CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 juin 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 12 July 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 52062/16 Enver RRAPAJ against Albania lodged on 18 August 2016 communicated on 23 June 2021   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the domestic court’s failure to deliver a reasoned decision since 2011 and the length of the ongoing proceedings. In October 2010 the applicant lodged a civil action with the Elbasan District Court against a defendant who had allegedly occupied his property. On 9 September 2011 the single-judge bench delivered the operative part of a decision ordering the defendant to vacate the applicant’s property and pay him compensation for the period of occupation. However, following the subsequent dismissal of the judge from office, the applicant did not receive a reasoned copy of the decision. On 23 February 2016 the Constitutional Court found a breach of the applicant’s right of access to court on account of the Elbasan District Court’s failure to deliver a reasoned decision. On 20 April 2017 the Durrës Court of Appeal, following an appeal filed by the defendant, decided to remit the case for re-examination to the Elbasan District Court on the grounds that no reasoned decision was found in the case file.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all available domestic remedies in respect of his complaint about the allegedly unreasonable length of proceedings? In particular, having regard to the date of the introduction of the application, is the applicant required to lodge an action under Article 399/1   et   seqq.   of the Code of Civil Procedure which entered into force on 5   November 2017? 2.     Has the length of the civil proceedings in the present case been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement guaranteed by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see, for example, Bici v. Albania , no. 5250/07, §§ 41-45, 3   December 2015)? 3.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Elbasan District Court’s failure to deliver a reasoned decision to the applicant and determine his civil action (see, mutatis mutandis , Kutić v. Croatia , no. 48778/99, §§   24-33, ECHR 2002 ‑ II; and Sailing Club of Chalkidiki “I Kelyfos”   v.   Greece , nos. 6978/18 and 8547/18, § 60, 21 November 2019)?