FOURTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
CASE OF KARAGJOZI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
 
(Applications nos. 25408/06, 37419/06, 49121/06, 1504/07, 19772/07, 46685/07, 49411/07, 27242/08, 61912/08 and 15075/09)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
 
 
8 April 2014
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Karagjozi and Others v. Albania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Paul Mahoney, President,
Ledi Bianku,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 March 2014,
Having noted that the underlying legal issue in the applications below is already the subject of well-established case-law of the Court (see Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania, nos. 604/07, 43628/07, 46684/07 and 34770/09, § 31 July 2012),
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the above-mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in ten applications (nos. 25408/06, 37419/06, 49121/06, 1504/07, 19772/07, 46685/07, 49411/07, 27242/08, 61912/08 and 15075/09) against the Republic of Albania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by fifty-two Albanian nationals, between 13 June 2006 and 7 March 2009. Details of the applicants and representatives have been tabulated in Appendix No. 1 attached to the judgment. 2. The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their then Agents, Ms S. Mëneri of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Mrs. E. Hajro of the State Advocate’s Office and, subsequently, by Ms. L. Mandia of the State Advocate’s Office. 3. The applicants alleged principally that there had been a breach of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the non-enforcement of final administrative decisions awarding them compensation in lieu of the restitution of their properties. 4. On 11 October 2006, 24 January 2008, 1 and 14 February 2008, 27 January and 6 April 2009, 19 and 25 January 2010, the President of the Fourth Section, to which the cases were allocated, decided to give notice of the applications to the Government under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Application no. 25408/06: Karagjozi and Others
5. On 20 March and 3 October 1996 the Tirana Commission on Restitution and Compensation of Properties (“the Commission”) recognised the applicants’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 1,214 sq. m. Since the plot of land was occupied by two buildings which housed foreign embassies, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law. 6. The Commission decision remains unenforced. B. Application no. 37419/06: Budini
1. Proceedings concerning the non-enforcement of a Commission decision
7. On 28 March 1995 the Mat Commission recognised the applicant’s title to a plot of land measuring 7,984 sq. m, of which 4,797 sq. m were restored. Since 3,187 sq. m were occupied, the applicant would be compensated in State bonds. 8. The Commission decision remains unenforced. 2. Proceedings concerning a different plot of land measuring 11,112 sq. m
9. On 27 December 1996 the then Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the lower courts’ refusal to rule in favour of his property claim in respect of a different plot of land measuring 11,112 sq. m. C. Application no. 49121/06: Koco
10. On 29 August 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited title to a plot of land measuring 1,154.62 sq. m. Since a stadium had been constructed on the plot of land, the applicant would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law. 11. The Commission decision remains unenforced. D. Application no. 1504/07: Hajnaj
12. On 28 December 1994 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited title to a plot of land measuring 8,900 sq. m, of which 7,727 sq. m were to be restored. Since 1,173 sq. m were occupied, the applicant would be compensated in kind in accordance with the law. 13. However, the plot of land measuring 7,727 sq. m was occupied by buildings belonging to the Urban Transportation Company (“UTC”) pursuant to a sale contract of 1994 concluded between the UTC and the National Privatisation Agency. The Commission indicated that, pursuant to the law, the UTC was obliged to pay rent to the applicant on the basis of a contract to be concluded between the two parties. 14. On 25 November 1996 the UTC sold the buildings and the plot of land to a third party, which was subsequently placed under compulsory administration. Following judicial proceedings instituted by the administrators against the Commission decision that had restored the applicant the plot of 7,727 sq. m, the domestic courts annulled that part of the Commission decision and decided that the applicant would be compensated in one of the forms provided for by law. The applicant’s appeals were rejected by the Constitutional Court on 15 December 2005 and 18 July 2006. 15. Meanwhile, between 2003 and 2004 the applicant sold three plots of land, all measuring 2,558 sq. m, to third parties. 16. On 12 November 2007 the applicant informed the Registry that the authorities had allowed construction to begin on four buildings on his plot of land. 17. The Commission decision, as amended by the later court decisions, remains unenforced as regards a plot of land measuring 6,342 sq. m. E. Application no. 19772/07: Shehu
