FOURTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF METALLA AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
 
(Applications nos. 30264/08, 42120/08, 54403/08 and 54411/08)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
16 July 2015
 
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Metalla and Others v. Albania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 George Nicolaou, President,
 Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
 Yonko Grozev, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 June 2015,
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 four applications (nos. 30264/08, 42120/08, 54403/08 and 54411/08) 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 nine Albanian nationals between 13 June 2008 and 8 October 2008. Details of the applications and representatives are set out 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. On 21 January 2010 the applications were communicated to the Government. THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Application no. 30264/08: Metalla
4. On 9 August 1995 the Shijak Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 1,020 sq. m of which 747 sq. m were restored. Since the remaining plot of land measuring 272 sq. m was occupied, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law. 5. The Commission decision remains unenforced. B. Application no. 42120/08: Bushati
6. On 8 February 1995 the Shkodër Commission recognised the applicant’s and other heirs’ inherited title to a two-storey building and to a plot of land surrounding the building measuring 500 sq. m. Since the plot of land measuring 500 sq. m was occupied, the applicant and the heirs would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law. It was also decided that the building should be restored to them. 7. The applicant claimed that in 1995 and 1997 he instituted two legal actions against a third party for the vacation and restoration of his property. However, he decided to discontinue those actions, having regard to pending judicial proceedings in other cities. It would appear that the third party has built unauthorised constructions on the applicant’s plot of land. 8. The Commission decision remains unenforced. C. Application no. 54403/08: Metalla and Others
9. On 12 May 1994 the Shijak Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 5,527 sq. m of which 5,000 sq. m were restored. Since the remaining plot of land measuring 527 sq. m was occupied, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law. 10. The Commission decision remains unenforced. D. Application no. 54411/08: Metalla and Others
11. On 13 August 2007 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 65,000 sq. m of which 60,000 sq. m were restored to them. Since the remaining land measuring 5,000 sq. m consisted of arable land, roads and channels (“e llojit arë, rrugë e kanale”) was occupied, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law. 12. The Commission decision remains unenforced. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
13. The relevant domestic law and practice have been described in detail in, inter alia, Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania (nos. 604/07, 43628/07, 46684/07 and 34770/09, §§ 23-53, 31 July 2012) and Ramadhi v. Albania (no. 38222/02, 13 November 2007). 14. On 6 March 2013 and 30 July 2014 the Government approved and issued new property valuation maps, which included the reference price per square metre throughout the country (Council of Ministers’ decisions (“the CMD”) nos. 187 of 6 March 2013 and 514 of 30 July 2014). III. COUNCIL OF EUROPE MATERIAL
15. Subsequent to the events described in 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 Committee of Ministers gave a decision on 6 March 2014 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. This decision, which was adopted at its 1193th meeting, stated, in so far as relevant, the following:
“The Deputies
(...)
2. considered the actions taken since September 2013 and the measures foreseen for the coming weeks and months as encouraging; regretting, however, that the deadline fixed by the pilot judgment will not be met, underlined that in order to fulfill the obligations imposed by the European Court and to introduce the required compensation mechanism without further delay and within the time frame proposed by the action plan, the political commitment expressed in the action plan must be followed by concrete and substantial actions at the domestic level, in particular in the fields identified by the Committee in its Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)115;
(...).”
16. The Committee of Ministers’ decision of 5 June 2014 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 1201st meeting, stated, in so far as relevant, the following:
“The Deputies
1.  welcomed the formal adoption by the Albanian Council of Ministers of the action plan for the establishment of an effective compensation mechanism, thereby rendering the action plan binding, and noted with satisfaction that the measures foreseen are being adopted in conformity with the previsions in that plan;
2.  in view of the overall deadline foreseen for the implementation of this mechanism, strongly encouraged the authorities to intensify their efforts with a view to reducing this time-frame as much as possible;
(...).”
17. The Committee of Ministers’ decision of 11 June 2015, which was adopted at its 1230th meeting, stated, in so far as relevant, the following:
“The Deputies
1.  welcomed the commitment showed by the Albanian authorities in the search for an effective and sustainable solution to the important structural problem at stake in this group of cases; welcomed in this regard their presentation of the draft law and their co-operation with the Council of Europe, as well as the close consultations held with the Department for Execution, particularly in Tirana on 23 April 2015;
2.  noted that, as requested by the Committee of Ministers and by the pilot judgment Manushaqe Puto, the authorities have conducted a careful review of all of the legal and financial implications and have estimated the overall cost of compensation in order to have a concrete basis for considering the necessary legislative changes;
3.  invited the Albanian authorities to submit, as soon as possible, explanations and additional information on the solutions proposed in the draft law ... (...)”
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
18. Given that the four 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. As regards all applications
19. 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 final domestic decisions awarding them compensation in lieu of the restitution of their properties. In respect of application no. 42120/08, the Court of its own motion raised the question whether there had been a breach of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention. 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.”
20. The Government contended that the applicants had not availed themselves of the remedies that had been introduced between 2005 and 2011. 21. The applicants contended that the remedies were not effective. 22. 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). 23. 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. As regards application no. 42120/08
24. The applicant in application no. 42120/08 claimed that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as it was impossible for him to take possession of the two-storey house and its surrounding land measuring 500 sq. m. 25. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to institute legal proceedings against the present occupier of the property. 26. The Court notes that, under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it can examine a complaint “after all domestic remedies have been exhausted”. In this connection, it notes that this applicant instituted but discontinued the proceedings for the vacation and restoration of his property. The Court concludes that this complaint should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
27. 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. 28. 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
29. The applicants complained that the non-enforcement of final decisions in their favour, as accordingly amended, breached their rights under Article 6 § 1 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 30. 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. 31. 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.

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