CEDH · CASELAW;STATEMENTOFFACTS;ENG — 18 février 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s22DB1888 { width:273.82pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s673A384F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   13 February 2008     FOURTH SECTION Application no. 17758/06 by Bashkim RAMAJ against Albania lodged on 23 April 2006   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS   The applicant, Mr Bashkim Ramaj, is an Albanian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Tirana. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Puto, a lawyer practising in Tirana. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant’s ancestor owned a plot of land measuring 6,700 sq. m., which was nationalised and used for the establishment of an agricultural company in the “ Uji i Ftohtë ” area. On an unspecified date, the applicant’s ancestor was granted the use of the above plot of land pursuant to a decision on the restructuring of agricultural companies ( Vendim për ristrukturimin e ndërmarrjeve bujqësore - see “Relevant domestic law” below ) . On 18 October 1996 the Land Commission ( Komisioni i Tokës) , hereinafter “the Commission”, recognised the applicant’s property title over the plot of land pursuant to Law No. 7501 and Law No. 8053 (see “Relevant domestic law” below). In December 1998 the applicant requested that his plot of land be registered with the Office of Registration of Immovable Property ( Zyra e Regjistrimit të Pasurive të Paluajtshme ), “the ORIP”, in accordance with Law No. 7843 (see “Relevant domestic law” below). On 15 June 2000 the applicant’s property title was revoked by a decision of the Land Commission of Vlora City Council ( Komisioni i Tokës i Këshillit të Rrethit Vlorë ). The decision did not give any reasons for the revocation. On an unspecified date the applicant challenged this decision before the District Court. On 20 May 2003 the Vlora District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaints as unfounded. On an unspecified date, the applicant filed an appeal against the District Court’s decision. On 13 April 2004 the Vlora Court of Appeal, deciding on the merits, quashed the 2000 Land Commission’s decision of 15 June 2000 as regards the applicant’s property title. It found, among other things, that the Land Commission’s decision was not reasoned and that its composition was contrary to the regulations in force. The Commission’s decision of 18 October 1996 therefore became enforceable. At the applicant’s request, on 22 December 2004 the Vlora District Court issued an execution warrant in respect of the Court of Appeal’s judgment. On 4 March 2005 the Bailiff’s Office requested the Land Commission to execute the judgment. On 4 April 2005 the Bailiff’s Office informed the applicant that, in the absence of voluntary execution, measures would be taken to oblige the Land Commission to execute the judgment. He added that sanctions would be imposed on the Land Commission in accordance with the Criminal Code in the event of its failure to execute. On 11 April 2005 the Vlora Regional Council ( Këshilli i Qarkut) informed the Bailiff’s Office that the Land Commission of Vlora Municipality was responsible for the settlement of the dispute in question. On 26 May 2005 Vlora Municipality ( Bashkia e Vlorës) informed the Bailiff’s Office that they could not be obliged to execute judicial decisions, given that they were not a party to the proceedings before the District Court and the Court of Appeal. In response to an open letter sent to several institutions, on 30 June 2005 the Constitutional Court informed the applicant by a letter that the problems raised therein, apparently referring to the non-enforcement of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, did not fall within its jurisdiction. On 1 September 2005 the Bailiff’s Office informed the applicant that a working group had been set up to resolve the problem of the overlapping of land allocation among landlords in the area in dispute. On 25 January 2006 the Bailiff’s Office imposed a fine on the Regional Council for failure to execute the Court of Appeal’s judgment. On 6 April 2006 the Land Commission of Vlora Region ( Komisioni i Tokës së Qarkut Vlorë ) enforced the Court of Appeal’s judgment and repealed the Commission decision. In response to another open letter sent to several institutions, on 3 April 2007 the Constitutional Court addressed a letter to the applicant explaining that he had to exhaust all domestic remedies before having recourse to that Court. The letter also explained that the applicant could file an application with the Constitutional Court within two years from the date of the final court’s judgment. In a letter dated 12 July 2007 the ORIP informed the applicant that all actions for the transfer of property in plots of land located in the area “Uji i Ftohtë” had been suspended as a result of overlapping and conflicting property title deeds issued with respect to the same plots of land.   B.     Relevant domestic law The relevant domestic law as regards property restitution in Albania has been described in the judgments of Gjonbocari v. Albania (no. 10508/02, 23 October 2007 – not yet final), Driza v. Albania (no. 33771/02, 13 November 2007 – not yet final) and Ramadhi v. Albania (no. 38222/02, 13 November 2007 – not yet final).   1. Relevant parts of the Albanian Constitution Article 42 § 2 “In the protection of his constitutional and legal rights, freedoms and interests, or in defending a criminal charge, everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing, within a reasonable time, by an independent and impartial court established by law.” Article 142 § 3 “State bodies shall comply with judicial decisions.” Article 131 “The Constitutional Court shall decide: ... (f) Final complaints by individuals alleging a violation of their constitutional rights to a fair hearing, after all legal remedies for the protection of those rights have been exhausted.” 2. Decision on Restructuring of Agricultural Companies (Decision No. 452 dated 17 October 1992 amended by Decision No. 161 dated 8 April 1993 of the Prime Minister) Both decisions provide for the dissolution of agricultural companies or their integral units, which were founded on the basis of the land belonging to agricultural cooperatives. Consequently, the land is to be allotted for use by the employers of the agricultural company and family members of owners whose land was used for the establishment of agricultural cooperatives. 3. Free transfer of property of agricultural land Act (Law No. 8053 dated 21 December 1995 The law regulates free transfer of property of agricultural land to agricultural families or individuals who already make use of it. 4. Registration of Immovable Property Act (Law No. 7843 dated 13 July 1994) The law provides for the registration of immovable property, which is carried out by the Office of Registration of Immovable Property. Any interested party may apply for the registration thereof upon submission of documents required by law. Article 38 stipulates that if a physical person acquires a title to an immovable property on the basis, inter alia, of a court decision, he shall be registered as its owner upon request.   COMPLAINTS Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains about: (i) non-enforcement of the final Court of Appeal’s judgment in that his title to property in question has still not been registered with the Office of Registration of Immovable Property (ORIP); (ii) the length of the proceedings. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention about a disproportionate interference with his property right. He maintains that he is not in real and effective possession of his property in view of the refusal to register his title with the ORIP.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1. Can the applicant claim to be a victim under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the delays in the enforcement of the Court of Appeal’s judgment (see Burdov   v. Russia , no.   59498/00, §   31, ECHR 2002 ‑ III)? 2. Did the authorities’ delay in the enforcement of the Court of Appeal’s judgment give rise to a breach of the applicant’s right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Burdov   v. Russia , no.   59498/00, §§   33-38, ECHR 2002 ‑ III)? 3. Was the length of the proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? 4. Having regard to the above question, was there a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as a result of the authorities’ delay in enforcing the Court of Appeal’s final judgment (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?