18. On 12 December 1994 the Vlora Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 3,600 sq. m, of which two warehouses and two plots of land, both measuring 820 sq. m, were restored. Since 2,240 sq. m were occupied by buildings, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law. 19. The Commission decision remains unenforced. F. Applicantion no. 46685/07: Dvorani and Dume
20. On 12 November 1993 the Korça Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 2,250 sq. m of which 278 sq. m were restored. Since the remaining 1,972 sq. m were occupied, the applicant would be compensated in State bonds. 21. The Commission decision remains unenforced. G. Application no. 49411/07: Sallabanda and Hoxha
22. On 22 August 1996 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 10,056.7 sq. m. Since the plot of land was occupied by a national park, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law. 23. The Commission decision remains unenforced. H. Application no. 27242/08: Goga and Others
24. On 9 March 1996 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ and inherited title to a plot of land measuring 12,000 sq. m. It decided that the applicants would be compensated in State bonds in respect of 4,950 sq. m and in-kind in respect of 5,000 sq. m. No other decision was taken as regards the remaining 2,050 sq. m. In fact, 600 sq. m were restored to the applicants. 25. The Commission decision as regards compensation in respect of 9,350 sq. m remains unenforced. I. Application no. 61912/08: Tartari
26. On 30 August 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicant’s and other relatives’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 1,100 sq. m, of which 142 sq. m were restored. Since 958 sq. m were occupied, the applicant would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law. It would appear that, despite the latter aspect of the decision about the 958 sq. m, a building permit was granted to a third party by the Municipality of Tirana on 7 March 1997 for the construction of a 9-storey building. The applicant’s requests of 19 February and 4 April 2008 to the Municipality for a copy of the relevant file remain unanswered. 27. The applicant has not yet received any compensation in respect of that plot of land. 28. On an unspecified date in 2008 the applicant lodged a compensation claim with the Agency. 29. On 3 March 2009 the Agency dismissed his claim owing to the lack of funds. 30. The Government submitted that in 2009 the applicant and his relatives applied for and received compensation in the amount of ALL 6,000,000 in respect of another plot of land from the Financial Compensation Fund. J. Application no. 15075/09: Okaj
31. On 3 October 1995 the Shkodër Commission restored the applicants’ inherited title to three plots of land measuring 4,910 sq. m, 1,880 sq. m and 1,640 sq. m, respectively, totalling 8,430 sq. m. It further decided that the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law in respect of another plot of land measuring 2,833 sq. m. Finally, it recognised the applicants’ right to first refusal of a further plot of land measuring 14,537 sq. m. 32. The applicants’ title to the plots of land measuring 8,430 sq. m were recorded in the mortgage office. Using their right to first refusal, the applicants bought a number of parcels of land and buildings, totalling 2,194 sq. m, which were also recorded in the mortgage office. It would appear that the applicants had been unable to enjoy possession of their properties, because they had been occupied by third parties. 33. On an unspecified date in 1999 the third parties challenged the applicants’ property title as awarded by the Commission decision of 1995. In the meantime, on 17 February 1999, following the applicants’ request, the Shkodër District Court delivered an injunction against the third parties requiring them to stay the construction works on the applicants’ properties (masa e sigurimit për pezullimin e punimeve të ndryshme). On 18 February 1999 the bailiff drew up a report by which the third parties were informed of the injunction order against the continuation of the construction works (nga ana jonë ju komunikua që sot e tutje të mos bëjë ndërtime të ndryshme në këtë objekt ku në të kundërt do mbajë përgjegjësi ligjore). On 2 February 2001 the third parties’ action was finally dismissed by the Supreme Court. 34. To date, the applicants have not benefited from any amount of compensation in respect of the plot measuring 2,833 sq. m. Furthermore, their plots of land as well as buildings remain occupied by the third parties’ unlawful actions. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
