CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 février 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 } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5C5E66B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s8610383A { width:30.38%; border-collapse:collapse } .s92C821B8 { width:8.48%; 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 } .s66732282 { width:22.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF43C5150 { width:22.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3E181D07 { width:8.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s53532DF { width:22.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s77626D63 { width:22.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 4 March 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 6045/14 Bledar LASKU and Others against Albania lodged on 31 December 2013 communicated on 14 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicants’ right of ownership on a plot of land in Tirana and several sets of proceedings concerning that right. The domestic authorities recognised the applicants’ ownership on a plot of land in restitution proceedings, but subsequently re-examined their earlier decisions and divested the applicants of their ownership. While the applicants owned the land they were involved in a civil dispute with company M. over sharing of profits from the exploitation of the plot. In 2003 the applicants lodged a civil claim with the Tirana District Court. After several remittals, on 12 March 2013 the Tirana Court of Appeal allowed that claim in part. In November 2022, that decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. On 29 May 2023, the Constitutional Court found that there had been a violation of the applicants’ right to be heard within reasonable time in the proceedings before the Supreme Court. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicants complain that the annulment of the Property Commission’s decision had violated their right to legal certainty. They also complain about the length of the proceedings in their civil claim against company M., concerning payment for their share of profit. Further, they complain about a breach of their property rights under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention because of the annulment by the authorities of the Commission’s decision which recognised the applicant’s ownership on the property at issue (see v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, §§   61-62, ECHR 1999 ‑ VII, Ryabykh v. Russia , no. 52854/99, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2003 ‑ IX; Driza v. Albania , no. 33771/02, §§ 63-71 ECHR 2007 ‑ V (extracts); and Trapeznikov and Others v. Russia , nos. 5623/09 and 3 others, § 23, 5 April 2016)?   2. Was the length of the proceedings in the applicants’ civil claim against company M. concerning their share of profit in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 24, ECHR 2000-IV, and Bara and Kola v. Albania , nos. 43391/18 and 17766/19, § 63, 12 October 2021)? Did the applicants exhaust domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, following the Constitutional Court’s decision acknowledging their complaint about the length of proceedings, were the applicants required to lodge proceedings for compensation, either in a separate action under the Code of Civil Procedure or by any other compensatory remedy?         APPENDIX Application no. 6045/14   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Bledar LASKU 1968 Albanian Tirana 2. Meri IKONOMI 1948 Albanian Tirana 3. Shpresa KEKEZI 1963 Albanian Tirana 4. Teri KEKEZI 1997 Albanian Tirana 5. Aleksandra LASKU 1928 Albanian Korça 6. Ingrid LASKU 1964 Albanian Tirana 7. Kostandin LASKU 1961 Albanian Tirana 8. Rezarta NGJELA 1961 Albanian Tirana 9. Dhimiter SHKURTI 1957 Albanian Tirana 10. Donika SHKURTI 1954 Albanian Tirana 11. Jani SHKURTI 1957 Albanian Tirana 12. Leandro SHKURTI 1987 Albanian Tirana 13. Roland SHKURTI 1981 Albanian Tirana