FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 7923/10 Fatmir PLAKU against Albania

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 30 September 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Paul Mahoney, President, Ledi Bianku, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges [Double Click to get the List of Judges] and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 J anuary 2010 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

T HE FACTS

1. The applicant , Mr. Fatmir Plaku, is an Albanian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Ku ç ovë . He was represented by Mr D. Selimi, a lawyer practising in Tiran a .

2. The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their then Agent Ms L. Mandia of the State Advocate ’ s Office.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

4. F urther to the applicant ’ s dismissal, by a final decision of 27 February 2007, the Court of Appeal ordered his employer, the Berat Office for the Registration of Immovable Property, to pay the applicant the equivalent of seven and a half monthly salaries, no reinstatement having been ordered.

5 . On 13 July 2007 an enforcement writ was issued.

6 . On an unspecified date in 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint complaining about the non-enforcement of the final court decision.

7 . On 21 May 2009 the bailiff enforced the decision in full . The applicant received no payment concerning the delay in enforcing the final court ’ s decision in his favour.

8 . On 11 June 2009 the Constitutional Court, sitting as a full bench, rejected the applicant ’ s complaint finding that there had been no breach of the applicant ’ s right of access to court as a result of the length of the enforcement proceedings. The Constitutional Court reasoned that, since the enforcement of the judgment depended on the availability of funds and since the authorities had to follow and comply with the procedure for their allocation, the delay experienced by the applicant was not unreasonable. That decision was served on the applicant on 21 July 2009.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

9. The rele vant domestic law and practice have been described in Qufaj Co. Sh.p.k. v. Albania , no. 54268/00, §§ 21-26, 18 November 2004; Gjyli v. Albania , no. 32907/0 7, §§ 19-28, 29 September 2009, and Bushati and Others v. Albania , no. 6397/04, §§ 58-64, 8 December 2009.

COMPLAINT

10. The applicant complained that the late enforcement of the Court of Appeal ’ s decision of 27 February 2007 breached his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”

THE LAW

11. According to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention the Court “may only deal with [a] matter ... within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken”.

12. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the final domestic decision was enforced on 21 May 2009. The enforcement marked the end of “a continuing situation”, from which date the applicant should have lodged the application with this Court within six months ( see, for example, Tripcovici v. Romania (dec.), no. 21489/03 , 22 September 2009; Kravchenko v. Russia , no. 34615/02 , § 34, 2 April 2009; Babich and Azhogin v. Russia (dec.), no. 9457/09 , §§ 48 ‑ 9, 15 October 2013, and Aleksandar Sokolov v. Serbia and 6 other applications (dec. ) , no. 30859/10, 14 January 2014) . However, he introduced the application on 20 January 2010, beyond the six-month time-limit. The Constitutional Court ’ s decision does not affect the above finding, having regard to the ineffectiveness of the constitutional remedy concerning the authorities ’ delayed enforcement of or failure to enforce final domestic judgments ( see Gjyli v. Albania , no. 32907/07 , §§ 58-60 , 29 September 2009 , Puto and Others v. Albania , no. 609/07 , § § 33-35 , 20 July 2010 ).

13. The Court therefore concludes that the application must be rejected as time-barred in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

FatoÅŸ Aracı Paul Mahoney              Deputy Registrar President