SECOND SECTION
CASE OF KASMI v. ALBANIA
(Application no. 1175/06)
 
JUDGMENT
Art 1 P1 • Control of the use of property • Applicant’s inability to recover possession of his property occupied by tenants, for more than 13 years, in the framework of housing protection of tenants affected by restitution of expropriated or nationalised properties to former owners • Social and economic circumstances at the relevant time taken into account • Scheme meant to be of limited time duration, with State responsibility for securing alternative housing solutions for the affected tenants • Tenancy agreements imposed by law • Agreement not time-limited • Lack of adequate mechanisms safeguarding the applicant’s right to terminate the tenancy agreements • Low amount of rent fixed by law not allowing for its indexation to inflation • Absence of authorities concrete measures to provide alternative housing to the tenants • Long period of uncertainty • Burden of a socially complex situation placed on the applicant
 
STRASBOURG
23 June 2020
FINAL
 
23/09/2020
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kasmi v. Albania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Robert Spano, President,
 Paul Lemmens,
 Valeriu Griţco,
 Egidijus Kūris,
 Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,
 Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,
 Darian Pavli, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 10 April 2018 and 26 May 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 1175/06) 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 Gëzim Kasmi (“the applicant”), on 19 December 2005. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr S. Dodbiba, a lawyer practising in Tirana. The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their then Agent, Ms E. Hajro of the State Advocate’s Office. 3. Mr Ledi Bianku, subsequent to the end of his term of office as the judge elected in respect of Albania, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28 of the Rules of Court). Mr Darian Pavli, following the taking up of office as the judge elected in respect of Albania, sat in his place (Rule 26 § 1 (a)). 4. The applicant alleged under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that there had been a violation of his property rights as he had been unable to recover possession of his house. 5. On 5 February 2009 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS
6. The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Tirana. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASERelevant background

7. During the communist period in Albania, households typically lived in State-owned premises, let as dwellings, in accordance with residential tenancy agreements which were entered into between tenants and the then State-owned Housing Maintenance Company (Ndërmarrja Komunale Banesa - “the Housing Company”). Privately owned dwellings which had passed into State ownership through legislation on nationalisation were allocated by the then Government to households - the members of which, as a rule, worked for the State at the time - on the basis of tenancy agreements. 8. In 1992, following the end of communist rule, the Privatisation Act was enacted, pursuant to which State-owned dwellings, save those which had formerly been privately owned property, would be subject to privatisation. The relevant provisions of the Privatisation Act are set out in paragraphs 21-24 below. 9. In 1993 the Property Restitution and Compensation Act (“the Property Act”) was enacted, pursuant to which former owners or their heirs were entitled to claim restitution of expropriated or nationalised properties as well as compensation in lieu of restitution. However, flats in those properties were commonly occupied by tenants who had entered into a tenancy agreement with the State. The relevant provisions of the Property Act are set out in paragraphs 41-46 below. The circumstances of the particular caseAdministrative proceedings concerning the restitution of the applicant’s property

10. The applicant’s father owned two houses located in Tirana, each of which was made up of four rooms, a dining room and the appurtenant courtyard. On an unspecified date in the 1950s both properties were nationalised by the State, which were subsequently tenanted by households. 11. Following the entry into force of the Property Act in 1993, on an unspecified date - most likely in 1994 or 1995 - the applicant’s father lodged a claim with the Tirana Commission on Property Restitution and Compensation (“the Commission”) to have the houses restored. 12. It transpires that by a decision of 27 September 1995, no copy of which has been submitted by the parties, the Commission recognised the applicant’s father’s property rights over the houses. 13. On 15 August 1997, following the death of the applicant’s father, his and his siblings’ title to the property was entered into the property register. Judicial proceedings concerning the eviction of tenants occupying the applicant’s property
14. On an unspecified date, since the applicant could not regain possession of one of the houses as it was occupied by tenants, he lodged a civil action with the Tirana District Court (“the District Court”) seeking their eviction. In his view, the tenants did not possess any property rights to the house, they had never paid him any rent and they were not legally homeless (i pastrehë). He argued that, being the lawful owner of the house, its occupation by the tenants had directly impinged upon his property rights, the protection of which was guaranteed by the Constitution and the Convention. 15. On 17 March 2003 the Tirana District Court upheld the applicant’s action. It found that one of the tenants, namely J.D., did not possess a lawful occupancy authorisation to continue occupying the applicant’s property. As regards the other tenants, the court stated that two of them, namely B.S. and M.S., had been living abroad for at least five years and one of them, namely F.S., had received housing from the State. The court ordered all tenants to vacate the house. 16. The tenants lodged an appeal with the Tirana Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”), which on 23 April 2004 partially quashed the District Court’s decision insofar as it related to J.D., B.S. and M.S. The Court of Appeal held that those tenants had been occupying the house since 1980s. As regards J.D., the court found that he was legally homeless and had gained the right to a tenancy since 1993. As regards B.S. and M.S., the court held that, because they had been living abroad as economic migrants for the last two years and had not established any permanent residence there, they had not abandoned their dwelling in Albania. The Court of Appeal, however, upheld the District Court’s decision insofar as it concerned F.S. and ordered that tenant to vacate a room located on the ground floor. 17. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court contending that J.D. had not had a lawful occupancy authorisation, on the basis of which he could enter into a tenancy agreement. He further argued that B.S. and M.S. had been living abroad for ten years. 18. On 19 July 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Supreme Court recognised the applicant’s undisputed property rights over the house. However, as regards J.D., the Supreme Court found that, as he was legally homeless, he had been lawfully occupying one of the flats on the basis of an occupancy authorisation since 1986. He had further obtained a final court decision in 1993, which remained unenforced, entitling him to the continuation of the tenancy. It further held that, even though B.S. and M.S. were living abroad, they were lawfully occupying the flat on the ground of being legally homeless. 19. The Supreme Court further stated that, having regard to section 14 of the Property Act 1993 which determined the relationship between former owners and tenants (see paragraph 42 below), there existed a legal possibility for the parties to regulate their relationship (palët ndërgjygjëse kanë hapësira ligjore për rregullimin e marrëdhënieve të tyre). Subsequent developments after the communication of the case to the Government
20. On 20 May 2010 the applicant informed the Court that the tenants living in his property, without specifying their names, had died and that he had taken possession of the house. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICEDomestic legal framework concerning privatisation of State‑owned dwellings and State support to homeless householdsPrivatisation of State-Owned Dwellings Act (“the Privatisation Act” - Law no. 7652 of 23 December 1992, as amended)

21. The Privatisation Act was intended to privatise State-owned dwellings and to create a free market for housing, thus enabling occupying tenants to become owners. Households living in State-owned dwellings, pursuant to a tenancy agreement, could purchase those dwellings and become owners subject to the completion of a set of actions, such as payment of the full privatisation price and registration of the property at the relevant land registry office. 22. Section 16 provided that homeless people were entitled to receive loans from financial institutions to resolve their housing needs. The interest payments would be borne by the State through the National Housing Entity (“NHA” – Enti Kombëtar i Banesave). 23. Section 21 provided that State-owned dwellings which had previously been privately owned property would not be subject to privatisation under the Privatisation Act. As tenants would continue to pay rent, section 19 stated that rents for State-owned dwellings, which had formerly been privately owned property, would be liberalised from December 1995. Section 21/1, as introduced in 1994, stated that State-owned dwellings which had formerly been privately owned property, in respect of which no restitution claim had been made in application of the Property Act 1993, would continue to be administered and maintained by the NHA. 24. Under section 25 the State would provide tenants living in dwellings belonging to former owners who were to vacate the dwelling as a result of their restitution to the former owner with rental housing to be constructed in the future. 25. The Privatisation Act, the operation of which was frequently extended at least until 31 December 1995, was repealed by the entry into force of the Social Programmes Act, as amended in 2007 (see paragraph 37 below). Constitutional Court decision no. 11/1993
26. Following a request for constitutional review of the Privatisation Act on the ground that it discriminated against tenants occupying properties which would be restored to former owners, filed with the Constitutional Court by 265 tenants occupying former privately owned properties, on 27 August 1993 the Constitutional Court rejected the request as ill-founded. It held, inter alia, as follows:
“The [Constitutional] Court observes that [the Privatisation Act] and [the Property Act] govern the problems of the privatisation of State-owned dwellings and of the restitution of properties to former owners or compensation for them. Under both laws, tenants of State-owned dwellings have the right to take them into private ownership in compliance with the conditions prescribed by the law. In order to resolve their housing needs, tenants of dwellings that have been restored to former owners have been granted the right to obtain loans from financial institutions, the interest payments on which ... are to be borne by the State, as expressly provided for in section 16 of the Act, or, alternatively, are to be accommodated as tenants in housing units to be constructed by the State in accordance with section 25 of the said Act. The different solutions to the housing problems that concern these categories of tenants do not arise from any type of discrimination between them, but are a result of the different status they enjoy: the first are tenants of State-owned dwellings, the second are tenants of dwellings that have been restored to former owners. The complainants’ request that they were discriminated against [on the basis of their belonging to the category of tenants occupying former privately owned properties] on account of the Privatisation Act and the Property Act is ill-founded.”
