THIRD SECTION
CASE OF TASHI v. ALBANIA
(Application no. 1351/19)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
13 January 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tashi v. Albania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,
 Darian Pavli,
 Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 1351/19) 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 28 December 2018 by an Albanian national, Ms Evgjeni Tashi (“the applicant”), who was born in 1959, lives in Tirana and was represented by Mr E. Rusi, a lawyer practising in Tirana;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Albanian Government (“the Government”), represented by Mr O. Moçka, General State Advocate;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 2 December 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
the cIrcumstances of the case
1. In 1966 the applicant’s father bought a house and built a wall around it. 2. On 27 June 2008 the Tirana Construction and Urban Planning Inspectorate (“the Construction Inspectorate”) ordered the demolition of the wall on the grounds that it was an illegal construction. The demolition took place sometime in 2008. 3. On 12 March 2010 the Tirana District Court allowed the applicant’s father’s claim against the Construction Inspectorate. It held that the wall had not been an illegal construction, annulled the decision for its demolition, and obliged the Construction Inspectorate to rebuild the wall of 14.3 m length and 1.8 m height. On 10 May 2011 the Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. A writ of execution was issued in June 2011. 4. On 1 July 2011 the applicant’s father initiated enforcement proceedings through a bailiff. 5. On 22 July 2011 the bailiff noted in his official report that the wall would be built by the applicant’s father under his supervision as part of the enforcement proceedings of the 2011 Judgment. 6. On 7 November 2011 the bailiff requested that the Construction Inspectorate reimburse the expenses incurred by the applicant’s father for rebuilding the wall. The State authorities have not instituted any proceedings against the actions of the bailiff or the applicant’s father. 7. On 5 February 2015 the applicant’s father died and the applicant continued the domestic proceedings in his stead as one of his three heirs. 8. On 26 February 2015 the Supreme Court partly upheld the 2010 District Court’s judgment concerning the annulment of the Construction Inspectorate’s decision, and partially reversed it by awarding pecuniary compensation to the applicant’s father instead of ordering the authorities to rebuild the wall. 9. On 8 March 2017 the applicant initiated proceedings for the enforcement of the Supreme Court judgment. 10. On 2 October 2018 the applicant and the other heirs were fined by the National Construction and Urban Planning Inspectorate (“National Construction Inspectorate”) on the grounds that the wall measuring 36 m in length constituted an illegal construction, and a decision to demolish it was issued. Its demolition took place on 17 October 2018. 11. On 26 December 2018 the Tirana Administrative Court accepted the applicant’s claim for compensation for the damage caused by the demolition of the wall in 2018. The proceedings are still ongoing before the Administrative Court of Appeal. 12. On 6 July 2022 the State authorities executed the 2015 Supreme Court judgment by paying the pecuniary compensation and on 28 February 2023 they paid the cost and expenses of the enforcement proceedings. 13. Under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained that the principle of legal certainty and his right to property were violated because the 2015 judgment in favour of her father had not been enforced, and the wall had been demolished a second time.
relevant domestic law and practice
14. Relevant provisions concerning the remedy for the length of proceedings are set out in Bara and Kola v. Albania (nos. 43391/18 and 17766/19, § 37, 12 October 2021) and ARB SHPK and Others v. Albania (nos. 39860/19 and 2 others, §§ 65-67, 27 May 2025).

Outcome for Article 6: violation