4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Korça.
5.  On 14 July 1995 and 14 June 1996 the Korça Commission on Restitution and Compensation of Properties (Komisioni i Kthimit dhe Kompensimit të Pronave) (“the Commission”) decided to recognise the applicant’s inherited property title to two plots of land measuring 118 sq. m and restore them to the applicant.
6.  On an unspecified date the Korça Regional Company for the Distribution of Electricity (Ndërmarja zonale e shpërndarjes së energjisë elektrike) (“the defendant”) started the construction of a high-voltage line on the applicant’s plots of lands.
7.  On an unspecified date the applicant sought an injunction to suspend the construction works.
8.  On 13 January 2006 the Korça District Court (“the District Court”) issued an injunction and ordered the construction to be suspended. On 8 March 2006 and 4 May 2007 the Korça Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) and the Supreme Court respectively upheld that decision.
9.  On 26 January 2006 the applicant brought an action against the defendant to bring the construction works to an end immediately, remove the high-voltage line and restore the site to its previous state.
10.  On 30 January 2006 the bailiff in the case discontinued enforcement proceedings concerning the decision of 13 January 2006 on the grounds that the works had been suspended.
11.  On 7 April 2006 the District Court ordered the immediate termination of the works on the applicant’s plot of land, the removal of the high-voltage line and the restoration of the site to its former state (ndalimin e punimeve si dhe duke detyruar ana e paditur të heqë kabllot, të dy linjat dhe ta kthejë pronën në gjendjen e mëparshme). The District Court reasoned that the defendant had unlawfully constructed that line on the applicant’s property.
On 27 June 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. On an unspecified date the defendant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court against the lower courts’ judgments.
12.  On 10 August 2006 the applicant requested that the bailiff enforce the judgment of 7 April 2006, as upheld by the Court of Appeal on 27 June 2006. However, as the proceedings on the merits of the case were pending before the Supreme Court (see paragraph 11 above), on 8 September 2006 the Supreme Court provisionally decided to stay the enforcement proceedings.
13.  Subsequently, the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against the Supreme Court’s decision of 8 September 2006.
14.  On 16 May 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that an examination of the applicant’s action on the merits was pending before the Supreme Court.
15.  On 11 January 2008 the Supreme Court upheld in a final judgment the District Court’s judgment of 7 April 2006 and the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 27 June 2006.
16.  On 22 February 2008, following the Supreme Court’s judgment of 11 January 2008, the applicant again requested that the bailiff enforce the judgment of 7 April 2006.
17.  From 2008 to 2011 the bailiff unsuccessfully sought to enforce the final judgment. In particular, on 29 February 2008 the bailiff sought to have the defendant comply voluntarily with the judgment. The bailiff further imposed a fine of 71,155 Albanian leks (ALL) on the defendant.
On 10 April 2008 the bailiff again ordered the defendant to pay a fine for failing to comply with the final judgment.
On 21 September 2011 and 25 November 2011 the defendant informed the bailiff that the applicant was prepared to solve the dispute with the authorities by way of a friendly settlement.
On 17 November 2014 the applicant informed the bailiff that the defendant had failed to reach a settlement with her. She requested the continuation of the enforcement proceedings.
18.  On 8 April 2015 the bailiff imposed another fine on the defendant for failing to comply with the final judgment.
19.  On 20 May 2008 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against the bailiff and the Distributor Energy Operator (Operatori i Shpërndarjes së Energjisë Elektrike) (“DEC”) for failure to comply with the judgment of 7 April 2006. It appears that on an unspecified date the Court of Appeal discontinued the proceedings by virtue of a final judgment.
20.  On 11 July 2008 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the Albanian Electricity Corporation (Korporata Elektroenergjetike Shqiptare) (“AEC”) and the Korça municipality for “destruction of private property”. On 14 July 2011 the prosecutor’s office discontinued the criminal proceedings in a final decision.
21.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought a civil action against C.E.Z Shpërndarje sh.a, which had privatised DEC, claiming damages and loss of profit.
22.  On 7 May 2012 the District Court decided to stay the proceedings and await the conclusion of the civil proceedings instituted by AEC against the administrative decisions of 14 July 1995 and 14 June 1996 (see paragraph 24 below), which had recognised the applicant’s property rights.
23.  On 6 December 2012 the Court of Appeal amended that decision and decided that the proceedings could continue. It appears that the case is still pending before the domestic courts.
24.  On 6 February 2007 AEC brought a civil action against the applicant to annul the administrative decisions of 14 July 1995 and 14 June 1996 on the grounds that the plots of land had belonged to and had been used by AEC since 1960.
25.  On 24 January 2008 the District Court ordered the freezing of the title to the applicant’s plots of land (vendim për marrjen e masës së sigurimit të padisë duke bllokuar pronën në Zyrën e Regjistrimit të Pasurive të Paluajtshme). On 12 December 2008 and 26 January 2012 the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court lifted the freezing order.
26.  On 31 July 2008 the District Court decided, at the applicant’s request, to stay the proceedings and await the conclusion of other civil and criminal proceedings instituted by the applicant. On 6 January 2009 and 17 October 2013 the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court respectively upheld that decision.
27.  On 5 March 2014 the District Court discontinued its examination of the case on the grounds that AEC had failed to attend a hearing without good reason. It would appear that AEC did not appeal against that judgment and it became final on an unspecified date.
28.  On two other occasions AEC and DEC brought civil actions against the applicant to annul the administrative decisions of 14 July 1995 and 14 June 1996. On 17 April 2012 and 22 December 2014, respectively, the District Court discontinued its examination of the actions on the grounds that AEC and DEC had failed to attend hearings for no good reason. It appears that they did not appeal against either judgment and they became final on an unspecified date.