CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 novembre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   778 13.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Albania urged to take urgent measures in restitution of property cases   The European court of human rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgments [1] in the cases of Driza v. Albania (application no. 33771/02) and Ramadhi and Others v. Albania (no. 38222/02). (The judgments are available only in English.)   The cases concerned the non-enforcement of judgments and administrative decisions in restitution of property cases, a widespread problem affecting large numbers of people in Albania; there are already dozens of similar cases before the Court.   In both cases the Court has called on Albania, as a matter of urgency, to take all necessary statutory, administrative and budgetary measures to ensure claimants “speedily” receive the compensation or land awarded to them under the Property Restitution and Compensation Act, 1993 (Property Act). Those measures are to include the creation of an adequate fund to pay those applicants entitled to financial compensation.   The Court held unanimously that in both cases there had been: a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European convention on human rights; a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention; and, a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held unanimously that in Driza , Albania was to return to the applicant a 1,650   m² plot of land plus 50,000   euros   (EUR). Failing such restitution, the State was to pay EUR   280,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The State was also to pay the applicant EUR   500,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage concerning a 3,350   m² plot.   In Ramadhi and Others , the Court held unanimously that Albania was to return a 30,500   m² plot of land to the first three applicants and pay them, jointly, EUR   25,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. Failing such restitution, the State was to pay them EUR   120,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. With regard to a 5,500   m² plot plus shops, the Court awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR   64,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,676 for costs and expenses. 1.     Principal facts   In both cases the applicants took legal action to recover possession of property belonging to their fathers which had been taken by the authorities without payment of compensation.   Driza - The applicant, Ramazan Driza, is an Albanian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Tirana. In pre-war Albania, his father owned a bakery in Tirana and a plot of land. In 1960 the Albanian authorities demolished the building and expropriated the land.   Following an application by the applicant under the Property Act, the authorities declared that the nationalisation of his father’s property had been unlawful and allocated to the applicant, in compensation, two plots of land measuring 5,000   m² (1,650   m² and 3,350   m²). That decision was upheld on 20 June 1996 by the Tirana Property Restitution and Compensation Commission. He was, however, unable to take possession of that land because it was occupied. On 2 June 1998 Tirana Court of Appeal upheld the validity of the Commission’s decision. The Court of Appeal’s decision was upheld on 17 December 1998 by the Supreme Court, whose judgment subsequently became final.   Judgments were later issued in supervisory-review proceedings (on 5 July 2001) and in a parallel set of proceedings (on 7 December 2000), which respectively annulled the applicant’s title over both plots of land. He was also awarded compensation which, to date, he has not received.   According to the applicant, flats have been built on the larger plot of land which have been sold to, and are occupied by, the new owners. Temporary buildings have been constructed on the smaller plot of land.   Ramadhi and Others - The applicants are six Albanian nationals, Shyqyri Ramadhi, Remzi Kapidani, Rabije Ramadhi, Xhemile Ramadhi (now deceased), Dilaver Ramadhi and Nakib Ramadhi. They are siblings, born in 1916, 1921, 1927, 1928, 1934 and 1943, who live in Kavaja and Durrës (Albania).   During the communist regime, several plots of land and two shops in the Kavaja region, which were owned by the applicants’ father, were confiscated by the authorities without compensation.   Following an application by the applicants under the Property Act, the Kavaja Property Restitution and Compensation Commission upheld the applicants’ title as joint owners of two shops and a 15,500   m² plot; 10,000   m² was to be returned to them and it was ruled that they were entitled to compensation for the rest. The applicants took possession of that plot of land. However, they received no compensation.   The applicants subsequently lodged an application with Kavaja Land Commission, claiming property rights in respect of a 30,500   m² plot of land. The first three applicants were successful; the claims of the other three were rejected on the ground that they did not live in the relevant area. However, on 7 April 1999 the Land Commission declared the applicants’ titles void. That decision was annulled on 4 February 2000 by Durrës District Court, which ordered the Commission to re-examine the case. On 8 January 2003, the Commission upheld the validity of the first three applicants’ titles. However, the applicants maintained that their plots of land were nonetheless transferred to third parties by the local authorities. 2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The Driza application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 4 September 2002 and the Ramadhi and Others application was lodged with the Court on 9 October 2002.   The judgments were given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorran), President , Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Ján Šikuta (Slovak), Pâivi Hirvelä (Finnish), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Mr   Driza complained of the unfairness of supervisory review proceedings and the quashing of a final judgment in his favour. He relied on Article 6 § 1, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13.   The applicants in Ramadhi and Others complained of the authorities’ failure to enforce decisions in their favour and three of them also complained that the domestic courts had discriminated against them on the ground of their place of residence. They relied on Article 6 § 1, Article 13, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1   Driza - The Court considered that, in granting leave to have a final judgment reviewed and allowing the introduction of parallel sets of proceedings, the Albanian Supreme Court had set at naught an entire judicial process which had ended in a final and enforceable judicial decision. The Court also found that the Supreme Court was not impartial and, by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgments of 17 December 1998 and 7 December 2000, the Albanian authorities had deprived the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of all useful effect. The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the breach of the principle of legal certainty, the impartiality of the court and the non-enforcement of a final judgment.   Ramadhi and Others - Concerning the enforcement of the Commission’s decisions, the Court observed that, irrespective of whether the final decision to be executed took the form of a court judgment or a decision by an administrative authority, domestic law as well as the Convention provided that it was to be enforced. However, no steps had been taken to enforce the Commission’s decisions in the applicants’ favour. None of the property acts or any related domestic provision governed the enforcement of the Commission’s decisions. In particular, the various property acts in Albania did not provide either for any statutory time-limit for appealing against such decisions before the domestic courts or for any specific remedy for their enforcement. The Court further noted that the property acts left the determination of the appropriate form and manner of compensation to the Albanian Council of Ministers, which was to define the detailed rules and methods for such compensation. To date no such measures had been adopted. The decisions in the applicants’ favour had been unenforced for 12 and 11 years respectively and the Government had not submitted any evidence that relevant measures were imminent.   The Court noted that the State authorities had also failed to enforce the District Court’s judgment of 4 February 2000 as regards the first three applicants.   The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the failure to enforce the Commission’s decision of 7 June 1995 and 20 September 1996, and the Kavaja District Court judgment of 4 February 2000 (in respect of the first three applicants).   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Driza - The Court noted that the failure of the authorities to enforce the judgments of 17 December 1998 and 7 December 2000 amounted to an interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. The Court recalled that lack of funds could not justify a failure to enforce a final and binding judgment debt owed by the State. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Ramadhi and Others - The Court considered that the Albanian Government had not produced any convincing evidence to justify the failure of the domestic authorities over so many years to determine the final amount of the compensation due to the applicants or to return to the first three applicants a plot of land belonging to them which had since been allocated to third parties. There had therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 regarding compensation (all the applicants) and restitution (the first three applicants).   Article 13   Driza - The Court considered that the Government had failed to establish an adequate procedure in relation to compensation claims. Moreover, it was unlikely that the Government would put in place such a system imminently or soon enough to enable the settlement of the dispute related to the determination of the applicants’ rights. Consequently there had been a violation of Article 13 concerning the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Ramadhi and Others - The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 §   1 in respect of the ineffectiveness of the remedies at the applicants’ disposal to secure the enforcement of the Commission’s decisions of 7 June 1995 and 20 September 1996. Article 14   The Court observed that, in Ramadhi and Others, the last three applicants failed to raise the issue of discrimination before the domestic courts; their complaint was therefore inadmissible.   Article 46   In both cases the Court noted shortcomings in the Albanian legal system, as a consequence of which, an entire category of individuals had been and still were being deprived of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property, stemming from the non-enforcement of court judgments awarding compensation under the Property Act. Indeed, there were already dozens of identical applications before the Court. The escalating number of applications was an aggravating factor as regards the State’s responsibility under the Convention and also a threat for the future effectiveness of the Convention system, given that, in the Court’s view, the legal vacuums detected in the applicants’ cases might subsequently give rise to numerous other, well-founded applications.   The Court reiterated that, under Article 46, Albania had undertaken to abide by the final judgments of the Court, whose execution was supervised by the executive body of the Council of Europe (the Committee of Ministers). Consequently, where the Court found a violation, Albania had a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction under Article 41, but also to select, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted regarding its legal system, to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress so far as possible its effects. Furthermore, once a deficiency in the legal system had been identified by the Court, the national authorities had the task, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, of taking within a determined period of time – retrospectively if need be – the necessary measures, so that the Court did not have to repeat its finding of a violation in a long series of comparable cases.   The Court considered that Albania should, above all, introduce a remedy which secured genuinely effective redress for the violations identified in Ramadhi and Others as well as in all similar applications pending it.   The Court called on Albania to remove all obstacles to the award of compensation under the Property Act by ensuring the appropriate statutory, administrative and budgetary measures were taken. Those measures should include the adoption of property valuation plans in respect of those applicants entitled to receive compensation in kind and the designation of an adequate fund in respect of those applicants entitled to receive compensation in value, to make it possible for all claimants awarded compensation under the Property Act, to obtain speedily the sums or the land due to them. Such measures should be made available as a matter of urgency.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.