CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 mars 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 15 March 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 84056/17 Agim KROI and Albert NOCKA against Albania lodged on 16 December 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants’ title over a plot of land was annulled seven years after its recognition by a final administrative decision. Following the dismissal of their complaint by the Supreme Court, the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal. On 24 July 2017, the applicants’ appeal was rejected on account of a tied vote. Additionally, the Constitutional Court sat in a six-judge formation, three of them being previously part of the Supreme Court’s bench that dismissed applicants’ complaint. The applicants alleged, in particular, that they had not had a fair trial conducted by an independent and impartial tribunal as guaranteed by Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention the applicants claim that the authorities have deprived them of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a breach of the principle of legal certainty guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention with regard to domestic authorities’ review of a res judicata decision (see for example, Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-VII; and Ryabykh v. Russia , no.   52854/99, §§   56-58, ECHR 2003-IX)?   2. Was the Constitutional Courts’ bench of 24 July 2017 impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the participation of judges B.I., G.D. and F.L. consistent with the principle of impartiality (see for example, Driza v. Albania , no. 33771/02, § 74, ECHR   2007 ‑ XII)?   3. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the dismissal of the applicants’ appeal by the Constitutional Court consequent on a tied vote, in violation of his right of access to court (see mutatis mutandis , Marini v. Albania , no.3738/02, §§   118-123, 18 December 2007, and Avdić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , nos. 28357/11 and 2 others, 19 November 2013)?   4.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, have the applicants been deprived of their possessions in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see for example, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 49, ECHR   1999-V)