CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 avril 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s6B8C76CB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:right; 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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sAE020367 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.4pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right }   Published on 22 April 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 26285/24 Elda DINAJ against Albania lodged on 14 September 2024 communicated on 1 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the preventive seizure of a seaside villa that the applicant claims to own, on suspicion that the property belongs in reality to A.A., a former senior executive official, who is under ongoing investigation for corruption. It is alleged by the prosecution that the property was obtained by A.A. or his family members through the use of undeclared and illicit means that constitute proceeds of crime.   I. Criminal Investigation As of 2020 the Special Prosecution Against Corruption and Organised Crime (“Special Prosecution”) has been investigating multiple (former) Government officials, including A.A., in connection to the awarding of public contracts for waste treatment facilities in Tirana and two other cities.   II. Seizure On an unspecified date, the Special Prosecution requested from the First Instance Court Against Corruption and Organised Crime authorisation to seize the villa. On 23 March 2023 the court, sitting in camera , granted the request and ordered the seizure of the villa on the grounds of Article 274 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) which reads: “ 1. When there is a risk that the free disposal of an item related to the criminal offense may aggravate or extend its consequences or facilitate the commission of other criminal offenses, at the request of the prosecutor, the competent court orders its seizure [of the item] by way of a reasoned decision. 2. The seizure can also be imposed on items, products of the criminal offense and any other type of property that is allowed to be confiscated, according to Article 36 of the Criminal Code [on the confiscation of the means and byproducts of criminal offenses].” On 26 April 2023, the Court of Appeal Against Corruption and Organised Crime upheld the lower ruling. On 27 July 2023, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal. On 16 April 2024, the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal. The court rejected the Special Prosecution’s claim that the applicant had no standing to challenge the seizure as she was not the formal owner of the property; it found that the applicant had shown that she had sufficient proprietary interest and therefore standing to challenge the seizure. It further reasoned that the case called for a review of whether the applicant had enjoyed the procedural guarantees provided by Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. In that connection, the court found that there had been an interference with the applicant’s property rights. It noted that the seizure served the legitimate aim of preventing crime and the laundering of proceeds from crime. As regards proportionality of the measure, the court noted that the ordinary courts had not engaged into a proportionality assessment, however it made that assessment itself and found no issues. The applicant complains that the seizure of the villa was contrary to Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that the domestic courts violated her rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular: a) did the applicant have at the relevant time ownership of or other patrimonial interest, in whole or in part, in the seized property? b) if so, and bearing in mind the procedural safeguards under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, did the applicant have a reasonable opportunity to present her case and challenge the seizure of the property before the domestic courts (see G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2   others, § 302, 28 June 2018; and Zaghini v. San Marino , no. 3405/21, §   57, 11 May 2023 with further references)? b) were any alleged deficiencies in the proceedings before the ordinary courts cured as a result of the Constitutional Court’s review? 2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court, the principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms under the civil limb of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?