 8, the Cadastre’s duty will be to assess competing titles and register only one of them. If the legal conditions for registration are not met, the Cadastre must notify the persons to whom the AMTP was granted and request them to provide any relevant documents within 45 days. Afterwards, within thirty days, a decision will be made to register the property, or a non-compliance report will be drafted. A decision not to register should be reasoned and recorded in the land register, including in cases involving property claims based on an AMTP. Such a decision does not affect the validity of the title, and any interested party has the right to raise any ownership claims before the courts to determine which title has priority in registration. 63 .     Under section 11(2)(b), a title must not be registered if it is in conflict with a final court judgment issued before the law entered into force. The Cadastre must refuse registration, pursuant to section 24(4) of Law no.   111/2018, if a final judgment granting title to the requester has not resolved a conflict with other valid titles to the same plot and the overlap cannot be resolved administratively. The refusal to register has no effect on the validity of the title. All interested parties have the right to raise their claims before the courts. 64 .     Under section 12(2)(ç), no valid title can be transferred if there are unlawful [unauthorised] constructions on the property. If only part of the plot is occupied by such constructions, the transfer of ownership to the original owner applies only to the remaining part. 65 .     Owners whose property has been occupied, in whole or in part, by legalised unlawful constructions should be compensated based on property value maps (section 24(1)). Such plots will be treated as residential land (“ truall ”) for the purposes of compensation (section 24(2)). In cases where there is a dispute over the ownership of a plot of land, the compensation value is approved without specifying the beneficiary. The compensation is then deposited into a bank account and will be made available to the beneficiary after the dispute is resolved via a court decision. 66.     The Cadastre has the authority to check if any overlapping titles have been caused by errors in the maps, or by any other clerical error (section 64). Any measure taken by the Cadastre to fix such errors cannot in any way violate the property rights of the owners of neighbouring plots (section   65(2)). Relevant international materials Venice Commission Opinion 67 .     Further to a request for an opinion on the compatibility of draft Law no. 20/2020 on the finalisation of transitional ownership processes with the standards enshrined in the Convention and the case law of the Court, which was made by the Speaker of the Albanian Parliament on 10 May 2019, the   European Commission for Democracy through Law (“the   Venice   Commission”) adopted a final opinion on 11 and 12 October 2019. 68 .     The Venice Commission concluded, inter alia (references omitted): “6. Property rights in Albania constitute one of the most complicated issues after the change of the regime in 1990, hampering the [country’s] economic development. The legal framework is at best characterized as fragmented, complex and incoherent. Immovable property cases have flooded domestic courts as well as the European Court of Human Rights. This influx continues. 7. Most of the problems, which Albania faces currently in the field of property rights have their origin in the first laws adopted in the early 90’s of the previous century. The process regarding immovable property did not start with restitution of original owners unlike in other countries. Instead Albania follows the principle of ‘lawfulness of fact’. ... The Law No. 7501/1991 “On Land” [the Land Act] foresaw the allocation of agricultural land under state’s ownership to individuals and legal persons, other than the original owners to whom the land belonged before the communist regime. In practice this meant that the usage of the land was given to the families sitting on it (about 500,000 family farms, separated into nearly 2 million parcels), instead of the former landowners regaining it. As a result, the soil follows the usage and the former owner should have been compensated with other land or financially as provided for in different laws. In fact the distribution of the land of the so called ‘cooperative farms’ did not follow ‘usage’ – it was done on list of members, some of whom left the villages long ago and others never intended to ‘use’ it and do farming. Later, a similar, controversial legalisation/expropriation procedure had been applied after to regulate the situation of people having occupied land, sometimes by force, and had building on it. ... 16. During the visit, the delegation of the Venice Commission received information that these different laws appear to have been implemented in an often inconsistent manner resulting in legal uncertainty for all stakeholders, including municipalities, making it difficult for the legislature to find appropriate solutions without violating individual rights. ... 26. The new draft law is an initiative of the Albanian Government and aims to provide effective legal instruments for resolving a remaining set of problems related to property rights on immovable properties and registration issues, which have dominated the country’s socio-economic development for three decades as summarised above. According to the parliamentary report, the new draft law ‘aims to find solutions to all those undealt [with issues] and pending situations, because proceeding with the current framework is impossible (either because of the legal vacuum or due to legal preclusive provisions, which only identify problematic issues, without setting out the way they shall be dealt with).’ ... 57. In view of the detailed analysis provided above the Venice Commission underlines that the agricultural titles issued and referred to as AMTPs, whether registered or not constitute protected possessions under Article 1 [of] Protocol [No.] 1 to the ECHR. ... 63. According to the parliamentary report the need to draft and propose the draft law has arisen as a result of noticing weaknesses both in material and procedural aspects of the current legal framework and in the institutional structure. The purpose of the draft law is to create a simplified and harmonized legal basis for the completion of administrative processes for the treatment of state and private immovable property within a 10-year-term and thus to achieve legal certainty within a reasonable time. This aim seems to be legitimate. ... 72. The Venice Commission acknowledges the need for consolidation of the fragmented legal framework. During its visit to Tirana the delegation of the Venice Commission received a lot of information on the lack of reliable cadastral maps, archives burned, lost, improperly maintained, boundaries of parcels not identified and on deficiencies in AMTPs as to form, content, undefined geographical position, overlaps that is 2 or more owners on whole or on part of a parcel including for parcels classified as state [property], AMTPs having been issued for very small parcels, as well as for territory not used and not usable for farming (sand, rocks), and 200 – 300 year old buildings for which there is neither legal documentation [proving] ownership nor technical [or] cartographic identification.” 69.     The Venice Commission concluded that the draft law lacked clarity and precision owing to a lack of definitions, the far-reaching regulatory power it gave to the Council of Ministers, and a lack of basic procedural steps and clearly defined deadlines for title holders. It argued that, in particular, sections   7 and 9 of the draft law were inherently unclear and imprecise and therefore bore a high risk that their implementation would lead to infringements of the Convention, in particular under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and Articles 6, 13, and 14. The final version of the law underwent several changes based on those conclusions. Commentary on Law no. 20/2020 on the finalisation of transitional property processes in the Republic of Albania, Council of Europe Office in Tirana, June 2021 70 .     The relevant parts read as follows: “The agricultural land registration process has been characterised by material, procedural and bureaucratic problems. Problems of a material nature are related to the issuance over the years of titles that overlap or where there is a fundamental discrepancy with the factual situation. These hardships have become more difficult because of procedural and bureaucratic obstacles that have hindered the finalisation of the process or the registration of titles. Law 20/2020 aims to address that process through simplified procedures, dealing with procedural and bureaucratic obstacles, while also finding solutions to the material conflicts over titles (page 41). ... The question is how to act in cases where there are parallel titles to certain plots of agricultural land, granting different owners [rights to] the same or overlapping plots of land. None of the criteria or principles established in sections 3 and 6 of the law provide a direct answer to this question. ... Consolidation is the result of a process in which different claimants to a property are involved in a registration process that is concluded with the registration of only one title and the refusal to register other titles that do not meet the legal criteria for registration. This paves the way for the parties to turn to the courts for the resolution of the parallel claims over the same property or leads them towards a compensation process when applicable (page 42).” Overview of relevant domestic judicial practice The Supreme Court’s case-law 71 .     The Supreme Court’s unifying decision no. 1 of 6 January 2009 provided that the registration of a transfer of ownership of a plot of land in the land register was declaratory in nature and that a failure to register such a transfer did not render it invalid. However, failure to register the transaction in the land register meant that the buyer could not transfer that property to another party and could entail a risk of fraudulent transfers. 72 .     In decision no. 120 of 26 February 2015, the Supreme Court considered appropriate the IPRO’s decision not to register the transfer of ownership of a plot of land based on a sales contract. It held that every administrative authority had the power to verify whether a legal action or administrative act fulfilled the necessary criteria under the relevant legal provisions. State authorities should not perform an action or take a decision based on an absolutely invalid legal act. In such cases there was an obligation to establish, even proprio motu , the absolute invalidity of such an act and not continue further with the relevant administrative proceedings by refusing to perform the administrative action or issue the administrative act. In that case the Supreme Court noted that the IPRO’s refusal could then be challenged in legal proceedings. 73 .     In decision no. 116 of 4 April 2023 the Supreme Court held that in order to facilitate the bringing of court actions to resolve disputes involving overlapping titles, a clear identification of the properties and the relevant titles was necessary. The Supreme Court held that it was the Cadastre’s duty not only to confirm the existence of such an overlap, but also to define the relevant property with all its identifying elements. That information was crucial not only to show that there had been no arbitrariness on the part of the public authorities, but also to provide the potential plaintiff with the opportunity to bring the proper legal proceedings. 74 .     In a more recent decision, namely no. 128 of 28 March 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed proceedings seeking an injunction to force the Cadastre to register the plaintiff’s property and provide her with a deed, holding that the Cadastre office could not assess property rights, verify how ownership had been acquired, correct a title or create a new one. When individuals seeking the registration of land have any claims concerning overlapping titles or the ownership of the property, those claims must be addressed via legal proceedings. Only after a court had established the merits of the claim concerning a property right could the parties apply to the Cadastre for the registration of the title. The Constitutional Court’s case-law 75.     The Constitutional Court, in its decision no. 17 of 23 April 2010, found that the deletion of a registered title by an administrative authority [the IPRO], without fair judicial proceedings, could significantly infringe the right of property and violate the principle of legal certainty. 76 .     In its decision no. 1 of 21 January 2016, the Constitutional Court held that the IPRO’s refusal to register a title as ordered by a final court decision amounted to a violation of the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article   42 of the Constitution. That court found that requiring the title holder to initiate another judicial or administrative process [against the IPRO or a third party] would put an excessive burden on the title holder in realizing her right of property and its effective exercise. For that reason, it was the authorities’ duty to find the right tools to guarantee the execution of the court decision and not to present obstacles or reasons for their failure to register the property in the name of the party concerned. THE LAW LOCUS STANDI 77.     The Court takes note of the death of Mr Bashkim Ramaj after the introduction of the present application, and of the wish expressed by his son to continue the application before the Court in his stead (see   paragraph   2   above). 78.     The Government did not oppose his wish. 79.     The Court accepts that the late applicant’s son has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application (see, for example, Şamat v.   Turkey , no.   29115/07, §   43, 21 January 2020). For practical purposes, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the ensuing text. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 of Protocol N o . 1 to THE CONVENTION 80 .     The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of an interference with his property rights because of the non-enforcement of the Court of Appeal’s decision restoring his title to the 6,700   sq.   m plot of land. He maintained that he had never been in real and effective possession of his property in view of the refusal to register his title by the IPRO. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 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.” Admissibility Whether the applicant had a possession within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (a)    The parties’ submissions 81.     In their first observations to the Court in 2008 the Government submitted several arguments as to why the applicant’s title was unlawful, seeking thereby to justify the authorities’ refusal to register it. They contended that the domestic courts had not had an opportunity to assess whether the applicant had met the legal criteria to obtain restitution of the land in question. 82.     The applicant contested the Government’s view, submitting that under the relevant domestic laws his title was legitimate and unchallenged. Thus the 2004 Court of Appeal decision and the 2006 decision of the Regional Land Commission had confirmed that the title was valid and enforceable. 83.     Th