THIRD SECTION
CASE OF LASKU AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
(Application no. 6045/14)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
18 November 2025
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Lasku and Others v. Albania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,
 Darian Pavli,
 Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 6045/14) 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”) on 31 December 2013 by 13 Albanian nationals, relevant details listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”) who were represented by Mr E. Hicka, a lawyer practising in Tirana;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning legal certainty, property rights and length of proceedings to the Albanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr O. Moçka, General State Advocate, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 14 October 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
the cIrcumstances of the case
1. The case concerns, principally, a complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that domestic authorities annulled three final property commission’s decisions, thus breaching the principle of legal certainty. Background to the case
2. In 1996 and 1997 the Tirana Commission on Property Restitution and Compensation (“the Commission”) recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights over three plots, measuring in total 1,070 sq. m, and ordered their restitution to the applicants. The Immovable Property Registration Office (“the IPRO”) registered the applicants’ title to the land. 3. In 1996 the Tirana Municipality issued a building permit to the applicants for the construction of a gas station on a plot of 700 sq. m that was part of the land restituted by the Commission. The construction was carried out in cooperation with M. company. In 1998 the IPRO registered the applicants’ title to the gas station. 4. The applicants transferred the administration and possession of the gas station to M. company through a cooperation agreement, with the aim of sharing the profits equally. 5. The complaints lodged by the applicants concern different proceedings which are intertwined with each other and concern the same plots. First set of proceedings
6. In 2000 M. company brought a civil claim against the applicants, seeking recognition of its ownership of the building and the land on which it was situated. The applicants lodged a counterclaim demanding restitution of the possession. In 2004 both claims were dismissed by the courts on the grounds that the agreement between the parties (see paragraph 4 above) constituted an obstacle to the award of possession to either party. Second set of proceedings
7. In 2003 the applicants brought a civil claim against M. company, seeking payment of their share of the profits. On 12 March 2013 the Tirana Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”), allowed the claim. On 22 November 2022 the Supreme Court upheld that judgment, recognizing M. company’s obligation to pay the applicants their share of the profits. 8. On 13 July 2021 the applicants complained about the length of these proceedings to the Supreme Court. On 26 July 2023 the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint under Articles 399/1 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the grounds that the case had already been adjudicated and that the excessive length of the proceedings was attributable to the judicial reform in Albania. Third set of proceedings
9. After amendment of the Property Act in 2007 (see paragraph 16 below), the director of the Agency for the Restitution and Compensation of Property (“the Agency”), which had succeeded the Commission, was granted the power to review and annul, of his or her own motion, the decisions of former commissions and regional branches of the Agency. No time-limit was provided for such a review. 10. On 27 November 2007 the Agency annulled the Commission’s three decisions concerning the restitution to the applicants of the 1,070 sq. m plots, on the grounds that the relevant commission at the time had lacked jurisdiction and that the decision should have been taken by a special commission. It argued that the 1993 Property Act gave commissions the power to recognise the right to property and to decide on its restitution, but not the authority to order its actual restitution. Furthermore, the plot of land in question could not be restituted despite being registered as state property (see paragraph 18 below). The decision recognizing the applicants’ inherited rights remained in force. 11. In late 2007 applicant Bledar Lasku and A.K. (applicants Shpresa Kekezi and Teri Kekezi being his heirs) challenged the decision of the Agency before the Tirana District Court (“the District Court”), which allowed their claim, holding that the annulment was based on the Code of Administrative Procedure which had entered into force three years after the Commission’s decision. On 15 February 2010 that judgment was quashed by the Court of Appeal which dismissed that claim. On 28 June 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment. On 24 April 2013 the Constitutional Court found violations of the applicants’ right to a fair trial by the Supreme Court and remitted the case. After the retrial, on 22 January 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law lodged by the applicants for a second time, in accordance with Article 472 of the Code of Civil Procedure (no valid grounds for appeal). 12. On 10 April 2015, the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional complaint finding that at the time when the case was adjudicated by the Court of Appeal, the Agency’s power to review the final decisions had still been in force, and that the Constitutional Court’s judgments did not have retroactive effect (see paragraph 16 below). Fourth set of proceedings
13. In 2008 the applicants brought a new claim against M. company. The District Court decided to terminate their agreement with the company but dismissed the applicants’ claim for restitution of the property. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in 2011 and 2022, respectively. On 29 May 2023 the applicants’ ensuing constitutional complaint against these proceedings was dismissed. While the Constitutional Court found the second set of proceedings before the Supreme Court to be excessively lengthy (see paragraph 8 above), it held that it lacked jurisdiction to award any compensation. Legalisation proceedings
14. At an unspecified time, M. company built an unauthorised construction on the applicants’ land, in addition to the existing structure (see paragraph 3 above), and in 2013 that construction was legalised. In 2014 the State sold to the company a 595.8 sq. m plot, on which the legalised construction was situated. This plot formed part of the land claimed by the applicants. The applicants did not challenge the legalisation proceedings or the sale contract. 15. In 2016 the IPRO removed the applicants’ names from the list of owners of the existing building and registered it as a property of M. company. While the applicants submitted an administrative appeal against the actions of the IPRO, they have not yet instituted proceedings.
relevant domestic law and practice
16. On 26 May 2010 and on 6 October 2011, the Constitutional Court held that the amendments granting the Agency the power to review and overturn final decisions of the previous Commissions were in violation of the Constitution and were subsequently annulled. The Constitutional Court held that these amendments violated, inter alia, the principle of legal certainty and the right to property. A detailed summary of the relevant domestic provisions and case-law was made in Gaba v. Albania (no. 33369/17, §§ 43-56, 17 December 2024). 17. Relevant provisions concerning the remedy for the length of proceedings are set out in Bara and Kola v. Albania (nos. 43391/18 and 17766/19, § 37, 12 October 2021) and ARB SHPK and Others v. Albania (nos. 39860/19 and 2 others, §§ 65-67, 27 May 2025). 18. The Agency referred in its annulment decision to the Council of Ministers’ Decision (“CMD”) no. 528/1996, which determined the procedures for the compensation of the properties located in touristic areas.

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