CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 avril 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 6 May 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 29237/18 Gazmend FORTUZI against Albania lodged on 12 June 2018 communicated on 16 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns administrative proceedings and a civil claim by which the applicant challenged an administrative decision denying his claim for restitution of property. The complaints to be communicated concern the length of these proceedings, and the applicant’s right of access to the Constitutional Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     What period is to be taken into account for the length of proceedings in the present case? Was that length in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Frydlender v.   France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII)?   2.     Did the Constitutional Court’s decisions 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)?