35. In addition to the relevant domestic law and practice which has been described in detail in the judgment in the case of Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania (nos. 604/07, 43628/07, 46684/07 and 34770/09, §§ 23-53, 31 July 2012), on 6 March 2013 the Government approved and issued new property valuation maps, which included the reference price per square metre throughout the country (Council of Ministers’ decision no. 187 of 6 March 2013). III. COUNCIL OF EUROPE MATERIAL
36. The Committee of Minister’s decision of 7 March 2013 on the execution of judgments concerning the Albanian authorities’ failure to enforce final domestic judicial and administrative decisions awarding compensation in one of the ways provided for by law to the applicants in lieu of the physical restoration of their plots of land, which was adopted at its 1164th meeting, stated, in so far as relevant, the following:
“The Deputies
1. recalled that the Committee has already reiterated on many occasions its call to the Albanian authorities to rapidly take all the measures identified as necessary for the establishment of an effective compensation mechanism for property nationalised during the communist regime and the execution without further delay of numerous final domestic decisions delivered in this area (see in particular the decision adopted at the 1144th meeting);
2. stressed that the Committee’s approach was endorsed in a pilot judgment delivered by the European Court, which fixed a deadline of 17 June 2014 for the authorities to put in place such a mechanism;
3. deplored in this context that the progress in the execution of these judgments remains very limited and that no new information has been submitted to the Committee since the last examination of this group of cases;
4. called upon the authorities to submit to the Committee as soon as possible, an action plan with a specific and binding time-table to ensure compliance with the deadline set by the European Court in its pilot judgment ;
5. strongly urged the authorities to also take the individual measures still outstanding in the cases of Driza, Gjonbocari and Çaush Driza and to inform the Committee of these as soon as possible;
(...).”
37. The Committee of Ministers’ Interim Resolution of 6 June 2013 (CM/ResDH(2013)115) on the execution of judgments concerning the Albanian authorities’ failure to enforce final domestic judicial and administrative decisions awarding compensation in one of the ways provided for by law to the applicants in lieu of the physical restoration of their plots of land, which was adopted at its 1172nd meeting, stated the following:
“The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter “the Convention”);
Recalling that this group of cases concerns the longstanding structural problem of the non-enforcement of final domestic judicial and administrative decisions relating to the right of the applicants to restitution or compensation (whether pecuniary or in kind) for property nationalised during the communist regime (violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol no 1), as well as the lack of an effective remedy in that regard (violation of Article 13);
Recalling that in view of the scale and persistent ineffectiveness of the current compensation mechanism, the European Court of Human Rights delivered a pilot judgment in the case of Manushaqe Puto and others, in which it set an 18 month deadline – namely until the 17 June 2014 – for the Albanian Government to establish an effective compensation mechanism;
Underlining the support given by the Committee to the Albanian authorities, since it has been supervising the execution of this group of cases, in the identification of measures to adopt urgently in order to resolve this longstanding structural problem;
Noting with great concern that to date, only one of the measures identified has been finalised, namely the land valuation map, and that no action plan demonstrating the ability of the Albanian authorities to establish an effective compensation mechanism within the deadline set by the Court, has been submitted;
Recalling that the non-enforcement of domestic final decisions represents a grave danger to the rule of law, risks undermining the confidence of citizens in the judicial system, and as such calls into question the credibility of the State;
Underlining the obligation of every State, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the final judgments of the European Court in any case to which they are a party;
CALLS ON the Albanian authorities, at the highest level, to give the highest priority to the preparation of an action plan capable of establishing, within the deadline set by the European Court, an effective compensation mechanism, which takes account of the measures already identified with the support of the Committee.”
38. The Committee of Ministers’ decision of 5 December 2013 on the execution of judgments concerning the Albanian authorities’ failure to enforce final domestic judicial and administrative decisions awarding compensation in one of the ways provided for by law to the applicants in lieu of the physical restoration of their plots of land, which was adopted at its 1186th meeting, stated, in so far as relevant, the following:
“The Deputies
(...)
2. expressed deep concern that, despite the Committee of Ministers’ repeated calls for the adoption of the necessary measures, the last being made in Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)115, and the approaching deadline (17 June 2014) set by the Court for the implementation of the Manushaqe Puto pilot judgment, the authorities have still failed to submit tangible information demonstrating that any progress has been achieved and that they have a strategy for implementing the judgment;
(...).”
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
39. Since the applications raise the same issue, the Court decides that they should be joined pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court. II. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE COMPLAINTS
A. The complaints about the non-enforcement of final administrative decisions
40. The applicants alleged that there had been a breach of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of final administrative decisions awarding them compensation in lieu of the restitution of their properties. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Article 13 of the Convention reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention reads as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
41. The Government contended that the applicants had not availed themselves of the remedies that had been introduced between 2005 and 2011. 42. The applicants contended that the remedies were not effective. 43. The Court considers that the question of the existence of effective remedies as regards the non-enforcement of final administrative decisions, and, in particular, of the remedies offered by the 2004 Property Act should be joined to the merits and examined in conjunction with the applicants’ complaint under Article 13. In this connection, the Court considers that, since the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is “arguable”, Article 13 is therefore applicable (see, amongst others, Eltari v. Albania, no. 16530/06, § 80, 8 March 2011). 44. The Court considers that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. Not being inadmissible on any other grounds, the complaints must therefore be declared admissible. B. The complaint about unfairness of proceedings (application no. 37419/06, Budini)
45. This applicant complained, inter alia, under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the unfairness of his judicial proceedings breached his property rights as regards a plot of land measuring 11,112 sq. m. 46. The Court notes that the final ruling in respect of those proceedings was that of the Court of Cassation of 27 December 1996 (see paragraph 9 above). The applicant lodged this application on 31 August 2006. It follows that these complaints were introduced outside the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. C. The complaint about unfairness of proceedings (application no. 1504/07, Hajnaj
47. This applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unfairness of the domestic proceedings by which he was awarded compensation in lieu of the restitution of the plot of land (paragraph 14 above). 48. Even assuming that that the final ruling in respect of those proceedings was the Constitutional Court’s decision of 18 July 2006, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
49. The Court notes that the question of the existence of effective remedies was examined, in detail, in the applicants’ complaint under Article 13 in the Manushaqe Puto and Others pilot judgment (paragraphs 72-84). In paragraph 84 of the pilot judgment, the Court found “that there was no effective domestic remedy that allowed for adequate and sufficient redress on account of the prolonged non-enforcement of Commission decisions awarding compensation”. There are no reasons to depart from those findings. 50. The Court further finds, in the case of Okaj, no. 15075/09, in particular, that the authorities’ failure to enforce domestic courts’ injunction orders meant that there was no effective remedy against the unlawful occupation of the applicants’ plots of land and buildings by third parties. 51. There is accordingly a violation of Article 13 of the Convention. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection that the applicants failed to exhaust effective domestic remedies. IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
52. The applicants complained that the non-enforcement of final administrative decisions in their favour breached their rights under Article 6 § 1 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 53. The Government made the same arguments raised, examined and rejected in the Manushaqe Puto and Others pilot judgment (cited above, §§ 87-97). The Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in these cases. 54. The Court finds that the failure of the domestic authorities over so many years to enforce domestic decisions and, notably, to pay the compensation awarded, breached the applicants’ rights under Article 6 § 1 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLES 46 AND 41 OF THE CONVENTION
A. Article 46 of the Convention
55. Article 46 of the Convention provides:
“1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties. 2. The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.”
56. The Court reiterates its findings in the pilot judgment in the case of Manushaqe Puto and Others (cited above, §§ 107-21) in respect of Article 46 of the Convention. It also takes note of the Committee of Minister’s decisions and interim resolution deploring the limited progress in the execution of this judgment (see paragraphs 36-38 above). B. Article 41 of the Convention
57.

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