State Contribution to Homeless Households Act (“The Contribution to Homeless Households Act” - law no. 8030 of 15 November 1995, as amended by Law no. 8647 of 24 July 2000)
27. According to section 1, the Act was intended to determine the State obligations for homeless households (that is, households rendered homeless as a result of the operation of the Privatisation Act) through the grant of a housing allowance and loans. It also aimed to give them the opportunity to benefit from the free property market. 28. Under section 2, homeless households were entitled to receive a housing allowance (përfitim) from the State. Under section 6 the allowance could be used to purchase dwellings from the State or private persons, to purchase a plot of land for the construction of a dwelling by the State or private persons and to pay contractual rent for the use of a State or private dwelling. Upon depletion of the allowance the household’s homeless status would be revoked. Moreover, homeless households were entitled to a loan from the then Savings Bank (Banka e Kursimeve) for the construction or purchase of a dwelling, as provided for in sections 7 and 8. 29. The amended section 2 further stipulated that homeless households living in dwellings that belonged to former owners would be treated as a priority category. The State would secure them housing through the NHA. The privatisation of such housing units would be carried out in accordance with the Privatisation Act, with the sale price to be linked to the inflation index (duke i shtuar tarifës indeksin e korrigjimit të cmimeve). 30. Section 11 introduced the notion of liberalisation of rents that homeless tenants living in dwellings which belonged to former owners would be obliged to pay. It established the ratio of the rent payable by the tenant and by the State. Tenants would have to pay a rent similar to that paid for State dwellings, estimated in accordance with the size of the property they occupied. The State was obliged to pay the remaining rent amount, estimated in accordance with rents paid for State dwellings and the size of the property. This section was subsequently repealed by the Constitutional Court in 1997 (see paragraph 35 below). 31. Following the repeal of section 11 by the Constitutional Court, section 10 of the Act, as amended in 2000, stated that until the resolution of the housing problem, homeless citizens who lived in dwellings belonging to former owners would pay rent on the basis of the rates that they were paying at the time of entry into force of the Property Act 1993. 32. The Contribution to Homeless Households Act was repealed by the entry into force of the Social Programmes Act in 2004 (see paragraph 37 below). (a)   Council of Minister’s decision no. 250 of 16 April 1996 on procedures and priorities relating to the application of the Contribution, to Homeless Households Act, as amended (“CMD no. 250/1996)
33. Households living in privately owned dwellings belonging to former owners were the first category of homeless households which would benefit from the housing allowance provided for in the Contribution to Homeless Households Act, the housing problem of which would be dealt with by order of priority as stipulated in section 6. Section 2.1 of the decision provided that as a result of the operation of the Property Act 1993, the previous tenancy agreements entered into between tenants and the State were as of that point deemed concluded between tenants and the former owners on the basis of documentation to be submitted by the latter. The local government authorities would draw up a list of such households. 34. Section 14 provided that existing tenancy agreements between tenants and former owners would be renewed with the assistance of the local government authorities. Such agreements would be of a time-limited duration, which was until the tenant had completely used up the subsidy provided by the State. According to section 15, tenants living in dwellings belonging to former owners, which were within the housing standards (jo mbi normat e strehimit në fuqi), would have to pay three-fifths of the rent while the State would pay the remainder. (b)   Constitutional Court decision no. 5/1997
