CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 janvier 2024

.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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB24F5E38 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s798A1C99 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:center } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s943D4F93 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:21.8pt; text-align:justify } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s8298E78A { height:14.1pt } .s5CE64673 { width:3.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s946086CB { width:9.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s967834B7 { width:9.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7246E547 { width:27.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE512A940 { font-family:Arial; color:#474747 } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB5A00430 { height:7.2pt } .s39624A7C { width:13.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD4BF172F { width:15.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCF8A1BB2 { width:20.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4F4DAE91 { width:3.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s23692999 { width:9.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s331CE2A { width:27.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC9AF319A { width:15.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF1F5C61F { width:20.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF6AA50AA { width:13.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s59E2371A { width:3.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9C4A810B { width:9.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6EE799BE { width:9.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s35D017E4 { width:27.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s95FDF206 { width:15.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC1682326 { width:20.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s804D3747 { width:13.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Published on 29 January 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 39860/19 ARB SH.P.K. against Albania and 4 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 10 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the length of civil proceedings and the effectiveness of the 2017 domestic remedy enacted to address complaints about the length of proceedings as per Articles 399/1 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”). Main proceedings The main disputes started and ended, or are pending, as per the dates set forth in column no. 3 of the appended table. The first and second application concerned two actions for damages against local banks. The third application concerned a dispute over the ownership of a plot of land. In the fourth application, the applicant lodged a claim for unlawful dismissal from work. The fifth application concerned the determination of the applicant’s old age/mineworker’s pension. Actions under Articles 399/1 et seq. of the CCP As regards the domestic complaint about the length of proceedings, the procedure is divided into two principal phases: (i) a finding of a violation of the “reasonable time” requirement and, subject to the relevant conditions, (ii) the determination of damages to be paid to the complainant (see Bara and Kola v. Albania , nos. 43391/18 and 17766/19, § 111, 12 October 2021). The outcome of the applicants’ actions in this respect is summarized in columns 4 to 6 of the appended table. With particular regard to the first and second applications, brought by the same applicant company, the Constitutional Court noted that the Supreme Court had failed to rule in a timely way on the applicant’s complaints about the length of the respective proceedings, therefore it declared the complaints admissible as legal remedies had been exhausted. As regards the merits, the court relied on the fact that main actions concerned claims for damages and the delays in adjudicating the cases did not pose a significant danger to the applicant’s interests. It accordingly dismissed the complaint about the length of proceedings. In connection to the third application, the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s complaint about the length of proceedings under Articles 399/1 et seq. of the CCP was still pending before the Supreme Court, therefore legal remedies had not been exhausted. As regards the fourth application, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the delays were caused by the judicial reform. The applicant did not lodge a constitutional appeal. Lastly, in respect of the fifth application, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the “reasonable time” requirement which allowed the applicant to initiate the second phase of the proceedings aiming to determine the amount of the damages he was entitled to receive. Those proceedings are also pending. Complaints before the Court Under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants complain that there has been a breach of their right to trial within a reasonable time and that the domestic remedy in respect of such complaints was ineffective.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     Was the   length   of the main proceedings involving the applicants in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, §   24, ECHR 2000-IV)? 2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints regarding the length of proceedings under Article   6   §   1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO THE FIRST AND SECOND APPLICATIONS 3.     Further to Question no. 2 above, did the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court provide adequate reasons for their findings that the length of the respective civil proceedings had not been unreasonable? Were those findings, especially as to the consideration of “what was at stake” for the applicant company, consistent with the Court’s jurisprudence ( see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 133, ECHR 2006-VII)? QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO THE THIRD APPLICATION 4.     Further to Question no. 2 above, did the third applicant exhaust effective domestic remedies? In view of the Constitutional Court’s case-law that complaints for length of proceedings before it are admissible when a related and undecided complaint to the Supreme Court had ceased to be an effective remedy, how long should the third applicant have waited before lodging her complaint with the Constitutional Court? QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO THE FOURTH APPLICATION 5.     Did the fourth applicant exhaust domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, following the Supreme Court’s decision dismissing his complaint about the length of proceedings, was the applicant required to lodge an appeal with the Constitutional Court? In this respect: (i)     Does the Constitutional Court have the authority to direct the Supreme Court to speed up the hearing of appeals pending before the latter court? (ii)     Would a favourable decision of the Constitutional Court have enabled the fourth applicant to seek compensation, whether through a separate action under the CCP or any other compensatory remedy? The Government are invited to present examples of relevant domestic practice on the above questions. QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO THE FIFTH APPLICATION 6.     Further to Question no. 2 above, did the domestic authorities act swiftly in respect of each phase of the fifth applicant’s actions under Articles 399/1 et seq. of the CCP (determination whether there had been a violation, determination of the damages and payment of the relevant sum) (see Bara and Kola , cited above, §§ 107 and 115)? The Government are further invited to provide updates on each proceeding.       APPENDIX No. Application no. and date of introduction Applicant’s name   Proceedings on the merits   Starting date, ending date and nature of the dispute   Proceedings regarding the domestic remedy for complaints about the length of proceedings Finding of a violation Determination of damages Supreme Court (starting and ending date) Constitutional Court District Court   1 2 3 4 5 6     39860/19   15/07/2019   ARB sh.p.k. 27/05/2014 – pending before the Supreme Court; Claim for damages against a local bank (B.K.T. sh.a.) 30/12/2020 – 16/12/2021 (dismissed) Decision no. 34 of 1 November 2021 dismissing the complaint n/a     38996/20   20/12/2019 27/05/2014 – pending before the Supreme Court; Claim for damages against a local bank (Tirana Bank sh.a.) 30/12/2020 - pending Decision no. 33 of 1 November 2021 dismissing the complaint n/a     57726/21   12/11/2021 Drita XHEKA 2012 – pending before the Tirana Court of Appeal; Dispute over the ownership of a plot of land 11/02/2021 – 18/02/2022 (dismissed) Decision of 28 July 2021 dismissing the complaint n/a     6142/22   19/01/2022 Kujtim LLAGAMI 2014 – pending before the Supreme Court; Claim for unlawful dismissal from work 21/06/2021 – 16/09/2021 (dismissed) No data n/a     27370/22   26/05/2022 Selman GAZIDEDJA 26/05/2016 –pending before the Tirana Administrative Court of Appeal; Determination of the applicant’s old age/ mineworkers’ pension 18/09/2020 – 14/02/2022 (discontinued)     Judgment of 1 November 2021 finding a violation of the “reasonable time” requirement 22 April 2022 – ongoing