Communicated on 26 May 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 48830/10 Agim TORO and others against Albania lodged on 19 July 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The application was introduced by an Albanian national, Ms Hiro Toro. On 25 July 2013 the Registry was informed that the applicant had died on 2 February 2012 . Her children, whose details have been set out in the appendix, relying on an inheritance certificate, expressed their wish to continue the application in her name. They are represented before the Court by Mr S. Dodbiba , a lawyer practising in Tirana. For convenience, Ms. Hiro Toro will be referred to hereafter as “the applicant” even though it is now her children who have that status.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Background of the case

On 16 May 1996 the Gjirokastra Property Restitution and Compensation Commission (“ Komisioni i Kthimit dhe Kompensimit të Pronave – “the Commission”) recognised the applicant ’ s inherited property rights to a plot of land measuring 17,062 sq. m. It further restored to the applicant a plot of land measuring 10,000 sq. m and compensated her for the remainder measuring 7,062 sq. m.

On 2 October 1996 the Commission restored to a third party pasture and forest land measuring 248,000 sq. m.

On 27 May 1998 the Commission restored to the applicant another plot of land measuring 6,750 sq. m.

On 21 June 2005 the District Court rectified the boundaries of the third party ’ s property, which was restored by the Commission decision of 2 October 1996 (“ sakt ë sim t ë kufijve t ë pron ë s ”) . The property title was entered in the land register. The third party subsequently concluded sale agreements with other parties.

2. Judicial proceedings concerning the Commission decisions

On an unspecified date in 2008 the applicant lodged a civil action to have the Commission decision of 2 October 1996 set aside and to have the third party ’ s property struck out of the land register on the ground that she was the legitimate property owner and that the propert ies overlapped with each-other . The applicant also requested that the sale agreements be set aside and that the Commission decisions in her favour be upheld.

On 16 October 2008 the District Court dismissed the third party ’ s motion to declare the case outside the jurisdiction of ordinary courts (“ rrëzimin e kërkesës p ë r nxjerrjen e c ë shtjes jasht ë juridiksionit gjyq ë sor ”).

On 24 December 2008 the Court of Appeal decided that it was not competent to hear the third party ’ s appeal against the District Court ’ s decision. The case was transferred to the Supreme Court for examination.

On 5 May 2009 the Supreme Court quashed the District Court ’ s decision and declared the case outside the jurisdiction of ordinary courts (“ nxjerrjen e c ë shtjes jasht ë juridiksionit gjyq ë sor ”) . The Supreme Court found that the applicant had not lodge d an action with the Central Agency for the Restitution and Compensation of Properties (“ Ag j encia Qendore e Kthimit dhe Kompensimit të Pronave – “the C entral Agency”).

3. Administrative proceedings concerning the Commission decisions

On 16 July 2009, subsequent to the Supreme Court ’ s decision, the applicant lodged an action with the Central Agency seeking the annulment of the Commission decision of 2 October 1996 on the ground that it was based on forged documents.

On 6 August 2009 the Central Agency ’ s director replied that he could not re-examine ex officio the Commission decisions, given that the prescribed statutory time-limit for such procedure had expired on 30 June 2009.

On 11 February 2010, following the extension of the statutory time-limit to 31 December 2011, the applicant lodged another action with the Central Agency.

On 13 July 2010 the Central Agency ’ s director informed the applicant that, having regard to the Constitutional Court ’ s decision of 26 May 2010, the Central Agency could not examine their appeal.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant d omestic law has been described in detail in the judgments of Luli and Others v. Albania , nos. 64480/09, 64482/09, 12874/10, 56935/10, 3129/12 and 31355/09, §§ 58-62, 1 April 2014 , and Eltari v. Albania , no. 16530/06, §§ 32, 44-45, 8 March 2011 .

T he Constitutional Court decision of 26 May 2010 declared unconstitutional some provisions of the 2004 Property Act, as amended, which had empowered the Central Agency ’ s director to review prior decisions taken by former land Commissions or Regional Agency offices. It found that such powers were contrary to the principle of legal certainty.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant ’ s heirs complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about a breach of their right of access to court. Under Article 13 they complain that they did not have an effective remedy as regards their complaint under Article 6 § 1. They further allege that there has been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the authorities ’ failure to pay compensation in respect of a plot of land measuring 7,062 sq. m as ordered by th e Commission decision of 16 May 1996.

Q UESTION S TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a breach of the applicant ’ s heirs right of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Has there been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as regards the authorities ’ failure to pay compensation to the applicant ’ s heirs in respect of a plot of land measuring 7,062 sq. m?

Appendix