35. Following a request for constitutional review of the Contribution to Homeless Households Act, filed with the Constitutional Court by the Association of Tenants of State-owned dwellings which were formerly privately owned property (Shoqata e Qiramarrësve në Shtëpitë Shtetërore Ish-Pronë Private), on 27 February 1997 the Constitutional Court decided to repeal section 11 of the said Act. Having examined the requirement set down by CMD no. 250/1996 that tenants would have to pay three-fifths of the rent amount to former owners, the Constitutional Court found that the ratio of the rent payable by tenants would be almost the equivalent of an old age pension. In view of the fact that the majority of tenants living in dwellings belonging to former owners had retired and benefited from the old age pension or received financial aid, the court had made a determination that they would be obliged to use the entire pension or the financial aid towards the payment of the rent, rendering its allocation devoid of purpose and their subsequent accommodation untenable. Consequently, it would be impracticable to apply the said Act, which would have adverse effect on the interests of tenants and former owners. 36. The Constitutional Court directed that a new provision should be adopted, which would regulate the obligation of tenants occupying former privately owned dwellings to pay rent to former owners within their financial capacity, until the resolution of the housing problem. The Constitutional Court further recommended that a new provision should provide for the indexation of the housing allowance to inflation
Social Programmes for the Housing of Inhabitants of Urban Areas Act (“The Social Programmes Act” - Law no. 9232 of 13 May 2004, as amended)
37. The Social Programmes Act, which in 2004 repealed the Contribution to Homeless Households Act, and in 2007 the Privatisation Act, was intended to provide possibilities for affordable and suitable housing having due regard to the financial capacity of households which needed housing. The said Act provided for three types of social-housing programmes: (i) programmes for the provision of social rental housing; (ii) programmes for the provision of low-cost housing; and (iii) programmes for the provision of construction land for development and housing purposes (programe të pajisjes së truallit me infrastrukturë) (section 3). Households which had not benefited from the application of the Privatisation Act, provided that they met the requirements prescribed by the Social Programmes Act, would be treated as a matter of priority in accordance with section 5. 38. The Social Programmes Act was repealed by the entry into force of the Social Housing Act (Ligji për Strehimin Social) in November 2018. Domestic legal framework concerning property restitution and compensationConstitution

39. Article 41 of the Constitution, which entered into force in 1998, provides that the right of private property is protected by law. The law may provide for expropriation or limitations in the exercise of a property right only in the public interest. 40. Article 131 (f) of the Constitution provided at the material time that the Constitutional Court would hear final complaints by individuals alleging a violation of their constitutional right to a fair hearing, after all legal remedies for the protection of that right had been exhausted. Property Act
(a)   Property Act 1993 (Law no. 7698 of 15 April 1993, as amended)
41. According to the Property Act 1993 former owners or their legal heirs had the right to claim their ownership over the original immovable property which had been expropriated, nationalised or confiscated by the communist regime. Following the determination of ownership, they were entitled either to have the original immovable property restored or to be awarded compensation in lieu in one of the forms provided for by law. However, pursuant to the Property Act, the authorities’ decision to restore the property to former owners did not affect the pre-existing tenancy agreements which entitled the tenants to continue occupying those properties. 42. The relevant provision of the Property Act 1993, as referred to in the Supreme Court’s decision of 9 July 2005 in paragraph 19 above, provided as follows:
Section 14
“The relationship between tenants and former owners who become owners/landlords pursuant to this [Act] shall be governed by [the Privatisation Act]. If ... the former owner provides the tenant with a dwelling within the same [local government] area, consisting of a surface area [to be determined] in accordance with the housing standards in force at the time of the adoption of this Act, the tenant shall be obliged to vacate the dwelling. The State is obliged to resolve the housing needs of current tenants in accordance with the current housing standards, by giving priority to households with limited financial means. At their request former owners may be compensated in one of the forms determined by this [Act].”
