CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 janvier 2025

.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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sB0B7EC6 { width:28.22%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 17 February 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 28781/24 Eleonora POGA and Others against Albania lodged on 1 October 2024 communicated on 30 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 1995 the Tirana Property Restitution and Compensation Commission restored to the applicants the ownership title over a plot of land (“the plot”). The applicants registered this decision with the Mortgage Office, the body that was then administering the land registry, who issued an ownership certificate. In 2005 the Council of Ministers adopted a decision which designated a large part of the plot as state owned property (“the 2005 Decision”). It accordingly transferred a part of the plot to the Tirana Municipality who registered the 2005 Decision with the Immovable Property Registration Office (“IPRO”), the successor of the Mortgage Office. In 2010 the applicants lodged an action with the Tirana District Court against the IPRO and the Tirana Municipality. They asked the court to (1) declare unlawful the IPRO’s deletion of their ownership title from the land registry, (2) annul the registration of the ownership title in the name of the Tirana Municipality in the land registry, and (3) to order the IPRO to restore the status quo ante of the plot in the land registry. On 22 July 2013 the Tirana District Court dismissed the action. It found that the applicants had failed to challenge the 2005 Decision, which in absence of such challenge remained valid and accordingly the IPRO had correctly entered the ownership in the land registry. On 30 September 2016, 8 June 2023 and 4 June 2024, the Tirana Administrative Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, respectively, dismissed the applicants’ appeals. Four out of nine judges of the Constitutional Court dissented. The applicants complained of a breach of their right to fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 and their right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights   and   obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular: (a) did the domestic courts’ approach to the applicants’ action disclose an “excessive formalism” violating their right of access to a court (see Zubac v. Croatia ,   [GC], no.   40160/12, §§ 76-79 and 90-99, 5   April 2018)? (b) did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons for their decisions (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no.   2) ,   [GC], no.   19867/12, §   84, 11   July 2017)? 2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of   Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention (see Zela v. Albania , no. 33164/11, § 56, 77-79, 11 June 2024, with further references)? In particular: (a) was the applicants’ property expropriated de facto ? (b) did they benefit from sufficient   procedural   safeguards to effectively challenge the alleged interference with their property as required by Article   1 of   Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention (see Arnavutköy Greek Orthodox Taksiarhis Church Foundation v. Türkiye , no. 27269/09, §§ 50-56, 15   November 2022)?     APPENDIX Application no. 28781/24 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Eleonora POGA 1940 Albanian Tirana 2. Rozi BEQIRI 1965 Albanian Tirana 3. Zaira POGA 1978 Albanian Tirana 4. Sofiana SHAKAJ 1959 Albanian Tirana 5. Gjergji SHALËSI 1948 Albanian Tirana 6. Petrika SHALËSI 1951 Albanian Tirana