CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s1B9C96E3 { width:14.2pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .s720C9CB0 { width:126.08pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 51135/22 Minerva KOTHERJA against Albania   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9   September 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh , President ,   Darian Pavli,   Mateja Đurović , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   51135/22) 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”) on 18 October 2022 by an Albanian national, Ms Minerva Kotherja (“the applicant”), who was born in 1951, lives in Elbasan and was represented by Mr E. Kotherja, a lawyer practising in Elbasan; the decision to give notice of the complaint under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention concerning legal certainty to the Albanian Government (“the   Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr O. Moçka, State Advocate General, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns a property dispute between the applicant and other private parties. After the first and the second instance courts dismissed the applicant’s claim, she lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court. 2.     On 23 June 2016 a bench of the Supreme Court sitting in camera ( dhomë këshillimi ) declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law admissible and referred it for a hearing. 3.     On 29 May 2021, Law no. 44/2021 entered into force, amending the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). The relevant legislative amendments enable the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, sitting in camera , to decide cases on the merits, whereas prior to these amendments such formations had competence only to declare inadmissible those appeals on points of law which did not meet the CCP criteria, or to refer a case for a full hearing before the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court. The amendments also provide that cases before the Supreme Court are decided, as a rule, on the basis of the documents in the file, and a public hearing is to be held only in cases relevant for unifying judicial practice or where the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court finds it necessary to hear the parties due to the complexity of a case. 4 .     On 7 March 2022 the Supreme Court revoked its decision to hold a hearing in the applicant’s case and, sitting in a closed session, declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible, relying on Article 472 of the CCP. The Supreme Court assessed the points of law raised in the applicant’s appeal and found that the court of appeal had applied both substantive and procedural law correctly. The relevant part of the Supreme Court’s judgment reads as follows: “Referring to the case at issue, the Civil Chamber [of the Supreme Court] considers that the appeal submitted by the plaintiff Minerva Kotherja does not reveal any of the situations under Article 472 of the Civil Procedure Code, and as such, it should not be accepted. The Court of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied both procedural and substantive law. Its ruling does not conflict with any judgment of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, or of the Joint Chambers of the Supreme Court. The [Supreme Court sitting in camera ] has not identified any serious breach of the rules on procedure which might lead to invalidity of the [lower courts’] judgments or the proceedings [before these courts]. The Durrës Court of Appeal (...) properly addressed all claims made by the parties. The [Civil] Chamber [of the Supreme Court] considers that the appellant’s arguments concerning the ownership of the plot measuring 156 square metres are not relevant to this case. The Property Registration Office has recognised the ownership of the former owner, the plaintiff’s ancestor, and that fact has not been challenged. However, the dispute in the case relates to the question whether that plot is [currently] occupied [by third parties] or not, and whether its restitution is possible, or the former owner is entitled to compensation [only]. The Court of Appeal clarified that these issues had been determined by the Property Registration Office. As regards other grounds raised in the appeal, the [Civil] Chamber [of the Supreme Court] considers that they concern evaluation of evidence and as such fall outside the cassation jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.” THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 5.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the principle of legal certainty was violated because the Supreme Court first declared her appeal on points of law admissible, and later on declared the same appeal inadmissible. 6.     The Court notes that the complaint raises two distinct issues. The first issue concerns the 2016 decision of the Supreme Court to hold a public hearing, before reversing that decision in 2021 and proceeding to decide the case in a closed session. As regards that question, the Court reiterates that it is a generally recognised principle that procedural rules apply immediately to pending proceedings (see Çela v. Albania , no. 73274/17, §   27, 29 November 2022, relying on Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain , 19   December 1997, §   35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII, and Galeano Peñas v.   Spain , no. 48784/20, § 52, 31 May 2022). Therefore, the fact that the Supreme Court applied the new rules on procedure on public hearings to pending cases was not in itself contrary to the guarantees given under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention. 7.     The second question concerns the fact that the Supreme Court first declared the applicant’s appeal admissible, and later on inadmissible. As regards that issue, the Court notes that in the second decision of the Supreme Court the applicant’s appeal was declared inadmissible after the court had reviewed the merits of the applicant’s claims on points of law, to which its jurisdiction is limited. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had correctly applied both procedural and substantive law, and had fully assessed the arguments the applicant had raised in her appeal. It also confirmed the findings of the Appeal Court as regards the main dispute in the case, and its resolution (see paragraph 4 above). In these circumstances, the fact that the appeal was declared inadmissible presents only a formal finding, whereas in reality the Supreme Court effectively assessed the merits of the applicant’s grievances put before it, and gave sufficient reasons for its decision. 8.     The Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. 9.     Accordingly, the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3   (a) and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 2 October 2025.     Olga Chernishova   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh   Deputy Registrar   President