Published on 25 October 2021

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 35182/15 Dhimitraq LUBONJA against Albania lodged on 17 July 2015 communicated on 8 October 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

In 1998the domestic court recognised the applicant as the sole owner of a property. However, in 2003 the Office for Registration of Immovable Property (“ORIP”) registered the same property in the name of a number of co-owners on the strength of a court decision given in 1953.

In 2013 and 2014 the lower courts, relying on the decision of 1998, declared a contract concluded in 2005, according to which one co-owner had donated her share to another co-owner, null and void. The courts ordered all co-owners to immediately vacate the property and directed ORIP to make appropriate rectifications in the property register and register the property in the applicant’s name. However, on 29 July 2014 the Supreme Court decided to stay the immediate enforcement of the lower courts’ decisions as it would result in serious and irreparable damage to the co-owners. On 13 July 2016 the Supreme Court decided to examine the co-owners’ cassation appeal at a public hearing and, to date, the proceedings are still pending before the Supreme Court.

In February 2019 the Supreme Court rejected a request by the applicant for the annulment of the decision on the stay of enforcement of the lower courts’ decisions. In October 2020 the Constitutional Court did not accept the applicant’s constitutional complaint against the Supreme Court’s decision of February 2019, finding that he had failed to make a request under Article 399/1 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the unreasonable length of proceedings and that his request was incompatible ratione materiae .

The applicant alleges that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as the Supreme Court did not hear him in the stay-of-enforcement proceedings and the proceedings before the Supreme Court have been unreasonably long.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable under its civil limb to the stay-of-enforcement proceedings in the present case (see, for example, Central Mediterranean Development Corporation Limited v. Malta (no. 2) , no. 18544/08, §§ 20-22, 22 November 2011)? If so, has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the present case? In particular:

a) Was the applicant duly notified in 2013 or 2014 of the stay-of-enforcement proceedings before the Supreme Court?

b) Did the Supreme Court hear the applicant before deciding to stay the enforcement of the lower courts’ decisions on 29 July 2014?

2. Was the applicant required to exhaust the new remedy regarding the unreasonable length of proceedings (Article 399/1 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure) which had become effective on 5 November 2017? The Government are invited to provide domestic case-law about the applicability of the new remedy to civil proceedings which were pending at the time of its entry into force.

3. Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of proceedings before the Supreme Court?