CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 novembre 2018
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-188225
- Date
- 15 novembre 2018
- Publication
- 15 novembre 2018
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s8BB6D734 { margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6674DD39 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; list-style-position:inside } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 15 November 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 20702/18 Shoqëria Supergrav Albania Shpk against Albania and 2 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The legal problem in the instant cases is the applicants’ inability to access the Constitutional Court on account of the dismissal of their constitutional claim for being lodged out of time, which issue falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS IN RESPECT OF INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS A.     Application no. 20702/18 Shoqëria Supergrav Albania Shpk v.   Albania Did the Constitutional Court’s decision of 8 November 2017 rejecting the applicant company’s claim as statute-barred give rise to a violation of the right of access to a court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, when does the four-month statutory time limit start to run when a constitutional appeal is lodged with the Constitutional Court (see, for example, Worm v. Austria , 29 August 1997, §33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 V)? B.     Application no. 34926/18 Hoxha v. Albania Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as a result of the Constitutional Court’s finding that her constitutional appeal was lodged outside the statutory time limit (see, for example, Z emanová v. the Czech Republic , no. 6019/03, §§ 20-22, 13 December 2005)? C.     Application no. 34712/18 Haka v. Albania Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to the Court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Constitutional Court’s dismissal of his constitutional claim for being lodged out of time? In particular was the Constitutional Court’s approach in interpreting the new procedural rules relating to time-limits excessively formalistic given the fact that the new amendments entered into force only on 1 March 2017 (see, mutatis mutandis , Shkalla v. Albania , no. 26866/05, §§ 48-54, 10 May 2011, and Zvolská v. the Czech Republic , no. 46129/99, §   51, ECHR 2002 IX)?   APPENDIX   No. Application No. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   20702/18 23/04/2018 Shoqëria Supergrav Albania Shpk 01/03/2006 Burrel   Dhimiter PRIFTI   34926/18 11/07/2018 Genita HOXHA 23/01/1984 Tirana   Gentian MUCAJ   34712/18 14/07/2018 Rabije HAKA 25/07/1981 Tirana Self-represented      Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 15 novembre 2018
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-188225
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel