THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SPAHIU AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
(Application no. 79452/17 and 2 others – see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
18 July 2024
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Spahiu v. Albania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Peeter Roosma, President,
 Andreas Zünd,
 Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 27 June 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Albania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions. The applicants in applications nos.  79452/17 and 39155/18 also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained principally of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 7. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II). 8. In the leading cases of Qufaj Co. Sh.p.k. v. Albania, no. 54268/00, 18 November 2004 and Gjyli v. Albania, no. 32907/07, 29 September 2009, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. More recently in Elgakoti Sh.p.k and Others v. Albania [Committee], nos. 63986/10 and 5 others, 6 July 2023, and Alsula and Others v. Albania [Committee], nos. 63975/10 and 3 others, 30 November 2023, the Court reiterated the principles set regarding the delayed enforcement or non-enforcement of domestic judgements in employment cases in Albania. 9. In application no. 79452/17, the Government submitted that the decision of the Tirana Administrative Court of 25 March 2014, the enforcement proceedings in respect of which had commenced in July 2014, and which had ordered the applicant’s transfer to another position, had finally been enforced on 9 February 2018, that is in slightly more than three and a half years. 10. In application 39155/18, the Government argued that the decision of the Tirana Administrative Court of First Instance of 30 March 2015 which had ordered the Central Technical Inspectorate to reinstate the applicant to her previous post and to pay salary arrears from the date of dismissal until reinstatement had been fully enforced on 18 December 2018. The applicant was paid salary arrears up to the date of her retirement. However, she was not reinstated, having retired in line with the domestic requirements. The decision was therefore enforced in approximately twenty months. 11. The applicants in applications nos. 79452/17 and 39155/18 did not dispute the Government’s arguments. 12. The Court therefore finds it established that the respective judgments in the applicants’ favour were enforced or ceased to be enforceable, at least in part, on a specific date due to the change of circumstances (for further details see the appended table). 13. In respect of application no. 2248/19 the Government observed that the decision of the Tirana Administrative Court of First Instance of 28 April 2014 which had ordered the Public Administration Department to reinstate the applicant in the previous post and to pay her salary arrears from the dismissal until reinstatement had been enforced in part on 4 July 2018, when she was appointed to a new position, and in part on 2 June 2022, when the authorities had paid her all salary arrears. The Government provided the Court with a bailiff’s decision to close the enforcement as the decision had been fully enforced. 14. On 28 February 2024 the applicant informed the Court that she has not yet been reinstated and that she should have been paid arrears and offered positions which matched those indicated in the decision of 28 April 2014. The applicant, however, did not argue that she had contested the bailiff’s decision to close the enforcement proceedings as he had considered the judgment to be fully enforced. 15. In these circumstances and given the fact that the applicant did not challenge at the domestic level the bailiff’s decision to close the enforcement, the Court accepts the Government’s arguments that the enforcement proceedings ended on 2 June 2022 when the applicant had been paid the remainder of her salary arrears and the bailiff had closed the enforcement proceedings in view of the complete enforcement. The enforcement proceedings therefore lasted for almost five years. 16. Having examined all the material submitted to it and taking into the account the principles set out in leading cases of Qufaj Co. Sh.p.k., and Gjyli, both cited above, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour. 17. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
18. The applicants in applications nos. 79452/17 and 39155/18 also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of domestic remedies to secure the enforcement of the domestic decisions in their favour. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present applications. It thus finds that that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the applicants’ remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and Habilaj v. Albania [Committee], no. 2480/10, § 14, 15 September 2022).

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation