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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } Published on 31 May 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 33369/17 Hasan GABA against Albania lodged on 2 May 2017 communicated on 10 May 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the quashing of a final decision given in the applicant’s favour. In February 2006 the Property Commission, relying on a court decision acknowledging the existence of the legal fact that the applicant’s father had possessed certain meadows ( vendim vërtetim fakti juridik ), recognised his inherited property rights to the meadows which were restored in natura (“the Commission decision”). It would appear that the Commission decision became final on an unspecified date in 2006 and the applicant subsequently registered his property title with the immovable property registration office. In May 2009 the State Advocate’s Office, which represents and defends the interests of the State, lodged an administrative complaint against the Commission decision with the Central Agency that had subsequently replaced the Property Commission. In May 2010 the director of the Central Agency, whose power to review and quash Commission decisions was declared unconstitutional on 6   October 2011, quashed the Commission decision and declared it null and void ( absolutisht të pavlefshëm ) finding that the meadows served a public interest and their restoration had been in breach of the then Property Act. In addition, the applicant had not substantiated his inherited property rights. The applicant lodged a civil action requesting that the decision of the Central Agency’s decision be set aside. In February 2016 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s civil action stating that the applicant had not fully substantiated his inherited property rights of the impugned property, the Central Agency’s director had re-examined the Commission decision following a complaint lodged by the State Advocate’s Office and concluded that the requirements of the then Property Act had not been satisfied, and the Commission decision had not acquired the force of res judicata. In November 2016 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention through the quashing by the authorities of the Commission decision given in the applicant’s favour (see Brumărescu v.   Romania [GC], no.   28342/95, ECHR 1999 ‑ VII, Ryabykh v.   Russia , no. 52854/99, ECHR 2003 ‑ IX; Driza v. Albania , no.   33771/02, ECHR 2007 ‑ V (extracts); Trapeznikov and Others v. Russia , nos. 5623/09 and 3 others, 5 April 2016; and Magomedov and Others v.   Russia , nos.   33636/09 and 9 others, 28   March 2017)?