CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mai 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 31 May 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 24228/18 Tonin BIBA against Albania lodged on 15 May 2018 communicated on 10 May 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 2011 the applicant’s son experienced a 90% vision loss of the right eye after another fellow pupil hit him on the eye with a slingshot during a physical training class. The applicant lodged an action for damages against the private school which his son used to attend. On 26 September 2017, after more than three years pending before it, the Supreme Court, sitting in camera , dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal against lower courts’ decisions which had rejected the action for damages. The Supreme Court’s decision, however, was not delivered until 10 January 2018 on which date the applicant was informed of its reasons. Following the applicant’s constitutional appeal of 8   February 2018 against the Supreme Court’s decision, on 15 February 2018 the Constitutional Court rejected it as having been submitted out of time, the statutory four-month time-limit having started to run on 26   September 2017. The applicant complains that there has been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention owing to the State’s failure to supervise a licensed private school which had neither informed him promptly of the son’s accident nor given any medical assistance to his son. Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, he complains about a breach of his right of access to court on account of the Constitutional Court’s calculation of the time-limit to submit an appeal before it. The applicant also complains about a breach of Article   6   § 1 of the Convention on account of the allegedly excessive length of proceedings before the Supreme Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicant claim to be a victim - whether direct or indirect - of an alleged breach of Articles 3 and/or 8 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34 (see, most recently, A and B v. Croatia , no. 7144/15, §§ 88-91, 20 June 2019; M.P. and Others v.   Bulgaria , no. 22457/08, §§ 96-100, 15   November 2011; and, mutatis mutandis , Selami and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 78241/13, §§ 53-67, 1   March 2018)? 2.     Did the applicant raise in substance before the domestic courts his complaints under Articles 3 and/or 8 of the Convention? 3.     Did the applicant exhaust all available domestic remedies in respect of his complaint about the allegedly unreasonable length of proceedings under Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant required to lodge an action under Article 399/1 et seqq. of the Code of Civil Procedure? The parties are invited to provide domestic case-law in support of their arguments. 4.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Articles   3 and/or 8 of the Convention (see Đurđević v. Croatia , no.52442/09, §§ 102-19, ECHR 2011 (extracts) and Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom , 25   March 1993, Series A no. 247 ‑ C). In particular, has the respondent State failed to discharge its positive obligations under either of those Articles or provide any effective redress to the applicant? 5.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of   access   to court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Constitutional Court’s calculation of the statutory time-limit to submit an appeal before it (see Ivanova and Ivashova v. Russia, nos. 797/14 and   67755/14, § 57, 26 January 2017, and mutatis mutandis , Miragall Escolano and Others v. Spain , nos. 38366/97 and 9 others, § 37, ECHR   2000 ‑ I)? 6.     Was the length of the judicial proceedings before the Supreme Court in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ( Luli and Others v. Albania , nos. 64480/09 and 5 others, § 96, 1   April 2014)?