FIRST SECTION

CASE OF QERIMI AND CANAJ v. ALBANIA

(Applications nos. 12878/10 and 74858/12)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

8 September 2016

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Qerimi and Canaj v. Albania,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Aleš Pejchal, President,
	Ledi Bianku,
	Armen Harutyunyan, judges,
and Abel Campos, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 10 May 2016,
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 that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in two applications (nos. 12878/10 and 74858/12), 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 two Albanian nationals. Details of the applicants are set out in Appendix No. 1 attached to the judgment.
2.  The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. Hicka of the State Advocate’s Office.
3.  On 20 December 2013 the applications were communicated to the Government.
4.  The applicants failed to submit claims for just satisfaction by the time-limit allowed (Rule 60 of the Rules of Court).
THE FACTS
I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A.  Application no. 12878/10: Qerimi
5.  On 1 November 2002 the Durrës Commission on Restitution and Compensation of Properties (Komisioni i Kthimit dhe Kompensimit të Pronave) (“the Commission”) recognised, amongst others, the applicant’s inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring 8,000 sq. m. Since the plot was occupied, the applicant and other heirs would be compensated in kind with an equivalent plot of land.
B.  Application no. 74858/12: Canaj
6.  On 23 November 2001 the Fier Commission recognised, amongst others, the applicant’s inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring 1,121 sq. m of which 598 sq. m were restored. Since the remaining plot measuring 523 sq. m was occupied, the applicant and other heirs would be awarded compensation in the sum of 251,040 Albanian Lek (“ALL”).
II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
7.  The relevant domestic law and practice has been described in detail in, inter alia, the judgment of Ramadhi v. Albania (no. 38222/02, 13 November 2007); Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania (nos. 604/07, 43628/07, 46684/07 and 34770/09, §§ 23-53, 31 July 2012) and, more recently, Sharra and Others v. Albania [Committee] (nos. 25038/08, 64376/09, 64399/09, 347/10, 1376/10, 4036/10, 12889/10, 20240/10, 29442/10, 29617/10, 33154/11, and 2032/12, §§ 33-43, 10 November 2015).
III.  COUNCIL OF EUROPE MATERIALS
8.  Relevant material was referred to in this Court’s judgments of Sharra and Others, cited above, § 44; Metalla and Others v. Albania [Committee] (nos. 30264/08, 42120/08, 54403/08 and 54411/08, §§ 15-17, 16 July 2015); Siliqi and Others v. Albania [Committee] (nos. 37295/05 and 42228/05, §§ 12-13, 10 March 2015); and 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 LAW
I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
9.  Given that the two applications raise the same issue, the Court decides that they should be joined pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.
II.  ALLEGED VIOLATIONS 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 DECISIONS
10.  The applicants alleged that there had been a breach 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. The Court raised of its own motion 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.”
A.  Admissibility
11.  The Government did not contest the admissibility of these complaints.
12.  The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B.  Merits
13.  The Government did not dispute the merits of the applicants’ complaints and acknowledged that the applications were the subject of well‑established case-law in the light of the judgment in the case of Manushaqe Puto and Others, cited above.
14.  Having regard to its findings in previous cases against Albania in respect of which the Government did not put forward any arguments that would warrant a departure therefrom (see, amongst others, Çaush Driza v. Albania, no. 10810/05, §§ 87-89 and §§ 91-94, 15 March 2011; Manushaqe Puto and Others, cited above, §§ 93-97 and the references cited therein; and more recently, Sharra and Others, cited above, §§ 49-51; Metalla and Others, cited above, §§ 29-31; and Siliqi and Others, cited above, §§ 19), the Court finds that the domestic authorities’ failure over so many years to enforce the final 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.
15.  The Court also concludes that there was, and continue to be, no effective domestic remedy that allowed for adequate and sufficient redress on account of the prolonged non-enforcement of the final domestic decisions awarding compensation. There is accordingly a violation of Article 13 of the Convention (see Manushaqe Puto and Others, cited above, §§ 72-84 and the references cited therein).
III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
16.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
17.  The applicants failed to submit claims for just satisfaction by the time-limit allowed. Therefore, the Court considers that no pecuniary damage should be awarded. However, the Court considers that the respondent Government should ensure the payment of an effective form of compensation to the applicants in respect of the plots of land, in accordance with the Commission decisions and the applicants’ share of property, within three months (see, for example, Vukelić v. Montenegro, no. 58258/09, § 107, 4 June 2013; Mikhaylova and Others v. Ukraine, no. 16475/02, § 40, 15 June 2006; and Lisyanskiy v. Ukraine, no. 17899/02, § 34, 4 April 2006).
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1.  Decides to join the applications;

2.  Declares the complaints concerning Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as regards the non-enforcement of final domestic decisions admissible;

3.  Holds that there has 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;

4.  Holds that the respondent State must secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the Commission decisions given in the applicants’ favour, within three months.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 September 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Abel Campos	Aleš Pejchal
	Registrar	President

APPENDIX 1 – LIST OF APPLICANTS

No.	Case name and no.	Name of applicants
(year of birth)	Country of residence	Represented by	Introduction date	
1. 	Qerimi v. Albania, no. 12878/10
	Ahmet Qerimi (1933)	Albania	None	10 February 2010	
2.	Canaj v. Albania,
no. 74858/12
	Mero Canaj (1944)	Albania
	None	19 June 2009