CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 31 juillet 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2D3BC823 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 154 July 2012 Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania - 604/07, 34770/09, 43628/07 et al. Judgment 31.7.2012 [Section IV] Article 13 Effective remedy Lack of effective remedy to secure enforcement of final administrative decisions concerning compensation of property owners: violation   Article 46 Pilot judgment General measures Respondent State required to introduce effective remedy to secure enforcement of final administrative decisions concerning compensation for property owners   Facts – In a series of decisions between 1994 and 1999 commissions hearing property claims recognised the applicants’ title to various plots of land and ruled that they were entitled to compensation. Although some of the applicants did recover part of their land, they have not received financial compensation in lieu for the remainder. Law – Article 13: The Court found that there was no effective domestic remedy that allowed for adequate and sufficient redress on account of the prolonged non-enforcement of commission decisions awarding compensation. Although a significant number of legal acts had been enacted since the Court’s judgment in Ramadhi and Others ,* the position remained unsatisfactory. The non-financial forms of compensation that had been envisaged were found not to be effective in the absence of any evidence that any such awards had been made or, in the case of State bonds, were even contemplated by the legislation. As to financial compensation, the authorities’ decisions recognised such a right only where the commission concerned had awarded compensation in respect of the entire property, not in cases concerning partial restitution or other forms of compensation; the decisions provided for a maximum amount of financial compensation equal to the value of 200 square metres of land; unsuccessful claimants in a given year were required to re-submit their claims in a subsequent year; and the awards did not take into account any non-pecuniary damage incurred as a result of the delays in enforcement. This form of compensation was, therefore, not effective either. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 46: In view of the large number of problems besetting the compensation mechanism in Albania which continued to persist after the Court’s judgments in a series of previous cases,** and of the urgent need to grant applicants speedy and appropriate redress at the domestic level, the Court considered it imperative to apply the pilot-judgment procedure. Albania was required to take general measures, as a matter of urgency, in order to secure in an effective manner the right to compensation, while striking a fair balance between the different interests at stake. In this connection, noting that the property legislation in Albania had been amended at least seven times between 2004 and 2010, the Court stressed that frequent changes to the legislation were to be avoided as they inevitably led to a lack of legal certainty. The respondent State should carefully examine all legal and financial implications before introducing further modifications. The existence of precise data, which should also reflect modifications made by way of judicial review, would enable the authorities to calculate and track the overall compensation bill as well as the financial implications of the compensation mechanism. The compilation of a database and the estimation of the global compensation bill should be accompanied by a carefully devised and clear compensation scheme – free of cumbersome compliance procedures – that took into account the relevant principles from the Court’s case-law. The authorities should also start using alternative forms of compensation to ease pressure on the budget. The decision-making process relating to compensation awards had to be transparent and efficient and decisions had to contain clear and sufficient reasons and be amenable to judicial review. A transparent and effective system of property registration, including accurate, unified, cartographic data, was also required in order to enable and facilitate legal transactions. Setting realistic, statutory and binding time-limits in respect of every step of the process was essential. Lastly, the magnitude of the problem and the need for a comprehensive and practical solution could be better addressed if subjected to wide public discussions regarding the level and forms of compensation. As to the procedure to be followed in similar cases, the Court directed that proceedings concerning new applications lodged after the date of the instant judgment would be adjourned for eighteen months, but there would be no adjournment of applications lodged before that date. The Court also found a violation of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. Article 41: Awards ranging between EUR 280,000 and EUR 1,360,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. *   Ramadhi and Others v. Albania , no.   38222/02, 13   November 2007. ** Çaush Driza v. Albania , no. 10810/05, 15   March 2011; Ramadhi and Others v. Albania , cited above; Vrioni and Others v. Albania and Italy , nos.   35720/04 and 42832/06, 29   September 2009; and Delvina v. Albania , no.   49106/06, 8   March 2011.     © 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