CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 mars 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s950B6BF1 { width:31.08%; 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 24 March 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 5805/23 Astrit HOXHA and Others against Albania lodged on 31 January 2023 communicated on 7 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about lack of access to a court. On 2 September 1995 the Commission for the Restitution and Compensation of Property (“the Commission”), recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights on a plot measuring 5,878 sq. m situated in Tirana. It decided to restore part of that plot measuring 2,999.6 sq. m and to award compensation for 2,501.4 sq. m in one of the ways provided for by the law. It further awarded the applicants the right to first refusal over a plot of 615 sq. m. In 1996 the title over the restituted property was registered in the Land Registry. On 12 September 2007 the Immovable Property Register of Tirana informed the applicants that, because of an inconsistency between the restituted plot in the decision and the accompanying map, no further actions concerning their property were possible. On 18 March 2008 the Property Agency (the successor of the Commission) informed the applicants that they should submit a request for the correction of the Commission’s decision to the Regional Office for the Restitution and Compensation of Property (the Regional Office). On 14 November 2008 the Regional Office dismissed the applicants’ request for review of the 1995 Commission’s decision on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. On 7 November 2011 the Property Agency upheld that decision, further arguing that it was not possible to administratively review the Commission’s decisions, which were considered quasi-judicial. On 3 December 2012 the Tirana District Court allowed the applicants’ claim concerning the mistakes in the 1995 Commission’s decision. That court, on the basis of an expert report, found that in the documents proving the applicants’ ancestor’s ownership rights, the authorities had used an old type of measurement. On 26 June 2014 the Tirana Court of Appeal upheld that decision. Since it was enforceable the applicants’ title was registered in the Land Registry. On 6 April 2022 the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ findings and dismissed the applicants’ claim in camera , as time-barred, holding that the applicants should have brought proceedings within thirty days from the moment they had become aware of the inconsistencies between the map and the 1995 Commission’s decision. According to the Supreme Court, even assuming the applicants were not aware of the inconsistency in 1995, the thirty-day deadline was applicable from the moment they had been informed of its existence. The applicant and the other heirs should have addressed the court without pursuing the administrative remedy. On 12 October 2022 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional complaint on the grounds that the complaint was of a fourth instance nature. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 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? Has their right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 §   1 of the Convention been respected (see, among many others, Zubac v.   Croatia   [GC], no.   40160/12 , §§ 76-99, 5 April 2018; Zouboulidis v.   Greece (no. 3) , no.   57246/21, §§ 64-66 and 77-78, 4 June 2024; and Yagtzilar and Others v.   Greece , no. 41727/98 , §   27, 6 December 2001)?   In particular, having regard to the relevant legislation and the case-law of the domestic courts at the material time, was it foreseeable for the applicants that the Property Commission was to be treated as a quasi-judicial body and that the relevant statutory time-limit to challenge its decisions through court proceedings was thirty days, as applied by the Supreme Court on 6 April 2022 (see Majski v. Croatia (no. 2) , no.   16924/08 , §§ 66-72, 19 July 2011, and Kurşun v. Turkey , no.   22677/10 , §§ 103-04, 30   October 2018)?   The parties are requested to submit any relevant case-law or decisions concerning the application of the statutory time-limit to challenge the Property Commission’s decisions.       APPENDIX Application no. 5805/23 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Astrit HOXHA 1956 Albanian Tirana 2. Ilir ADEMI 1957 Albanian Tirana 3. Ylli ADEMI 1954 Albanian Durrës 4. Artur DEMI 1956 Albanian Tirana 5. Renato DEMI 1963 Albanian Tirana 6. Arben HOXHA 1959 Albanian Tirana 7. Gazmend HOXHA 1965 Albanian Tirana 8. Naferit HOXHA 1936 Albanian Tirana 9. Tahsim HOXHA 1941 Albanian Tirana 10. Servete MILAJ 1939 Albanian Tirana