THIRD SECTION
CASE OF JELLA AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
(Application no. 7564/07)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
5 March 2024
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Jella and Others v. Albania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Georgios A. Serghides, President,
 Darian Pavli,
 Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 7564/07) 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 30 January 2007 by five Albanian nationals (“the applicants”) who were represented by Ms E. Kurteshi and Mr B. Boçari, lawyers practising in Tirana;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Albanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their then Agent Ms E. Hajro and subsequently by Mr O. Moçka, General State Advocate.
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 6 February 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns alleged violation of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention because of the non-enforcement of the domestic decisions in their favour. 2. The list of applicants and their particulars are set out in the Appendix.
proceedings concerning restitution of land
3. The applicants’ ancestor’s land was nationalised on an unspecified date by the former communist regime. After the fall of communism, on an unspecified date the applicants lodged a request with the Commission on Restitution and Compensation for Property (“the Commission”), seeking restitution of the said plot of land. 4. On 9 September 1994 the Commission recognised the applicants’ property title on a plot of land measuring 43,100 square metres (sq. m) of which 25,540 sq. m were occupied. It ruled that 13,310 sq. m located within the unoccupied plot measuring 17,560 sq. m were to be restituted to the applicants. The applicants were to choose the location of these 13,310 sq. m. That decision has never been challenged before any courts and is still in force. Up to this date, this plot of land has not come into the applicants’ possession, nor has it been registered in their name. 5. The Commission also decided to restore the applicants’ property rights over a house together with adjacent plot of land measuring 430 sq. m and another plot of land measuring 400 sq. m, located within the plot measuring 43,100 sq. m. The applicants’ ownership of these plots was registered in the Land Register. 6. On an unspecified date the applicants lodged a court action against the Commission, seeking clarification of its decision regarding the recognition of the title to property, as well as its restitution and/or compensation. Among other things, the applicants alleged that a plot measuring 290,700 sq. m should have been restored to them. On 17 May 2005 the Tirana District Court dismissed the claim, accepting the Commission’s contention that this was an issue of administrative jurisdiction. That decision became final. 7. In 2005 and in 2007 the applicants lodged requests with the Commission’s successor, the Agency for Restitution and Compensation of Property (“the Agency”), asking for the plot measuring 13,310 sq. m to be delimited and seeking restitution of the remaining unoccupied land. On 26 June 2007 the Agency instructed the applicants to submit a new application with its local office. 8. The applicants’ objection to that letter was dismissed by the Agency’s director. On 24 December 2009 the Tirana District Court ruled in favour of the applicants, stating that the Agency had a duty to give a decision. That decision became final. 9. On 25 October 2011 the Agency dismissed the applicants’ request for enforcement of the District Court’s decision of 24 December 2009, on the grounds that it was for the applicants to choose the exact location of the plot of land. The Agency also contended that it lacked jurisdiction to review a Commission’s decision and the applicants should lodge a civil action. 10. In 2015 the applicants’ civil action was dismissed by the Tirana District Court which found no conclusive evidence regarding the applicants’ right to property on the plot measuring 13,310 sq. m. In 2017 the Tirana Appeal Court quashed that decision and remitted the case to the District Court, holding that the analysis of the relevant evidence was incomplete, and that the Agency had not questioned the applicants’ ownership over the plot measuring 13,310 sq. m. In 2023 the case remained pending before the Supreme Court after an appeal on points of law by the Agency. 11. On 11 July 2018 the applicants filed a new request with the Land Registry for the registration of their ownership of the plot measuring 13,310 sq. m. It was rejected on the basis that the property plan did not clearly define the boundaries of that plot. Judicial proceedings with private parties
12. On 6 September 1996 the Commission recognised property rights in favour of a private party, the family S., on a plot of land. On an unspecified date the applicants challenged the Commission’s decision, claiming that S.’s plot of land overlapped with theirs. 13. On 19 May 2004 the Tirana District Court annulled in part the Commission’s decision of 6 September 1996, insofar as the plot measuring 5,500 sq. m overlapped with the applicants’ property. That decision became final on 27 December 2006, following the dismissal of the defendant’s appeal by the Supreme Court. 14. On 17 October 2011 the District Court dismissed a claim lodged by the applicants against several private parties concerning another overlap with the plot measuring 13,310 sq. m, finding that at the time of the Commission’s decision in 1994 (see paragraph 4 above), the plot of land in question had been occupied in part by one Z.B.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation