CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 27 mai 2025

.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 } .s4EEBEA4D { margin-top:28pt; 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 } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEB972D3E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s5FA52469 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:4pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; 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 } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .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 } .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 } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s7940ED5C { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .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 } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s90EB8675 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:53pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.2pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sC16A560F { width:144.36%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sF1F34627 { height:64.4pt } .s56107FCB { width:5.1%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sE537A985 { width:14.92%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB8F88114 { width:16.5%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEE6319C6 { width:16.78%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCC88776A { width:13.52%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3A013CA3 { font-family:Arial; color:#424242 } .sBE21E98 { width:11.98%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB823FD45 { width:10.28%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD88823 { width:5.1%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sEE3B17D3 { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s58545470 { width:14.92%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sACF099FB { width:16.5%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s3D7F08C2 { width:16.78%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s204776C0 { width:13.52%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s569683AA { width:11.98%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCE38F967 { width:10.28%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA2E08DC3 { width:16.5%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8FB2C7C8 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sACBEA9CE { width:13.52%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s148E3E96 { width:11.98%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sCB44A6CD { width:10.7%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s9538EC41 { height:0pt } .s460C3DB7 { width:27.05pt } .sB6557B26 { width:79.15pt } .s68C7857B { width:87.5pt } .s96740C48 { width:89pt } .s74095E07 { width:71.7pt } .s34605D04 { width:63.55pt } .sFB8C5C1B { width:56.75pt } .s909850B8 { width:1.15pt } .s3E72B953 { width:54.55pt } THIRD SECTION CASE OF ARB SHPK AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA (Applications nos. 39860/19 and 3 others – see appended list)   JUDGMENT   Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Failure of the applicant in the third application to lodge a Constitutional appeal complaining about the length of proceedings, a remedy capable of being an effective • Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies • Art   13 • Effective remedy • Manifestly ill-founded Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Unreasonable length of proceedings before the Supreme Court in respect of the first and second applications • Art   13 • Effective remedy for excessive length complaints • Manifestly ill-founded Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Excessive delay in proceedings brought under the acceleratory/preventive and compensatory remedy for length-of-proceedings in respect of the fourth application • Art   13 • Lack of an effective remedy Art 46 • Execution of judgment • General measures • Domestic authorities to pursue their efforts to prevent violations of the “reasonable time” requirement and to consider the practical effectiveness of the compensatory remedy   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 27 May 2025 FINAL   27/08/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of ARB SHPK and Others 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,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Mateja Đurović,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat , judges , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   39860/19, 38996/20, 6142/22 and 27370/22) 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 ARB SHPK and two others (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice to the Albanian Government (“the   Government”) of the complaints under Article   6 §   1 and Article   13 in conjunction with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 29 April 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the applicants’ complaints about the length of proceedings and the effectiveness of a remedy enacted in 2017 to address such complaints domestically (“the 2017   remedy”). THE FACTS 2.     The applicants’ details are set forth in the appended table. 3.     The Government were represented by Mr   O.   Moçka, General State Advocate. FIRST APPLICATION: ARB SHPK v . ALBANIA ( No .   39860/19) 4.     The applicant is a company that provides commission-based private enforcement services to parties that have an enforceable judgment or writ. Main domestic proceedings: claim for damages against a local bank 5 .     On 27   May 2014 the applicant company brought court proceedings seeking damages from a local bank, B. bank, which had allegedly unlawfully hindered an enforcement procedure conducted by the applicant company against an enforcement debtor. 6 .     On 15   April 2015 and 21   April 2016 the Tirana District Court and the Tirana Court of Appeal, respectively, dismissed the claim as ill-founded. They found no evidence of any unlawful action by the bank in the course of the enforcement procedure or of any damage suffered by the applicant company. 7 .     On 20   May 2016 the applicant company lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. The appeal was declared inadmissible on 27   November   2024 by means of a de   plano decision. Complaint under Article   399/1 of the Code of Civil Procedure about the length of proceedings Supreme Court 8 .     On 30   December 2020, while the main proceedings concerning the claim for damages were pending before the Supreme Court (see paragraph   7 above), the applicant company lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court under Article   399/1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”), asking it to find that there had been a breach of the “reasonable time” requirement. Constitutional Court 9.     In the absence of a ruling on its complaint of 30   December 2020, on 21   April 2021 the applicant company brought an appeal before the Constitutional Court. 10 .     On 1   November 2021 the Constitutional Court examined the appeal and adopted decision no.   34 (“Decision   34/2021”). 11 .     In that decision, the Constitutional Court found that the appeal was admissible. 12 .     In particular, with regard to the exhaustion of legal remedies, the Constitutional Court noted that the Supreme Court had failed to issue a ruling on the complaint within forty-five days as required under Article   399/7 of the CCP (see Bara and Kola v.   Albania , nos.   43391/18 and 17766/19, §   37, 12   October 2021). In those specific circumstances, such failure had rendered the Supreme Court an ineffective remedy, and the applicant company could therefore be said to have exhausted effective legal remedies. 13 .     In respect of the merits of the complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings concerning the applicant company’s claim for damages, the Constitutional Court found that prima facie the length of the proceedings appeared to be excessive. 14 .     The Constitutional Court also found that the applicant company’s behaviour had not caused the delays in question. 15 .     Turning to what was at stake for the applicant company, the Constitutional Court noted that the main proceedings did not concern any personal right such as child custody, detention, restriction of a particular freedom or other priority matter; they concerned a claim for damages between companies. The delays in court proceedings did not, therefore, involve a considerable risk for the applicant company’s interests (“ tejzgjatja e procedurave gjyqësore nuk paraqet një shkallë të konsiderueshme rreziku për interesin e kërkueses ”). 16 .     The Constitutional Court further found that the case was complex. 17 .     As to the authorities’ behaviour, the Constitutional Court pointed out that a 2016 judicial reform had excluded many judges from the judiciary, thereby causing a backlog of cases (see, for context, Bara and Kola , cited above , §§   24-25). However, it found that it fell to the domestic authorities to plan the entry into force of reforms in such a way as to avoid excessive delays. In the case at hand, despite having introduced some measures to that effect, the authorities had failed to take sufficient action, since there continued to be significant delays before the Supreme Court. 18 .     In an overall assessment of the above elements, the Constitutional Court concluded that to some extent the length of proceedings appeared to have been excessive but that, taking into account the complexity of the case, the absence of a considerable risk for the applicant company’s interests and the backlog of the Supreme Court   – which, furthermore, was not yet operating with a full bench   – there had been no violation of the “reasonable time” requirement. It accordingly dismissed the appeal. Subsequent decisions 19 .     On 16   December 2021 the Supreme Court ruled that the applicant company’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time had not been violated since, in view of the judicial reform, it had been objectively impossible for the domestic courts to review the case more swiftly (ibid., §   15). 20 .     The applicant company challenged that decision before the Constitutional Court, which on 20   May 2022 dismissed the action, essentially on the same grounds as in its previous ruling (see paragraphs   13-18 above). 21 .     Following a fresh complaint from the applicant company, on 30   May   2024 the Supreme Court once again ruled against it. It found that the delays had not been due to any subjective reasons or to any misconduct by the judge rapporteur. It also found no reason to give the applicant company’s case priority treatment. 22 .     The applicant company challenged the Supreme Court’s decision of 30   May 2024 before the Constitutional Court, which ruled on the case on 21   November 2024, sitting as an eight-judge bench. Four judges voted in favour of finding a violation of the “reasonable time” requirement and four judges voted against it. Given the tied vote, the challenge was dismissed (see,   for context, Meli and Swinkels Family Brewers N.V. v.   Albania , nos.   41373/21 and 48801/21, §§   12-13 and 29, 16   July 2024). 23.     All eight judges appear to have agreed that the applicant company had not caused the delays. 24 .     They also agreed that the complexity of the case had played no role in the delay. In that connection they pointed out that a matter that was complex before the lower courts was not necessarily so before the Supreme Court, given its cassation jurisdiction. 25.     The Constitutional Court assessed the authorities’ behaviour in a manner similar to that in its previous decision (see paragraph   17 above). 26.     It was the question of what was at stake for the applicant company and the overall assessment of the case that divided the judges. Four judges concluded that the delay in resolving the civil proceedings was such as to render useless even a potential successful outcome for the applicant company. In their view there had been a violation of the “reasonable time” requirement. 27 .     The other four judges considered that, as observed by the trial and appeal courts (see paragraph   6 above), the applicant company had suffered no damage from the actions of the respondent bank. They noted that the Supreme Court, before which the civil proceedings were pending, planned to decide the case shortly. Making an overall assessment of the case, they considered that there had been no violation of the “reasonable time” requirement. SECOND APPLICATION: ARB SHPK v .   ALBANIA (N o .   38996/20) 28.     The applicant is the same company as in the first application described above. Main domestic proceedings: claim for damages against a local bank 29 .     On 28   May 2014 the applicant company brought court proceedings seeking damages from a local bank, T. bank. 30.     On 16   November 2015 and 23   March 2017 the Tirana District Court and the Tirana Court of Appeal, respectively, dismissed the claim. The nature of the claim and the reasons for its dismissal were identical to those described in the first application (see paragraphs   5 and 6 above). 31 .     On 14   September 2017 the case file was transferred to the Supreme Court following a cassation appeal by the applicant company. On 11   September 2024 the Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible by means of a de   plano decision. Complaint under Article   399/1 of the CCP about the length of proceedings Supreme Court 32 .     On 30   December 2020, while the main proceedings concerning the claim for damages were pending before the Supreme Court (see paragraph   31 above), the applicant company lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court under Article   399/1 of the CCP, asking it to find that there had been a breach of the “reasonable time” requirement and to expedite the proceedings. Constitutional Court 33.     In the absence of a ruling on its complaint of 30   December 2020, on 21   April 2021 the applicant company brought an appeal before the Constitutional Court. 34 .     On 1   November 2021 the Constitutional Court adopted decision no.   33 (“Decision   33/2021”), dismissing the appeal on the same grounds as for the first application (see paragraphs   11-18 above). THIRD APPLICATION: LLAGAMI v .   ALBANIA (N o .   6142/22) Proceedings concerning the applicant’s dismissal 35.     On 6   March 2014 the applicant brought an action before the Tirana Administrative Court of First Instance against a State authority, seeking compensation for his alleged unlawful dismissal from his employment. 36.     On 20   May 2014 that court allowed the action and awarded damages to the applicant. 37.     On 7   April 2016 the Tirana Administrative Court of Appeal amended the lower judgment, reducing the damages awarded to the applicant. 38 .     On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court, which on 25   May 2023 overturned the appellate judgment and upheld the first-instance ruling. Complaint under Article   399/1 of the CCP about the length of proceedings 39.     On 21   June 2021, while the unlawful-dismissal proceedings were pending before the Supreme Court (see paragraph   38 above), the applicant complained under Article   399/1 of the CCP to the Supreme Court about the length of those proceedings. 40 .     On 16   September 2021 the Supreme Court found that there had been no violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It attributed the delay in the unlawful-dismissal proceedings to the reform of the justice system (see, for context, Bara and Kola , cited above, §§   24-29) and stated that such delays were “objectively impossible” to avoid and proportionate to the benefits of the reform. FOURTH APPLICATION : GAZIDEDJA v .   ALBANIA (N o .   27370/22) Main proceedings concerning the applicant’s pension Administrative phase 41.     In 2001 the applicant began receiving a mineworker’s pension. 42.     On 19   March 2015 he lodged a request with the Social Insurance Directorate ( Drejtoria e Sigurimeve Shoqerore   – “the SID”) indicating that he fulfilled the conditions to receive an old-age pension in addition to his mineworker’s pension. 43.     On 15   January 2016 the SID informed him that, according to its review of the relevant records, he had worked as a mineworker for ten and a half years   – not eleven as required by law. 44.     For that reason, his request for an old-age pension was rejected. For the same reason, the SID retroactively terminated his right to a mineworker’s pension and ordered him to repay the amounts received since 2001.   Judicial phase 45 .     On 26   May 2016 the applicant challenged the decision of the SID before the Tirana Administrative Court of First Instance. 46 .     On 25   October 2016 that court ruled in his favour. 47 .     On 9   November 2017 the Tirana Administrative Court of Appeal, ruling on an appeal by the SID, declared the applicant’s claim partly well-founded. 48.     In connection with how long the applicant had worked as a mineworker, the Administrative Court of Appeal found that the records were contradictory. Accordingly, it concluded that the matter was not an “administrative dispute” and advised the applicant to lodge a civil claim with the civil courts in order to have that point of fact clarified. 49.     As to the applicant’s obligation to repay in full the mineworker’s pension received since 2001, the Administrative Court of Appeal found that the SID was entitled to collect only three years of undue benefits, the remainder being time-barred. 50 .     On 26   December 2017 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. 51 .     On 17   January 2022, following the Constitutional Court’s order to expedite the proceedings (see paragraph   59 below), the Supreme Court quashed the appellate judgment and remitted the case to the Tirana Administrative Court of Appeal. 52.     In particular, the Supreme Court found that it was not clear how long the applicant had been a mineworker and that the Tirana Administrative Court of Appeal should have ruled on that point of fact itself rather than advising the applicant to start fresh proceedings before the civil courts. 53 .     As to the repayment of part of the undue mineworker’s pension, it found that the application of time-limits depended on whether the applicant had been in good or bad faith in 2001 when he had first received the benefits. Accordingly, the Supreme Court instructed the appellate court to take those findings into consideration and to retry the case. 54 .     Those proceedings are currently pending before the Tirana Administrative Court of Appeal, as confirmed in the Government’s submissions of 12   February 2025. Complaint under Article   399/1 of the CCP about the length of proceedings First phase: finding of a violation and acceleration of the proceedings (a)    Supreme Court 55 .     On 18   September 2020, while the pension proceedings were pending before the Supreme Court (see paragraph   50 above), the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court under Article   399/1 of the CCP, concerning the length of those proceedings. (b)    Constitutional Court 56.     On 26   April 2021, relying on the fact that the Supreme Court had failed to give a timely decision concerning his action, the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court. 57 .     On 1   November 2021 the Constitutional Court ruled partly in favour of the applicant in decision no.   35 (“Decision   35/2021”), declaring that there had been a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time. 58.     With regard to the exhaustion of remedies, the Constitutional Court found that the Supreme Court’s delay in examining the applicant’s action under Article   399/1 of the CCP had rendered that remedy ineffective in the instant case and that there was nothing to be gained in waiting any longer for a decision from the Supreme Court. 59 .     As to the merits of the complaint about the length of proceedings, the Constitutional Court considered that the main issue before the Supreme Court was not a complex one and that the delays had not been caused by the applicant. Accordingly, it found that the main proceedings had given rise to a breach of the “reasonable time” requirement. It thus ordered the Supreme Court to examine the applicant’s cassation appeal within six months. 60.     As regards the applicant’s claims for damages, the court found that it had no jurisdiction to award such compensation. Second phase: determination of damages 61 .     On 22   April 2022 the applicant brought proceedings before the Tirana District Court against the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Finance, seeking to obtain damages for the delay in the main proceedings. He relied on the Constitutional Court’s finding of a violation of the “reasonable time” requirement. 62 .     On 14   April 2024 the Tirana District Court delivered an oral ruling whereby it awarded the applicant 369,406   Albanian leks (ALL) (approximately 3,600   euros (EUR)) in respect of damage and ALL   40,000 (approximately EUR   400) in respect of costs and expenses. The court also ordered the provisional enforcement of its ruling. 63 .     The ruling of 14   April 2024 was delivered in writing on an unspecified date at the beginning of October 2024. Shortly thereafter, the defendants lodged ordinary appeals challenging the merits of the decision and special appeals challenging the provisional enforcement clause. In essence they argued that there were no grounds for awarding compensation to the applicant and that the lower decision was not sufficiently reasoned. 64 .     On 15   February 2025 the applicant confirmed that the District Court’s decision had not been enforced and that the case was pending before the Court of Appeal. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE DOMESTIC LAW AND OTHER MATERIALS Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in 2017 65 .     On 30   March 2017 Parliament enacted Law no.   38/2017 (“the   2017   Act”), which entered into force on 5   November 2017. The 2017   Act introduced a new remedy, codified in Articles   399/1 et   seq. of the CCP, in respect of complaints about the unreasonable length of proceedings. 66 .     Articles   399/1 et   seq. of the CCP, in so far as relevant, are set out in Bara and Kola (cited above, §   37). In particular, the relevant parts of Article   399/7 of the CCP read: Article   399/7 “1.     The examination of an action lodged under Article 399/6 § 3 shall be carried out in accordance with the usual procedural rules within a period of three months of the action being filed. 2.     The examination of a request lodged under Article 399/6 § 1 shall take place in camera and the court shall take a decision within forty-five days of the request being lodged ... 67 .     Section   109(4) (transitory provisions) of the 2017   Act provides: “For cases that are pending on the date of entry into force of Articles   399/1 to 399/12, the time-limits set out in Article   399/2 shall be extended: (a)     in administrative hearings at first instance and on appeal, by six months; (b)     at all levels of civil proceedings, by one year and six months.” 68 .     Article   472 §   1 of the CCP provides that cassation appeals to the Supreme Court ( rekurs – also referred to as “appeals on points of law”) may be lodged on the following grounds: “... (a)     there has been a wrongful application of the substantive or procedural law, which is fundamental for the uniformity, certainty and/or development of the case-law; (b)     the judgment appealed against departs from the case-law of the Civil Bench or the unified case-law of the Joint Benches of the Supreme Court; (c)     there has been a violation of procedural norms, which renders the judgment or the hearing invalid, pursuant to Article   467 of this Code. ...” Administrative Courts Act 69 .     Under section   60 of Law no.   49/2012 on administrative courts and adjudication of administrative disputes, as amended (“the Administrative Courts Act”), the Supreme Court must examine administrative cassation appeals within ninety days of receipt. Constitutional Court Act 70 .     Under section   81(1) of Law no.   8577 of 10   February 2000, as amended (“the Constitutional Court Act”), the decisions of the Constitutional Court are binding and enforceable. With respect to the enforcement procedure, section   81(3) of that Act provides that the Constitutional Court may set deadlines for the body in charge of enforcement or may otherwise determine enforcement methods and procedures. Backlog-reduction strategy 71.     On 9   May 2024 the High Judicial Council ( Këshilli i Lartë Gjyqësor   – “the KLGJ”), the body responsible for the management of the judiciary, adopted a backlog-reduction strategy. Status quo of the backlog before domestic courts 72 .     According to a presentation of the backlog figures for various courts included in the KLGJ strategy, the Court of Appeal with general jurisdiction and the Administrative Court of Appeal have the most concerning backlogs. In particular, the backlog of the latter court increased to more than 23,000   cases in 2023. Measures envisaged to decrease the backlog 73 .     The numerous measures envisaged by the KLGJ to address the situation include creating an inventory of all pending cases; analysing the nature of those cases and reasons for the delay; setting up backlog-reduction teams; improving case filtering; adopting individual plans from courts to address the backlog; filling judicial vacancies; transferring and promoting judges; increasing the number of judges; increasing the number of judicial assistants; assigning simple tasks to court officers instead of to judges; increasing the use of electronic tools in proceedings; using templates; assigning simple cases to a single judge; limiting the right to appeal in some civil and administrative matters; and setting quantitative case-processing targets for judges and monitoring their achievement. Supreme Court’s backlog 74 .     According to the information published by the Supreme Court, at 30   December 2024 it had a backlog of 18,665   cases. Constitutional Court’s case-law 75 .     On 26   September 2023 the Constitutional Court examined a complaint about the length of civil proceedings. The claimant had already obtained an initial finding of a violation under Articles   399/1 et   seq. of the CCP on account of the unreasonable length of the proceedings and had been awarded compensation from the first-instance court. However, the authorities had appealed against that judgment and the case had been pending before the appellate court for an allegedly excessive length of time. In decision no.   44/2023, the Constitutional Court agreed with the claimant that the compensation proceedings under Articles   399/1 et   seq. should have been swifter. The fact that they had not been had rendered them ineffective in addressing the initial violation of the claimant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court found a further violation of the claimant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The case is currently pending before the Court (application no.   16770/24). 76 .     On 20   November 2023 the Constitutional Court examined a complaint about the length of civil proceedings. The complaint had previously been submitted to the Supreme Court, which had rejected it on the grounds that, among other things, the acceleratory remedy under Articles   399/1 et   seq. of the CCP had been conceived to operate in ordinary times and was inappropriate for the extraordinary times that the Albanian judiciary was going through. In decision no.   61/2023 the Constitutional Court recognised the exceptional challenges faced by the national judiciary but, contrary to the Supreme Court, concluded that there had been a violation of the claimant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The Constitutional Court further noted that the involvement of all stakeholders, in particular the legislature, had become necessary considering that the existing legal and institutional arrangements did not adequately address the situation of widespread delays in judicial proceedings. INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS Council of Europe Committee of Ministers materials 77 .     At its 1514th Human Rights meeting from 3 to 5   December 2024, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers examined the status of execution of the judgment in the group of cases in Luli and Others v.   Albania (nos.   64480/09 and 5   others, 1   April 2014) and adopted Decision   CM/Del/Dec(2024)1514/H46-1. The group of cases in question concerned instances where the Court had found a violation of the Convention on account of the unreasonable length of proceedings and the absence of an effective remedy. 78.     In connection with the above-mentioned meeting, the Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers prepared notes (CM/Notes/1514/H46-1) summarising and analysing the information submitted to it by the Albanian authorities. 79 .     The relevant part of those notes, summarising the context of the Committee’s examination and the information provided by the authorities, reads (footnotes omitted): “ General measures : A)     Previous examination by the Committee of Ministers In December 2022, the Committee called for guarantees that the extended deadline for the vetting of judges (until the end of 2024) would be met and that the functioning of the judiciary would be ensured in the meantime, as recommended by the Venice Commission. It welcomed the steady progress made in filling judicial vacancies resulting from the vetting of judges, which has allowed the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court to become operational; it also welcomed the sustained measures to reduce the backlog of cases at the Supreme Court and the good pace of resolution of cases at the Constitutional Court. It requested the authorities, inter alia , to speed up the appointment of judges and to reduce the backlog of cases in the most affected courts (particularly the second-instance courts), and to assess the need for specific additional measures for backlog reduction. The Committee welcomed the fact that the general acceleratory and compensatory remedy has been recently considered by the European Court to be effective in principle but noted that it remains to be seen whether the remedy has also been effective in practice. Finally, it asked for clarifications on the reasons for the rejection of applications for finding that the reasonable time requirement has been breached and for acceleration of proceedings, as well as for a thorough statistical overview of the use and examination of the remedies [emphasis added]. ... -     Functioning of the Supreme Court : The authorities report a decrease of 18% in the pending cases (26,058 in January 2024; 31,827 in 2023 and 30,998 in 2022). The SC [Supreme Court] is currently examining appeals from 2015-2018, but priority categories of cases are examined more rapidly. In 2023, each SC judge had a workload of nearly 2084   cases; the SC reviewed on average 250   cases per year per judge. The [KLGJ] reports that in 2023, the clearance rate for civil cases was 362.53% (282% in 2022); for criminal cases, it was 265.17% (193% in 2022) and for administrative cases it was 535% (613% in 2022). They reported that in 2022 the disposition time was 2851.2   days for civil cases, 902.5   days for criminal cases, and 1584.1   days for administrative cases.” 80 .     As regards the situation of the Tirana Administrative Court of Appeal, the notes provide: “According to the data provided by the authorities, the number of pending cases before the Tirana Administrative Court of Appeal increased to 23,056   cases in 2023 (2,810 in 2020; 15,157 in 2021; 21,166 in 2022). In 2022, the clearance rate was 24.4%. The [KLGJ] data allows a conclusion that the clearance rate in 2023 was 43%. Also, in 2023, the average length of proceedings was 5,326.20   days (14.6   years) (8,650   days or 23.6   years in 2022). Eight out of 13   judges were in office; and 49.5% of the court staff.” 81 .     As regards the 2017   remedy, the notes read (footnotes omitted): “Since November 2017, a new acceleratory and compensatory remedy for excessive length of judicial proceedings has been functioning in Albania. The first stage of the remedy is a request to find a breach of the reasonable time requirement (by just one level of jurisdiction); if the competent court makes such finding, it can order the acceleration of the proceedings. The request is examined by the court which is superior to the one responsible for the length or by a different formation of the SC. The second stage of the remedy allows requesting compensation for the already established breach of the reasonable-time requirement; the claim for compensation should be filed with a first-instance court, which examines it within three months. In its 2022   Bara and Kola judgment, the European Court found that the remedy was effective in principle but had been ineffective in the circumstances of the case as the delayed proceedings before the SC had not been expedited and the request for their acceleration had remained unanswered for more than three years. The authorities indicated that for the period January 2022   - November 2023, in total 127   requests for finding a breach of the reasonable-time requirement were filed with the SC (76 in 2022; 51 in 2023), out of which 95 were examined and four were granted [emphasis added].” 82 .     In its analysis of the above information the Secretariat noted: “It is also encouraging that the Supreme Court has had very high clearance rates for 2022 and 2023, which means that its significant backlog has now started to decrease, and that it has a policy of examining priority cases more speedily and has streamlined certain practices. It is however concerning that the average length of proceedings remains very high and that this court currently examines cases from 2016-2018, which demonstrates the need for sustained efforts to speed up the clearing of its backlog. ... As regards judicial appointments, it is encouraging that the Constitutional Court and the SC function now in full composition, that the authorities are progressing with appointments and have plans for achieving full benches for some of the most overburdened courts. However, the occupation of only 60% of the judges’ positions in the courts and the many positions for judicial administration employees remaining vacant are concerning, all the more that the [KLGJ]’s projections indicate that full staffing levels will not be achieved before 2028 or later. The authorities should therefore be invited to deploy all necessary means for accelerating judicial appointments, including through additional budgetary funds. It also appears important to clarify whether it is envisaged to take steps for ensuring sufficient intake of the National School of Magistrates, or transitional measures (e.g., increased support by judicial administration employees), as well as for adequate distribution of judicial appointments, workload and support by judicial administration staff to the most overburdened courts. While many challenges remain, significant and often complex measures have been implemented (e.g., a reform of the judicial map and appointment of legal advisers) or are ongoing (a strategy for the reduction of backlog, work on case-management systems, work on improving practices, etc.), which could improve the efficiency of the courts pending their full staffing with judges. To allow thorough assessment, the authorities could be encouraged to provide detailed information on these developments and their impact. They could also be encouraged to provide thorough analysis on the application and the impact of the previously adopted legislative amendments aimed at reducing the remittals in civil and criminal cases.” 83 .     Finally, in respect of complaints (also referred to as “requests to find a breach”) on the length of proceedings, the Secretariat noted: “The overall number of requests filed and, more importantly, of the requests granted seems quite low for a period of two years, bearing in mind the very high average length of proceedings before the SC and other courts. The information on grounds for dismissal of requests is also incomplete in some respects and it is unclear whether some requests remained unanswered.” 84 .     Having reviewed the above information, the Committee of Ministers, in the operative part of their Decision (see paragraph   77 above): “4.     welcomed the information showing that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court appear to be concluded within a reasonable time and that the significant backlog of cases pending before the Supreme Court started to decrease; noted however with concern the increasing backlog and high average length of proceedings of most of the second-instance courts and the challenges still affecting the work of some of the first-instance courts, related to high proportion of vacancies for judges and other staff; 5.     welcomed, in this context, the near completion of the vetting at first instance; called upon the authorities to ensure the completion of appeal proceedings in vetting cases before the constitutional deadline of June 2026; 6.     welcomed further that the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court function in full composition and noted with interest the progress made with filling judicial vacancies; invited the authorities to deploy all means to speed up judicial appointments, including through additional budgetary funds and to clarify whether additional steps are necessary for ensuring sufficient intake of the National School of Magistrates, or any transitional measures; invited them also to ensure adequate distribution of judicial appointments, workload and support by judicial administration staff to the most overburdened courts; 7.     noted also with interest the significant and complex measures implemented (such as a reform of the judicial map) or ongoing (such as strategy for reduction of the backlog and work on case-management systems), which could improve the efficiency of the courts pending their full staffing with judges; ... 9.     invited the authorities to provide information on all the above aspects by 31   August 2025, including relevant statistical information and detailed information on the functioning of the domestic remedies, while taking into account the questions and aspects identified in the analysis of the Secretariat.” European Commission report on Albania 85.     The Commission Staff Working Document of 30   October 2024 entitled “Albania   202