CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 janvier 2019

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s165B2C26 { width:111.1%; border-collapse:collapse } .sF4C66D70 { height:45.55pt } .s50B07936 { width:7.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s1079D335 { width:22.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s66023B62 { width:7.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9D0A437D { width:19.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF20B49E9 { width:20.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5F419D3 { width:22.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDCE36575 { height:31.45pt } .s80B38151 { width:7.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74DC3D21 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .sE8494BAD { width:22.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s968037A8 { width:7.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDA7BF4DB { width:19.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6155573C { width:20.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9AC405FA { width:22.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4A8C4500 { height:30.6pt }   Communicated on 15 January 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 24908/18 Mimoza MAHO and others against Albania lodged on 24 May 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present case concerns the non-enforcement of a 1989 local-authority decision which recognised the applicants’ occupancy rights to a flat. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the non ‑ enforcement of the decision of 3 June 1989 and the length of the resulting proceedings. The also alleged that they did not have an effective remedy for the violation of their rights under Article 6 § 1, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention. Lastly, the applicants complain of a violation of their right to respect for home under Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the decision of 3 June 1989 generate enforceable rights on behalf of the applicant?   2.     Did the applicant exhaust all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, to secure the enforcement of the decision of 3 June 1989? Did the applicants have at their disposal other legal remedies in order to seek redress in respect of their situations? If so, did they make use of those remedies? The Government are invited to submit any relevant domestic case-law in this respect.   3.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by reason of the fact that the decision of 3 June 1989 has not been enforced? In particular, has the length of the impugned proceedings complied with the “reasonable time” requirement contained in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Luli and Others v. Albania , nos. 64480/09 and 5 others, §   91, 1 April 2014?   4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 6 § 1 as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   5.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? (a)   In particular, did the authorities comply with the requirement to establish proper justification for the interference with their right to respect for home (see, mutatis mutandis , Paulić v. Croatia , no. 3572/06, §§ 40-45, 22 October 2009, Ćosić v. Croatia , no. 28261/06, §§ 20-23, 15   January 2009, Brežec v. Croatia , no. 7177/10, 18 July 2013, and Kryvitska and   Kryvitskyy v. Ukraine , no. 30856/03, §§ 43-44, 2   December 2010)? (b)     What arrangements did the authorities make for providing alternative housing to vulnerable applicants?   No. Firstname LASTNAME Birth year Nationality Place of residence Representative   Mimoza MAHO 1956 Albanian Tirana S. Mëneri   Arben MAHO 1961 Albanian Alexandria S. Mëneri   Saime MAHO 1937 Albanian Tirana S. Mëneri