CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 décembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s7C2088F3 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#000000 } Published on 22 December 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 15551/24 Agim TORO against Albania lodged on 22 May 2024 communicated on 5 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the non-enforcement of a final court’s judgment issued in favour of the applicant in proceedings against the Council of Ministers. On 3 July 2014 the Administrative Court of Appeal awarded the applicant compensation for wrongful dismissal. On 21 December 2016 that judgement was upheld by the Supreme Court. The bailiff initiated enforcement proceedings following the Court of Appeal judgment, as it was enforceable under domestic law. On 14 October 2021 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint concerning the non-enforcement of the 2014 Court of Appeal judgment, on the grounds that he had not exhausted the new remedy under Article 399/1 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 thereto, the applicant complains of the   non-enforcement   of the final judgment in his favour. Furthermore, under Article 13 of the Convention, he complains about the lack of an effective remedy to have that judgment enforced.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant exhaust domestic remedies (compare Smagilov v.   Russia (dec.), no. 24324/05, §§ 41-52, 13 November 2014)? In particular, was the applicant required to file an action under Article 399/1 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure for securing the enforcement of the 2014 judgment and/or for claiming compensation in respect of any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage caused by the delays in enforcing that judgment (see Bara and Kola v. Albania , nos. 43391/18 and 17766/19, §   119, 12   October 2021 and ARB SHPK and Others v. Albania , nos.   39860/19 and 2 others, § 192, 27   May 2025)?   2.     Without prejudice to the preceding question, has there been a violation of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention because of the prolonged non ‑ enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s favour (see   Burdov v.   Russia (no. 2) , no.   33509/04, § 66, ECHR 2009, and Sharxhi and Others v. Albania, no.   10613/16, § 92, 11 January 2018)?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possession because of the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour, contrary to the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see   Fuklev v. Ukraine , no.   71186/01, §§ 90-91, 7 June 2005, and Bushati and Others v.   Albania,   no.   6397/04, § 94, 8 December 2009)?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective remedy for his complaints under Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see     Marshall and Others v. Malta , no.   79177/16 , §§ 70-90, 11 February 2020; and   Bara and Kola , cited above, §§ 98 ‑ 124 and ARB SHPK and Others , cited above, §§   158-75)? Are there structural (legal or practical) obstacles in the domestic system to the effective enforcement of monetary awards against State entities, in employment or other cases (see Spahiu and Others v.   Albania (dec.) [Committee], nos. 79452/17, 39155/18 and 2248/19, 18   July 2024; Alsula and Others v. Albania , (dec.) [Committee], nos.   63975/10, 35321/11 and   6932/15, 30 November 2023; and Elgakoti SH.P.K. and Others v.   Albania , (dec.) [Committee], nos. 63986/10, 11487/11, 48963/11, 45719/12, 45720/12 and 71642/12,   6 June 2023)?   The parties are invited to submit   copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case and to provide examples of the relevant case-law of domestic courts.