CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 juillet 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sB8AEE56F { width:107.78%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sBA897867 { width:8.88%; 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 } .sBBED7958 { width:29.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s389B5BED { width:25.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF4DEC127 { width:17.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5B02462B { width:19.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2BE1500A { width:8.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD462353F { width:29.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA41C1932 { width:25.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29A57CA7 { width:17.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s91FBDE34 { width:19.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 24 July 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 19017/18 Shaban RARANI and Others against Albania lodged on 13 April 2018 communicated on 6 July 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 1933 the applicants’ predecessor bought a plot of land measuring 1,244   square metres from a third party. In 1997 a district court granted the applicants’ civil claim and recognised them as the owners of a plot of land measuring 5,204 square metres, including the plot of 1,244 square metres purchased in 1933. On the basis of that decision, in 1997 the Property Commission ruled to return to the applicants a plot of land measuring 3,900 square metres, which did not include the 1,244 square metres plot because of an overlapping property title held by another family. This other family’s title, in turn, was based on the Property Commission’s decision of 1994 returning that plot to the former owners. In 2008 the applicants’ new application to the Agency of the Restitution and Compensation of Property (a successor of the property Commission) was rejected, since the issue could be solved only through judicial proceedings. The applicants lodged a civil claim, requesting the annulment of the Property Commission’s decision of 1994 and seeking to be recognised as the owners of the plot at issue. The other party lodged a counter claim seeking to be recognised as the owners of the plot based on adverse possession. The district court ruled in favour of the applicants’ opponents and at the same time acknowledged the applicants’ predecessor’s ownership of the plot at issue prior to 1944. In 2012 the Appeal Court reversed the decision, accepting the applicants’ claim and dismissing the counterclaim. The opponents lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court arguing, inter alia , that before the confiscation in 1945 the property had belonged to their family. On 12 April 2017 the Supreme Court decided to dismiss both the claim and the counterclaim. The Supreme Court argued, inter alia , that the applicants had already received recognition and restitution of their property and the plot at issue could not be part of it. The Supreme Court also held that the claim to seek recognition of ownership could be lodged only by those who had a legal property title, and the applicants had been never recognised as such. In 2017 the applicants’ constitutional complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Supreme Court exceeded its competence when assessing the facts of the case differently from the district and appeal court and that there was a breach of the right to contradictory proceedings before the Supreme Court. They also consider that there was a breach of the principle of legal certainty as regards the district court’s decision of 1997 because the third party did not challenge the district court’s conclusion that the plot of land belonged to the applicants’ family. Finally, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 they complain that they lost their property rights. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.   Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations by a tribunal established by law, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, with respect to the proceedings before the Supreme Court? In particular, (a) did the Supreme Court have competence under domestic law to make a different assessment of the facts than that already done by the district and appeal courts (see Sokurenko and Strygun v. Ukraine , nos. 29458/04 and 29465/04, §§ 24-28, 20 July 2006)? (b) did the Supreme Court respect the applicants’ right to adversarial proceedings (see Clinique des Acacias and Others v. France , nos 65399/01, 65406/01, 65405/01 and 65407/01, § 38, 13 October 2005, and Gaspari v.   Slovenia , no.   21055/03, § 53, 21 July 2009)? (c) has there been a breach of the principle of legal certainty in the proceedings before the Supreme Court, in view of a final judicial decision of 1997 that recognised the applicants’ ownership over the plot of land ( see Ryabykh v. Russia , no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IX, and Vardanyan and Nanushyan v. Armenia , no. 8001/07, § 67, 27 October 2016)? 2. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to property within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention ( see Ramadhi and   Others v. Albania , no. 38222/02, §§ 71 and 75-79, 13 November 2007)?     APPENDIX     No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Shaban RARANI 1948 Albanian Tirana 2. Shpresa DINGU 1952 Albanian Tirana 3. Fiqirete RARANI 1938 Albanian Tirana 4. Suzana SENGLA RARANI 1956 Albanian Tirana 5. Diana SUÇI 1963 Albanian Tirana 6. Elsa SUÇI 1946 Albanian Tirana 7. Ilirjan SUÇI 1970 Albanian Tirana