CEDH · CASELAW;STATEMENTOFFACTS;ENG — 23 février 2009

.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 } .sFC1B4D41 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s673A384F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   09 February 2009     FOURTH SECTION Application no. 48806/06 by Peter and James LAZARIS against Albania lodged on 18 November 2006   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicants, Mr James Lazaris, formerly known as Panajot Llazari, and Mr Peter Lazaris, formerly known as Dhimitër Llazari, are American nationals who were born in 1925 and 1938 respectively and live in the United States of America. They are represented before the Court by Mr A.   Vgontzas, a lawyer practising in Athens, Greece. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants' deceased father, Mr Savo Llazari, was an Albanian national. He had been the owner of a plot of land measuring 2,660 sq. m and a one-storey house measuring 101 sq. m, which were nationalised by the former communist regime. During the communist regime an oil factory, measuring 1,831 sq. m, had been constructed on the applicants' father's plot of land. After the fall of communism, on 28 January 1994 a sale contract had been concluded between a third party, X., and the Himara Food Company ( Ndërmarrja Ushqimore Himarë ) for the privatisation of the oil factory. Proceedings for the restitution of properties On an unspecified date the applicants lodged a request with the Vlora Commission on the Restitution and Compensation of Properties ( Komisioni i Kthimit dhe Kompensimit të Pronave - “the Vlora Commission” ) seeking the return of their father's original property. On 13 October 1995 the Vlora Commission recognised the applicants' father's property rights over a plot of land measuring 2,660 sq. m. According to the Commission's decision, 335 sq. m and a one-storey house measuring 101 sq. m were to be restored to the applicants, while the remainder of the plot, that is 2,224 sq. m, and now occupied by buildings belonging to the oil factory were to be compensated for by State bonds pursuant to Law no. 7698 (see “Relevant domestic law” below). It appears that the applicants obtained possession of the house and the plot of land measuring 335 sq. m. However, they alleged that 269 sq. m out of the plot of 335 sq .m were being illegally occupied, in that they were being used as a parking lot by the Himara municipality. No legal proceedings have been instituted by the applicants for the recovery of possession of this plot of land. On an unspecified date, the applicants instituted civil proceedings against the 1995 Commission decision seeking the restitution of the plot of land measuring 1,831 sq. m upon which the oil factory had been constructed. They also sought to have the 1994 sale contract rescinded. On 26 April 2004 the Vlora District Court found in the applicants' favour. It decided that the sale contract was null and void as it had been concluded in breach of the law in force at the material time. On the basis of an expert opinion according to which the plot of land measuring 1,831 sq. m was located within the property recognised as owned by the applicants by virtue of the 1995 Commission decision, the court decided to restore that plot to the applicants. This decision was upheld on appeal by the Vlora Court of Appeal on 19 November 2004. On an unspecified date the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court. In its decision, delivered in absentia on 7 July 2005, the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of both the Court of Appeal and the District Court, finding that the privatisation procedure had complied with the domestic laws in force at the material time. On an unspecified date the applicants filed a constitutional complaint alleging that they had not been notified of the Supreme Court proceedings. On 28 March 2006, a bench of three judges of the Constitutional Court declared their complaint inadmissible without giving any reasons. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 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); Driza v. Albania (no. 33771/02, 13 November 2007); and Ramadhi v. Albania (no. 38222/02, 13 November 2007). The Constitutional Court's case-law The Constitutional Court has an established case-law as regards constitutional complaints alleging the unfairness of proceedings on account of non-notification of court proceedings. Thus, by decision no. 11 of 18   May 2005, the Constitutional Court, after examining the merits of the appellant's complaint about the lack of notification of the Supreme Court proceedings, found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention (see also decision no. 109 of 28 May 2002 and decision no. 28 of 9 November 2005). In its reasoned decision no. 1 of 25 January 2008, the Constitutional Court did not find a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the failure to notify the appellant of the proceedings before the Supreme Court (see also decision no. 2 of 5 February 2008)   COMPLAINT The applicants complain that the Supreme Court proceedings fell short of the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in particular in that they had not been clearly notified of the proceedings, due to which failure the proceedings were held in absentia. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     What are the procedural rules for the notification of proceedings before the Supreme Court? How were those rules applied in the instant case? Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that regard? 2. Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on the grounds that the Constitutional Court decision lacked sufficient and adequate reasoning for declaring the applicants' constitutional complaint inadmissible (see, for example, Serov v. Russia , no. 75894/01, § 45, 26   June   2008)? 3. Have the applicants been paid in State bonds in accordance with the 1995 Commission decision? If so, when? If not, is the failure to pay in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?