CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 novembre 2023

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 20 November 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 56523/18 Xhaferr SHTEPANI against Albania lodged on 20 November 2018 communicated on 2 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a civil dispute concerning the applicant’s right of ownership on a plot of land measuring 6.000 square metres, which had been recognised in 1996. That decision was challenged in court proceedings and at the end of the day partially annulled on the ground that it had been adopted in breach of some instructions and the part of the plot measuring 2.000 square metres was returned to the State. The applicant makes two complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He complains that in these civil proceedings the notification of a hearing before the Supreme Court was not properly served on him and that therefore he was not able to attend that hearing. He further complains that he was deprived of access to the Constitutional Court because the time-limit for lodging a constitutional complaint was calculated from the date the contested Supreme Court’s decisions had been adopted and not from the date they had been served on the applicant. The applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he was deprived of his property on the plot measuring 2.000 square metres. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     What are the procedural rules for the notification of proceedings before the Supreme Court? How were those rules applied in the instant case? Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that regard (see Gankin and Others v. Russia , nos. 2430/06 and 3 others, §§ 28 and 35, 31   May 2016; and Aždajić v. Slovenia , no. 71872/12, §§ 53-72, 8 October 2015)?   2.     Did the Constitutional Court’s decision, rejecting the applicant’s constitutional complaint as being lodged out of time violate the applicant’s right of access to a court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Supergrav Albania Shpk v. Albania , no. 20702/18, §§ 16-31, 9   May 2023)?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 (see Pyrantienė v. Lithuania, no. 45092/07, § 42, 12   November 2013; Vukušić v. Croatia , no. 69735/11, § 50, 31 May 2016; and Kryvenkyy v.   Ukraine , no. 43768/07, §§ 41 and 46, 16 February 2017)?