CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 janvier 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 19 January 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 1541/13 Jorgo QIQI against Albania lodged on 29 December 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the authorities’ failure to inform the applicant of the proceedings before the Supreme Court relating to the annulment of the Tirana Construction Police’s order of demolition of a restaurant built by the applicant. It appears that the proceedings before the Supreme Court were initiated by a third party (interested party) and, according to the domestic courts, there is no evidence in the case file of any notification sent to the applicant or his legal representative. The applicant had built the restaurant on a plot of land located in a hospital’s territory, based on a permission issued by the hospital authorities. The case also concerns the alleged breach of the applicant’s property rights as a result of the demolition of his restaurant for having been constructed unlawfully. Relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains about a breach of his right of access to court as a result of the authorities’ failure to inform him of the proceedings before the Supreme Court which had a bearing on his property rights, and a breach of his right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions as a result of the authorities’ decision to demolish his restaurant. In addition, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains about a lack of an effective remedy for his aforementioned grievances as he did not receive any compensation after the demolition of his restaurant. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given the fact that he was not notified about the appeal proceedings commenced by the hospital authorities before the Supreme Court concerning the annulment of the demolition order (see for example Schmidt v. Latvia , no. 22493/05, § 86-90, 27 April 2017)? 2.     Did the applicant have a possession, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions as a result of the demolition of his restaurant? If so, was that lawful? (see for example Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 124-127, ECHR 2004 ‑ XII) 3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?