(b)   Property Act 2004 (Law no. 9235 of 29 July 2004, as amended)
43. In so far as relevant, the Property Act 2004, which repealed the Property Act 1993 and entered into force on 15 September 2004, provided:
Section 9
“1. Properties which are the property of former owners shall be vacated by tenant(s) within three years. The tenants shall continue to pay the rent set by the Council of Ministers for two years after the entry into force of this Act. The Council of Ministers shall be responsible for housing homeless tenants by providing a dwelling at a low rent, offering a low-interest loan or providing a dwelling the rent of which is borne by the State.”
Constitutional Court decision no. 26/2005
44. Following a request for constitutional review of section 9 (1) of the said Act, filed with the Constitutional Court by the Association of Tenants of State-owned dwellings which were formerly privately owned property, on 2 November 2005 the Constitutional Court struck down that provision as being unconstitutional. The court attached importance to the fact that the provision had worsened the status of tenants compared to the provisions that had existed prior to the entry into force of the Property Act 2004. It found that the amendment to the legislation had not respected the principle of legal certainty. It concluded that a limitation on tenants’ right to housing could not be justified by the public interest in upholding former owners’ property rights. The decision, in so far as relevant, reads:
“Until the entry into force of the above provision, tenants of State-owned dwellings which were formerly private property were entitled to certain rights ... in particular: a fixed rent at 1993 levels until a resolution is found to the housing problem; the provision of housing by the State through its National Housing Agency, in compliance with the criteria set forth in [the Privatisation Act 1992]. On the basis of these provisions, the State, firstly, undertook to provide housing by means of privatisation, in compliance with the criteria that were used for the privatisation of housing in 1992, and, secondly, guaranteed that rents would remain unchanged until the resolution of the [housing] problem. Section 9(1) [of the Property Act 2004] makes significant changes to tenants’ rights. While, under the previous provisions, the State undertook to resolve the housing problem by enabling tenants to become owners on the basis of criteria that applied to the rest of the population, the impugned provision does not expressly put that obligation on the State. The section envisages the provision of housing through low-rent dwellings, low-interest loans or [the payment of] rents ... by the State. Moreover, in contrast with the previous provision, which ‘froze’ rents until a resolution for the housing problem had been found, the impugned provision expressly envisages the payment of such ‘frozen’ rents for the first two years after the Act’s entry into force, implying that rents would be liberalised on the expiry of that time-limit. The new Act contains other provisions which seriously worsen the status of tenants. While the previous Act provided that dwellings would be vacated when their tenants had been provided with permanent housing, the impugned provision arbitrarily, and without giving any express assurances, envisages that tenants are to vacate dwellings within three years. It is clear that section 9(1) [of the Property Act 2004] significantly impinges upon some of the rights that tenants had acquired under the previous legislation ... . The Constitutional Court also observes that section 9(1) breaches ... the principle of legal certainty ... Legal certainty presumes, inter alia, that citizens should have trust in the State and the irreversibility (pandryshueshmërinë) of the law. That trust is related to the fact that citizens should not have to worry continuously about the ever-changing nature and consequences of legal norms which impinge upon and worsen a previously settled status.
... This principle [of legal certainty] cannot prevail in every instance. Thus, if it happens that the legal regulation of a relationship is directly influenced by the public interest, it is the latter which prevails over the principle of legal certainty. In the instant case, the amendment to the law in favour of a certain section of the population cannot be justified by an essential public interest. It is true that the amended provision favours property owners; on the other hand, however, it discriminates against another group (even though small in number), impinging upon tenants’ basic right to life and the provision of housing. Denying tenants their rights to become owners and ending their tenancy without guaranteeing another dwelling cannot be justified on any public interest ground.”
