CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 novembre 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 69 November 2004 Qufaj Co. Sh.p.k. v. Albania - 54268/00 Judgment 18.11.2004 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Non-enforcement of a final judgment: violation Facts : The applicant, a construction company, bought land from the municipality of Tirana, which also granted it planning permission to build five hundred flats. However, the municipality subsequently refused to grant the company the requisite building permit. The applicant’s action claiming compensation was dismissed by the District Court, but upheld by the Court of Appeal. The municipality did not appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment, which became final. Despite notifications from the Enforcement Office to the municipality requesting that it comply with the Court of Appeal judgment, the municipality repeatedly refused to comply, arguing it had no budget. The applicant brought proceedings in the Constitutional Court but the complaint was rejected as it was not within the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction. Law : Government’s preliminary objection (victim status): The material facts complained of by the applicant company had occurred before it had failed to comply with registration formalities and ceased to exist as the “old” company: objection dismissed. Article 6 § 1 (fair hearing) – The fair trial rules should have been interpreted in a way that guaranteed the applicant an effective remedy to have the judgment in his favour enforced. Thus, the Constitutional Court was competent and could have dealt with the applicant company’s complaint. In any event, the applicant should not have been prevented from benefiting from the judgment in its favour on the ground of the State’s alleged financial difficulties. For these reasons, there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Conclusion : violation (unanimously) Article 41 – The Court held that the respondent State was to pay the applicant company the entire sum awarded by the national courts (ALL 60,000,000). It also awarded the applicant 70,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and made an award in respect of costs and expenses.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes