CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 octobre 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 4 November 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 51135/22 Minerva KOTHERJA against Albania lodged on 18 October 2022 communicated on 15 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged violation of the principle of legal certainty because in a property dispute the Supreme Court by its decision of 23 June 2016 declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law admissible, and then by its decision of 7 March 2022 declared the same appeal inadmissible. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the decision of the Supreme Court of 7 March 2022 to declare the applicant’s appeal inadmissible in breach of her right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article   6   § 1 of the Convention having regard to that court’s previous decision of 23 June 2016? In particular, was the principle of legal certainty breached by two contradictory decisions of the Supreme Court on the applicant’s appeal (see Beian v. Romania (no. 1) , no. 30658/05, §   39, ECHR 2007-V (extracts); Vusić v. Croatia , no. 48101/07, §§ 40-46, 1 July 2010; and Balažoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   45117/08, §§ 29-34, 25 April 2013)?