(c)   Property Act 2006
45. Following the Constitutional Court decision no. 26/2005, in 2006 section 9 of the 2004 Act was amended to read as follows:
Section 9
“1. Properties which are the property of former owners and which were leased to tenants by the State before the entry into force of [Privations Act 1992], which are used for housing needs, shall be transferred to the possession of the former owner(s) when one of the following conditions is met:
a.  the housing needs of the tenants have been met in any other lawful way;
b.  the former owner provides the tenants with a dwelling that has a surface area no smaller than the dwelling they already occupy and which is in an approximately similar condition and within the same local-government area, until such time as the tenants’ housing needs are met in one of the other ways provided by this section.
c.  the tenants conclude a loan agreement with a financial institution, in accordance with the ... [the Social Programmes Act 2004];
d.  the tenants benefit from housing or a plot of land as provided for by ... [the Social Programmes Act 2004]”
... 4. Homeless persons who are tenants in dwellings which are the property of former owners and who have not concluded a loan agreement in accordance with sub-paragraph (c) of the first paragraph of this section, or have not yet been provided with housing in accordance with subparagraphs (a), (c) and (d) of the first paragraph of this section, shall lose their right to occupy lawfully the dwelling by 31 December 2008. They shall be offered social housing programmes, in accordance with section 4 of the Social Programmes Act. The former owner shall be entitled to take lawful possession of the dwelling under his ownership. 5. The rent for dwellings occupied by homeless persons as provided for in paragraph 1 of this section shall be indexed ... to annual price and salary increases, and its aim is to cover the expenses of the owner for the maintenance and good administration of the dwelling ...”
Constitutional Court decision no. 11/2007
46. Following a request for constitutional review of the amended section 9 on the ground that it was in breach of the principle of acquired rights and the findings of the Constitutional Court in its decision no. 26/2005, filed with the Constitutional Court by the Association of Tenants of State-owned dwellings which were formerly privately owned property, on 4 April 2007 the Constitutional Court repealed the amended section for the same reasons set out in in its decision no. 26/2005. It directed that new provisions be adopted to fill the legal vacuum. (d)   Normative Act 2012
47. On 1 August 2012 the Government introduced a normative act for the vacation of former owners’ properties which continued to be occupied by tenants. The normative act was subsequently endorsed by parliament on 13 September 2012. 48. The deadline to vacate voluntarily former owners’ properties was set as 1 November 2012. In the event of a failure to vacate a property voluntarily within the prescribed time-limit, the NHA, upon written notification of the former owner, would issue an eviction order, which would be considered an executable decision within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure. The NHA would then ask the District Court to issue an enforcement writ for the vacation of the flat. Section 3 bars a stay of execution of the enforcement writ. 49. Details of the Normative Act, including the unsuccessful constitutional review proceedings brought against it before the Constitutional Court, have been described in this Court’s decision in the case of Bakiu and Others v. Albania (dec.), nos. 43928/13 and 16 other applications, 10 April 2018. Other relevant domestic case-law
50. In decisions no. 36/2002 and no. 531/2002, the Supreme Court dismissed the landlords’ civil actions concerning the payment of free-market (liberalised) rents by tenants occupying dwellings that had been returned to the landlords, in their capacity as former owners, and remitted the cases for examination before the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court reasoned that section 11 of the Contribution to Homeless Households Act had been repealed by the Constitutional Court decision no. 5/1997. It further stated that its section 10, as amended in 2000, had provided that tenants should pay a rent on the basis of the rates that they had been paying at the time of the entry into force of the Property Act 1993 (also see paragraph 31 above). 51. In decision no. 44 of 24 February 2009 the Supreme Court, relying on the Constitutional Court’s decisions no. 26/2005 and no. 11/2007, dismissed a landlord’s civil claim for the vacation of a property occupied by tenants, insofar as the tenants’ housing problem had not been resolved by the authorities. Consequently, the Supreme Court rejected the landlord’s claim for the payment of a free-market rent by the tenants. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
52. The applicant complained that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of his inability to recover possession of his house and receive income from it. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 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.”
AdmissibilityThe parties’ submissions

53. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, namely a complaint to the Constitutional Court under Article 131 of the Constitution of Albania for an alleged breach of his property rights. They also submitted that the applicant had failed to make an administrative claim or file a legal action against the administrative act that had given homeless status to the tenants living in his property. 54. The applicant, relying on the Constitutional Court’s decisions nos. 5/1997, 26/2005 and 11/2007, submitted that a constitutional complaint would have been ineffective as that court had not protected former owners’ rights.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation