THIRD SECTION
CASE OF RAMAJ v. ALBANIA
(Application no. 17758/06)
 
JUDGMENT
(Merits)
 
Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Prolonged non-enforcement of a final and binding domestic judgment recognising the applicant’s title to a plot of land • Applicant’s inability to secure the cadastral registration of his title stemming from a number of structural problems •  Domestic authorities bore main responsibility for the non-registration of the part of the applicant’s plot not occupied by unauthorised constructions • Disproportionate and excessive burden imposed on applicant • Domestic authorities’ failure to strike a fair balance between competing interests
Art 1 P1 • Deprivation of property • Legalisation and registration of illegal constructions by third parties on remaining part of the applicant’s plot amounting to de facto expropriation • Applicant’s failure to take any measures to prevent or stop the adverse possession or illegal construction while still possible • Applicant’s failure to apply for compensation under the relevant legal regime with respect of that part of the plot
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
10 December 2024
 
FINAL
 
28/04/2025
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ramaj v. Albania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Ioannis Ktistakis, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Darian Pavli,
 Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,
 Diana Kovatcheva,
 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
 Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 17758/06) 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 an Albanian national, Mr Bashkim Ramaj (“the applicant”), on 23 April 2006;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Albanian Government (“the Government”);
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 19 November 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The application mainly concerns complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment and administrative decision that were delivered in the applicant’s favour and recognised his property rights over a plot of land. THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in 1942 and lived in Tirana. He was represented by Mr B. Çami, a lawyer practising in Tirana. The applicant died on 31 August 2015 when the proceedings were pending before the Court. By a letter of 7 March 2024, Mr Ramaj’s representative informed the Court that the applicant’s son, who was also one of his three heirs, Mr Eduart Ramaj, wished to continue the proceedings in his stead, and would retain the same representative. 3. The Government were represented by their then Agents Ms. S. Mëneri and Ms E. Hajro, and subsequently by Mr O. Moçka, the General State Advocate. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 5. During the communist period a plot of land located in the area known as Uji i Ftohtë in the Vlora district and measuring 6,700 square meters (sq. m) had been confiscated from the applicant’s father for the establishment of an agricultural enterprise. In 1991, following the reorganisation of agricultural enterprises, the applicant’s father was granted the right to use that plot. On 1 March 1993 a Council of Ministers’ Decision designated the whole area where the plot was located as a touristic area. 6. On 18 October 1996 the Vlora Land Commission (“the Land Commission”) restored the applicant’s father’s title to the plot in question by issuing a Land Acquisition Certificate (Akti i marrjes së tokës në pronësi – “AMTP”). 7. Following the death of the applicant’s father, six of his eight heirs relinquished their property rights over the land in favour of the applicant, granting him the ownership of seven out of eight parts of the property at issue. 8. The applicant first applied to register the plot of land in question in 1998. The Immovable Property Registration Office (Zyra e Regjistrimit të Pasurive të Paluajtshme – “the IPRO”) in Vlora failed to register the land. 9. On 15 June 2000 the Land Commission annulled its decision of 18 October 1996 and, consequently, the applicant’s father’s ownership rights, on the ground that the applicant’s father did not have such rights to the property in question. 10. On 18 November 2001 the Vlora IPRO confirmed that the documents pertaining to the applicant’s first request for registration had been lost by its employees. 11. On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicant joined a civil action brought with the Vlora District Court (“the District Court”) by third parties who contested the Land Commission’s decision of 15 June 2000 in the parts that affected their property rights. 12. On 20 May 2003 the District Court allowed the third parties’ claim but dismissed the applicant’s claim against the Land Commission’s decision as unfounded. 13. The applicant appealed against that decision. On 13 April 2004 the Vlora Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”), deciding on the merits, allowed his appeal and quashed the Land Commission’s decision of 15 June 2000 on the grounds of lack of reasoning and defaults in the procedure, and because it had not been approved by the majority of its members. The Court of Appeal’s decision was not appealed against and became final. Therefore, the applicant’s title to the plot of land was reconfirmed and the Land Commission’s decision of 18 October 1996 became enforceable. 14. The Albanian Prime Minister issued Orders no. 45 and no. 93 concerning the property issues in the Uji i Ftohtë area on 9 February 2004 and 27 April 2004 respectively. Those Orders suspended any activities with property titles in the area, including their registration by the IPRO. It was also decided to conduct an administrative review of such titles. No information has been provided to the Court as to the outcome or conclusions of that review. 15. On 22 December 2004 the District Court issued a writ of execution in respect of the Court of Appeal’s decision of 13 April 2004 (see paragraph 13 above). On 6 April 2006 the Vlora Regional Land Commission (“the Regional Land Commission”), at the request of the bailiff’s office, repealed its decision of 15 June 2000 and confirmed the restoration of the applicant’s father’s title. That decision included a statement that a copy of the decision was to be sent to the IPRO. Following that, the enforcement proceedings were terminated. 16. In the meantime, on 18 November 2004 the Central IPRO informed the applicant that a solution to the issue concerning his property would be determined once the Land Commission had concluded its review. 17. On 22 November 2004 and 30 December 2004 the Vlora Municipality confirmed that the applicant had submitted the relevant documents, including the AMTP, the relevant court decision, the inheritance certificate and the documents in which his father’s heirs had relinquished their property rights in favour of the applicant. 18. Following a request by the applicant, on 14 August 2006 the Vlora IPRO informed him that the 2004 Court of Appeal decision and the 2006 Regional Land Commission decision concerning the registration of his property had been sent to the Central IPRO. 19. On 8 May 2007 the Central IPRO, in a letter addressed to the Albanian Ombudsman (Avokati i Popullit), stated that the transfer of titles in the area of Uji i Ftohtë had been suspended because of competing titles. It mentioned that a report had been drafted on the issue and that the applicant could not be provided with an ownership certificate until the issue had been addressed. It also informed the Ombudsman that all property transfers in the Uji i Ftohtë area had been suspended because of the existence of overlapping and conflicting title deeds issued for the same plots of land. 20. The applicant submitted a complaint to the Central IPRO about the situation, but on 4 November 2009 it informed him that his complaint was not complete. 21. On 23 April 2010 the Central IPRO informed the applicant of the start of an initial registration of properties in the area where his property was located. That procedure, which all immovable properties in the country would undergo after the fall of communism, would be considered a first registration. It would be based on legal documents and cartographic information already available to the IPRO’s offices or provided by the owners. 22. On 26 May 2010 the Vlora IPRO informed the applicant that he should submit an application for the registration of his property together with a map of it (see paragraphs 29 and 31 below). 23. On 29 June 2010 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that he should submit an application to the Vlora IPRO. 24. On 16 March 2011 the Central IPRO informed the State Advocate’s Office that the registration of the applicant’s title had been suspended and that the applicant had been kept constantly informed about the situation with his property. 25. On 6 June 2011 the Central IPRO, in response to a query from the applicant, informed him that he was obliged to deposit the relevant documents with the local IPRO. 26. On 27 July 2011, the State Advocate’s Office informed the applicant that the 2004 Court of Appeal’s decision had been executed when the Land Commission had issued its decision in 2006. As to the registration of his property, any action in that respect had been suspended. 27. On 28 August 2011 the Vlora IPRO required the applicant to present himself at its premises to provide further information, which he did. 28. On 13 April 2012 the Vlora IPRO informed the applicant that the initial registration of property in the area where his property was located was in progress, and that the relevant documents concerning his property which the applicant had submitted to the Land Commission would be forwarded to the relevant authorities. 29. On 20 April 2012 the applicant submitted another application for the registration of his property to the Vlora IPRO, together with a map of the property. 30. On 17 May and 18 June 2012 the Vlora IPRO informed the applicant that he was required to submit a formal application for the registration of his property (see paragraph 29 above, and paragraph 31 below). 31. On 5 September 2012, the applicant submitted a new application for the registration of his property to the Vlora IPRO, together with a map of the property. He also paid the application fee again. 32. On 6 September 2012 the Vlora IPRO forwarded the applicant’s request of 20 April 2012, including the relevant documents, to the designated company responsible for the initial registration of the properties in the area. 33. On 3 November 2012 the Vlora IPRO informed the applicant that his title would be registered once the initial registration process had been completed (see paragraphs 41 and 50 below). It further stated that the documents had already been submitted by the Regional Directory for the Administration and Protection of the Land. No request for further documents was made to the applicant. 34. On 1 June 2015, the Vlora IPRO informed the applicant that his property overlapped with eight other properties registered to private parties. The overlapping properties consisted of agricultural land, two olive groves and residential land (truall). Four of the properties, consisting of 1,542.3 sq. m, which had been registered based on Law no. 9482/2006 on the legalisation of informal constructions, also overlapped with other properties belonging to third parties that had been registered pursuant to a decision of the Commission for the Restitution and Compensation of Property dated 15 January 2008. There is no information in the case file as to the precise extent of the overlap between those properties and that of the applicant, or the extent to which they overlap with each other. The Government did not provide any submissions on the procedures employed for those registrations, when they occurred or the origin of the registered titles. 35. On 16 October 2015 the State Advocate’s Office informed the applicant that it had required the Central and Vlora branches of the IPRO to speed up the registration of his property. 36. On 12 December 2015 the Vlora IPRO informed the applicant that his title to the property had not been registered after the initial registration of the properties in the area was concluded. It further requested him to submit a map of his property. 37. On 22 December 2022, in response to further questions posed by the Court, the applicant’s representative replied that the applicant had not taken any legal action against third parties seeking the cessation of any infringement of his property rights or to regain possession of his property. 38. In its latest letter of 6 January 2023, the IPRO reiterated its previous argument that the applicant’s title had not been registered because there already were registered titles concerning the plot of land in question, without providing any additional information. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE and international materials
domestic law and practiceThe Constitution

39. The relevant parts of the Albanian Constitution read as follows:

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation