FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 9870/06 by Qemal GURGAJ and Others against Albania

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr G. Bonello , Mr K. Traja , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki , Ms L. Mijović, judges , and Mrs F. Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 March 2006,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 19 February 2007,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Mr Qemal Gurgaj, Ms Gjyslime Çelo, Ms Fatmiroshe Gurgaj, Ms Aferdita Shehu and Mr Pellumb Gurgaj, are Albanian nationals who were born in 1922, 1930, 1923 and 1928 , respectively and live in Piacenza , Italy . They we re not represented before the Court.

The Albanian Government (“the Government”) wer e represented by their Agent, Mrs S. Mëneri of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicants ’ father was the owner of several plots of land in Albania , measuring in total 324. 7 hectares.

By a judgment of 15 March 1996 the Fier District Court recognised the applicants ’ title to their father ’ s property.

On 10 June 2000, pursuant to the Property Act of 1993, the Commission on Restitution and Compensation of Properties awarded the applicants compensation for the value of the original property, it being impossible to restore to them the original property. The decision became final on 10 July 2000 in view of the authorities ’ failure to lodge an appeal with the domestic courts against the decision.

On the date of the applicants ’ last communication with the Court the authorities had still not complied with the Commission ’ s decision of 10 June 2000.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment in Beshiri and Others v. Albania , no. 73 52/03, §§ 20-29, 22 August 2006.

COMPLAINTS

1. Having regard to the amount of the compensation awarded, t he applicants complain ed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about th e unfairness of the proceedings at issue .

2. The applicants also alleged a violation of Article 6 § 1 (length of civil proceedings), maintaining that six years was an un reasonable time for the duration of the proceedings .

3. Under Article 6 § 1 (failure to comply with a final decision) of the Convention, the applicants complain ed about the authorities ’ failure to comply with the Commission ’ s decision of 10 June 2000.

4. Lastly, t he applicants complain ed of a violation of their property rights as guaranteed by Article 1 of P rotocol No. 1 to the Convention.

THE LAW

By letter dated 8 March 2007 the Government ’ s observations were sent to the applicants, who w ere requested to submit any observations in reply together with any claims for just satisfaction by 19 April 2007.

By letter dated 2 July 2007 , sent by registered post , following the applicants ’ request, the President of the Chamber, on an exceptional basis, decided to extend to 13 July 2007 the time allowed for submission by the applicants of their observations on the admissibility and merits of their application. Moreover, the applicants were requested to appoint a lawyer to represent them before the Court by the same date. Lastly, they were notified that on the expiration of the above-mentioned time-limit no extension of time would be granted . The applicants ’ attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that an applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicants received this letter on 6 July 2007 . However , no response to it has been received.

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. Accordingly , it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the application out of the list of cases .

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

FatoÅŸ Aracı Nicolas Bratza              Deputy Registrar President