CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s391E78BA { font-family:Arial; background-color:#ffffff } .s3DB046A9 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; background-color:#ffffff } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Published on 26 May 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 13615/23 Faik BRARI against Albania lodged on 3 May 2023 communicated on 9 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the annulment of the applicant’s title over a plot of land given in the applicant’s favour by the Land Commission in 1996. The applicant is one of the co-owners of a plot of land measuring 12,390   sq. m that was transferred to him and his family in 1996 by the Land Commission, pursuant to the 1991 land law. The title was registered in the Land Register for a plot measuring 11,490 sq. m. Parts of the plot were sold to third parties or divided among the applicant and other family members who are not applicants to the proceedings before the Court. The plot registered under the applicant’s name at the time of domestic proceedings measured 1,750 sq. m. On 23 July 2014 the applicant was informed that the authorities had initiated an administrative enquiry concerning the alleged unlawfulness of his title , known as the Land Acquisition Certificate ( Akti i marrjes së tokës në pronësi   – “AMTP”), based on supposed irregularities in the decision of the Land Commission. The enquiry had been initiated under Law no.   9948/2008 on the Review of the Legal Validity of Titles to Agricultural Land, which sought to undertake a comprehensive review of AMTP titles potentially obtained in abusive fashion. On 29 April 2015 the Administrative Court of Tirana allowed the authorities’ claim against the applicant and his family. It ordered the annulment of the AMTP and required the applicant and his family to return the land still in their name and pay compensation to the State for the land transferred to third parties. That decision was upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, on 4 July 2017 and 16 June 2022, respectively. On 15 December 2022 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the Land Commission’s decision of 1996 awarding the applicant and/or his family title over the relevant plot of land a valid, final and enforceable decision? What were the reasons for its subsequent annulment?   2.     H as there been a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial, guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of legal certainty breached by virtue of the annulment some two decades later of the Land Commission’s 1996 decision concerning the applicant’s family (see among others Guðmundur   Andri   Ástráðsson v.   Iceland   [GC], no.   26374/18, §   238, 1 December 2020, Kehaya and Others v.   Bulgaria , nos.   47797/99   and   68698/01 , §§ 58-70, 12 January 2006, and Chengelyan and Others v. Bulgaria , no.   47405/07 , §§ 31-38, 21   April 2016)?   3.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular:   (a)     Has the applicant been deprived of his possession, in view of the annulment of the title to the property granted by the Land Commission in 1996?   (b)     Did the annulment of the applicant’s title satisfy the requirement of legality? In particular, did the Supreme Court consider the applicability to the applicant’s case of Law no. 20/2020 on the Finalisation of Transitional Property Processes (and in particular, its sections 7 and 68), which had entered into effect at the time the cassation appeal was heard? Were these provisions more favourable to the applicant than those of Law no. 9948/2008? The parties are invited to provide evidence of the relevant judicial practice in this respect.   (c)     Was there any evidence of bad faith on the applicant’s part as a ground for the revision and annulment of the Land Commission’s 1996 decision (see Lelas v. Croatia , no.   55555/08, § 74, 20   May 2010)?