CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mai 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s51305D0D { width:133.04%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s591C39CD { width:5.84%; 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 } .sA98887F8 { width:26.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE60AC552 { width:23.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2B283C67 { width:21.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9FDAE09D { width:5.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCC02E4F4 { width:26.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA43A47F5 { width:23.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAC38887 { width:21.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 17 June 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 4952/20 Nikolin KUJXHIJA and Others against Albania lodged on 20 January 2020 communicated on 31 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants owned a plot of land and buildings on it. By judgment of 28 December 2013 the Shkoder District Court ordered other people to vacate the premises and to pay the applicants for their continued use of the plot and premises. On 14 April 2015 the Shkoder Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. A writ of execution was issued in July 2015. In another set of proceedings, by judgment of 22 January 2014, amended on 9 November 2015 by the Court of Appeal, the Shkoder District Court ordered other persons to vacate certain other premises on that plot of land and to pay rent to the applicants until the execution of the judgment; it also ordered the applicants to reimburse works carried out on the buildings. A writ of execution was issued in April 2016. A private bailiff was hired to enforce both judgments in the applicants’ favour, but then withdrew from the proceedings, having received no assistance from the police. Another bailiff suspended enforcement for six months in 2016, expecting the third parties to vacate the premises voluntarily. The applicants hired a third bailiff, to whom the police refused assistance for various reasons on several occasions between December 2016 and October 2019. Under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to it, the applicants complain that the respondent State failed to assist them in obtaining enforcement of the final judgments in their favour, and in particular about the police’s failure to assist the bailiffs in vacating the applicants’ land and premises. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants comply with the six-month time-limit under Article   35 § 1 of the Convention for their complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention on account of the respondent State’s failure to assist them in obtaining enforcement of the judgments (compare Bushati and Others v. Albania , no.   6397/04, § 72, 8   December 2009)?   2.     In this connection, did the applicants exhaust domestic remedies (compare Smagilov v. Russia (dec.), no. 24324/05, §§ 41-52, 13 November 2014)? In particular, were the applicants required to file an action under Article 399/1 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure for securing the enforcement of the judgments and/or for claiming compensation in respect of any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage caused by the delays in enforcing those judgments (see Bara and Kola v. Albania , nos. 43391/18 and 17766/19, § 119, 12   October 2021)?   3.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 by the prolonged non-enforcement of the two judgments in the applicants’ favour (see Fuklev   v. Ukraine , no.   71186/01, §§   84-86 and 89-93, 7 June 2005; Bushati and Others , cited above, §§ 79-86 and 94; Kunashko   v. Russia , no.   36337/03, §§ 38-39, 17   December 2009; and Nikoloudakis v.   Greece , no. 35322/12, §§ 43-56, 26 March 2020)?   In particular, having regard to sections 5 and 46 of Law no.   10   031/2008 and sections   7, 36 and 54 of Law no. 26/2019, is the respondent State liable under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention for this prolonged non-enforcement?   APPENDIX List of applicants   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Nikolin KUJXHIJA 1977 Albanian Tirana 2. Ceciljana KUJXHIJA 1981 Albanian, Italian Padova 3. Justereza KUJXHIJA 1981 Albanian, Italian Tirana 4. Marie KUJXHIJA 1942 Albanian Shkodër