Communicated on 25 August 2020 Published on 14 September 2020

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 50249/13 Kiço GURMA against Albania lodged on 2 August 2013

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns an alleged breach of the principle of legal certainty, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and an alleged breach of the applicant ’ s property rights, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, on account of the quashing of a final decision given in 2003 by the Saranda District Court. It further concerns an alleged breach of Article 6 § 1 on account of the unreasonable length of the proceedings and the lack of adequate reasons contained in the Supreme Court ’ s de plano inadmissibility decision. The facts of the case may be summarised as shown below.

In 1994 the Saranda Restitution and Compensation of Properties Commission recognised the applicant ’ s and his family members ’ inherited property rights to a plot measuring 50,000 sq. m, of which 30,000 sq. m were restored (“Commission decision”).

In 2003 the Saranda District Court decided to supplement the Commission decision by restoring the applicant and his family members an additional plot measuring 6,205 sq. m (“ Saranda District Court decision”). This decision became final on 7 March 2003.

On an unspecified date, most likely in 2006, the applicant instituted legal proceedings against A.C. challenging her ownership of a plot measuring 910 sq. m which she had acquired from the Saranda municipality in 1996. According to the applicant, A.C ’ s plot of land was part of the plot which had been restored to him by way of the Saranda District Court ’ s decision in 2003. A.C ’ s counterclaim was rejected on the ground that its joined examination with the applicant ’ s action would over-complicate the proceedings. Consequently, in 2006 A.C. instituted parallel proceedings against the applicant challenging the Commission ’ s decision as supplemented by the Saranda District Court ’ s decision

In 2009, following the parallel progression of both sets of proceedings, the Supreme Court, by giving two separate decisions on the same day, quashed the lower court ’ s decisions given in each set of the proceedings. It remitted the cases to the lower courts, directing that they be joined.

On 25 October 2010 the Court of Appeals joined both sets of the proceedings, rejected the applicant ’ s action and accepted A.C ’ s counterclaim. It held that the Commission decision as supplemented by the Saranda District Court ’ s decision, was invalid in so far as it concerned A.C. ’ s plot measuring 910 sq. m. On 11 July 2012 the Supreme Court rejected de plano the applicant ’ s cassation appeal, and on 10 December 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s constitutional appeal by way of a reasoned decision.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, when and how did the Constitutional Court notify the applicant of its decision? The Government are invited to provide evidence in support of their argument.

2. Has there been a breach of the principle of legal certainty as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Had the Commission decision, as supplemented by the Saranda District Court decision, acquired the force of res judicata ?

(b) Did the Commission decision, as supplemented by the Saranda District Court decision, apply to and affect A.C ’ s alleged property rights, as supposedly acquired in 1996? If so, what remedy did the domestic law provide to A.C. to challenge the Commission decision, as supplemented by the Saranda District Court decision?

(c) Did the Court of Appeal decision of 25 October 2010 alter or quash the Commission decision, as supplemented by the Saranda District Court decision (see for example, Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § § 56-65, ECHR 1999 ‑ VII; Driza v. Albania , no. 33771/02, §§ 63-71, ECHR 2007 ‑ V (extracts); and Vrioni and Others v. Albania , no. 2141/03, §§ 52-60, 24 March 2009)? If so, did the Court of Appeal provide adequate reasons for altering or quashing the Commission decision, as supplemented by the Saranda District Court decision, including with respect to the question of its res judicata status (see Nelyubin v. Russia , no. 14502/04, §§ 23 and 28, 2 November 2006, and Bulgakova v. Russia , n o. 69524/01, §§ 34-36, 18 January 2007)?

3 . Did the Supreme Court have a duty to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the applicant ’ s cassation appeal on 11 July 2012 (see Wagner and J.M.W.L. v. Luxembourg , no. 76240/01, §§ 89-98, 28 June 2007, and Mar ini v. Albania , no. 3738/02, § 106, 18 December 2007)?

4. Was the length of the judicial proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ( Luli and Others v. Albania , nos. 64480/09 and 5 others, § 96, 1 April 2014; Marini v. Albania , Marini v. Albania , no. 3738/02, §§ 141-146 , 18 December 2007; and Gjonbocari and Others v. Albania , no. 10508/02, §§ 66-67, 23 October 2007)?

5. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective remedy for his Article 6 § 1 complaint relating to the length of proceedings, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

6. Has there been a breach of the applicants ’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the quashing of the Saranda District Court ’ s decision which became final on 7 March 2003?