FIRST SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF HALIMI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
 
(Application no. 33839/11)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
This version was rectified on 26 April 2016
under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court. STRASBOURG
 
7 April 2016
 
 
 
This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision

In the case of Halimi and Others v. Albania,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Kristina Pardalos, President,
 Paul Mahoney,
 Pauliine Koskelo, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 March 2016,
Having noted that the underlying legal issue in the application 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 that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 33839/11), 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 9 Albanian nationals. Details of the applicants are set out in Appendix No. 1 attached to the judgment. 2. The applicants were represented by Mr S. Puto, a lawyer practising in Tirana. The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. Hicka of the State Advocate’s Office. 3. On 20 December 2013 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. On 30 May 1995 the Vlora Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring 10,000 sq. m. Since the plot of land was occupied, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided by law. 5. To date, no compensation has been paid. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
6. The relevant domestic law and practice has been described in detail in, inter alia, the judgment of Ramadhi v. Albania (no. 38222/02, 13 November 2007); Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania (nos. 604/07, 43628/07, 46684/07 and 34770/09, §§ 23-53, 31 July 2012) and, more recently, Sharra and Others v. Albania [Committee] (nos. 25038/08, 64376/09, 64399/09, 347/10, 1376/10, 4036/10, 12889/10, 20240/10, 29442/10, 29617/10, 33154/11 and 2032/12, §§ 33-43, 10 November 2015). III. COUNCIL OF EUROPE MATERIALS
7. Relevant material was referred to in this Court’s judgments of Sharra and Others, cited above, § 44; Metalla and Others v. Albania [Committee] (nos. 30264/08, 42120/08, 54403/08 and 54411/08, §§ 15-17, 16 July 2015); Siliqi and Others v. Albania [Committee] (nos. 37295/05 and 42228/05, §§ 12-13, 10 March 2015); and Karagjozi and Others v. Albania [Committee] (nos. 25408/06, 37419/06, 49121/06, 1504/07, 19772/07, 46685/07, 49411/07, 27242/08, 61912/08 and 15075/09, §§ 36-38, 8 April 2014). THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AS WELL AS OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-ENFORCEMENT OF FINAL DECISION
8. The applicants alleged that there had been a breach of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention as well as of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of a final domestic decision awarding them compensation in lieu of the restitution of their property. 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.”
A. Admissibility
9. The Government did not contest the admissibility of these complaints. 10. The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits
11. The Government did not dispute the merits of the applicants’ complaints and acknowledged that the application was the subject of 
well-established case-law in the light of the judgment in the case of Manushaqe Puto and Others, cited above. 12. Having regard to its findings in previous cases against Albania in respect of which the Government did not put forward any arguments that would warrant a departure therefrom (see, amongst others, Manushaqe Puto and Others, cited above, §§ 93-97 and the references cited therein; and more recently, Sharra and Others, cited above, §§ 49-51; Metalla and Others, cited above, §§ 29-31; Siliqi and Others, cited above, §§ 19), the Court finds that the domestic authorities’ failure over so many years to enforce the final domestic decision 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. 13. The Court also concludes that there was, and continue to be, no effective domestic remedy that allowed for adequate and sufficient redress on account of the prolonged non-enforcement of the final domestic decisions awarding compensation. There is accordingly a violation of Article 13 of the Convention (see Manushaqe Puto and Others, cited above, §§ 72‑84 and the references cited therein). II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE LENGTH OF PROCEEDINGS
14. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of proceedings as a result of the non-enforcement of the Commission decision. 15. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds and therefore declares it admissible. 16. The Court considers that, in view of the findings in paragraphs 12-13 above, the issue of the length of proceedings must be regarded as having been absorbed by the issue of non-enforcement (see, for example, Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 34, ECHR 2002‑II, and Popova v. Russia, no. 23697/02, § 44, 21 December 2006). The Court therefore finds that it is not necessary to examine this complaint separately.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 1
Outcome: violation