CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 août 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 16 September 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 1351/19 Evgjeni TASHI against Albania lodged on 28 December 2018 communicated on 28 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 12 March 2010 the Tirana District Court allowed the applicant’s father claim against the Tirana Construction and Urban Planning Inspectorate (the Construction Inspectorate). It found that the wall surrounding his house was not an illegal construction, annulled the decision to demolish it, and obligated the Construction Inspectorate to rebuild the wall. On 15 June 2011 the Tirana District Court issued an enforcement writ for that decision. On 1 July 2011 the applicant’s father initiated enforcement proceedings, through the bailiff’s office. On 26 February 2015, the Supreme Court left in force the 2010 District Court’s decision as to the annulment of the Construction Inspectorate’s decision, but decided to award pecuniary compensation to the applicant’s father instead of the obligation to rebuild the wall. That decision was not executed. In 2017 the applicant and other heirs decided to build the wall themselves, under the supervision of the bailiff’s office. On 2 October 2018 the applicant and other heirs were fined by the National Construction and Urban Planning Inspectorate and a second decision to demolish the wall was issued. On 17 October 2018 the wall was demolished again. The applicant’s father died on 5 February 2015 and she is his lawful heir. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the decision in favour of her father has not been enforced, and the wall was demolished a second time. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.       Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular: (a)     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to the failure to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision of 26 February 2015 (see   Burdov v.   Russia (no. 2) , no.   33509/04, § 66, ECHR 2009, and   Sharxhi and others v. Albania,   no.   10613/16, §   92, 11 January 2018)? (b)     Did the decision of 2 October 2018 to fine the applicant and to demolish the wall a second time constitute an infringement of the principle of legal certainty, taking in consideration the decision of the Tirana District Court of 12 March 2010 (see   Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, § 238, 1   December 2020, and Okyay and Others v. Turkey , no. 36220/97, § 73, ECHR   2005-VII)? 2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions because of the non-enforcement of the Supreme Court’s decision in her father’s favour, contrary to the requirements of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see   Fuklev v. Ukraine , no.   71186/01, §§   90-91, 7 June 2005, and   Bushati and Others v. Albania , no.   6397/04, §§   93-94, 8 December 2009)? 3.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Sharxhi and Others v. Albania , no. 10613/16, §§ 84-85, 11 January 2018)?