Communicated on 6 January 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 33544/08 Artan PERDEDA against Albania lodged on 2 July 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Artan Perdeda , is an Albanian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Fier .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 13 April 2000 the applicant was remanded in custody on, amongst others, the criminal charge of wilful murder.

On 26 December 2001 he was acquitted by the trial court. Following the prosecutor ’ s appeal, the case was remitted to the trial court.

After several remittals, on 10 October 2004 the prosecutor decided to discontinue the proceedings against the applicant.

On 22 November 2005 the applicant lodged a civil action seeking 3,110,000 Albanian leks (“ALL), approximately EUR 23,967, by way of compensation as regards the period of unlawful detention from 13 April 2000 to 26 December 2001 (622 days). He further requested the award of non-pecuniary damage in the amount of ALL 1,500,000.

On 16 March 2006 the Fier District Court (“the District Court”) awarded the applicant by way of compensation ALL 311,000, approximately EUR 2,418, in relation to the period of unlawful detention of 622 days. The court took account of the applicant ’ s unemployment and his family situation and considered a compensation rate of ALL 500 per day. It further awarded ALL 300,000, approximately EUR 2,333, in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The court found that the applicant ’ s emotional state was affected for a long time on account of his detention. Relying on testimonies given by the applicant ’ s family members, the court held that the charge against the applicant had given rise, in the public opinion, to suspicions that he was the de facto perpetrator. The ties that the applicant and his family members used to have with neighbours and relatives were severed. The detention tarnished the applicant ’ s reputation and it prevented him from founding a family.

The applicant appealed against the decision. He submitted that the District Court had unjustly considered him unemployed, because he was working as an irregular immigrant in Greece. According to the applicant, the District Court should have awarded him ALL 5,000 per each day detention.

On 30 January 2007 the Vlora Court of Appeal upheld the amount made in respect of the unlawful detention. It held that, having regard to the applicant ’ s unemployment status, the District Court had correctly applied section 5 § 1 (ç) of the Compensation for Unlawful Detention Act, which had entered into force prior to the introduction of the applicant ’ s civil action. The Court of Appeal quashed the award made in respect of non-pecuniary damage for lack of substantiation. It held that the applicant was not able to prove that his detention blemished the reputation and honour of his family or that he was labelled or stigmatised in the social and family environment. His family members did not prove that their ties with other relatives had severed.

On 28 February 2007 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court raising the same grounds of appeal.

On 12 March 2010 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal since it did not contain any legal grounds as provided for in Article 472 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

1. Criminal Code

Article 57 stipulates that a day of pre-trial detention is equal to a fine of ALL 5,000.

2. Code of Criminal Procedure

Under Article 268 a person against whom the criminal investigation was discontinued is entitled to compensation for the period of pre-trial detention he served. According to Article 269 a request for compensation must be made within three years from the date of the decision discontinuing the criminal investigation. The amount of compensation and its calculation shall be governed by a specific law.

Supreme Court ’ s unifying decision no. 3 of 27 March 2003

On 27 March 2003 the Supreme Court Joint Benches decided that, in the absence of a specific law for the calculation of the amount of compensation, the domestic courts would refer to Article 57 of the Criminal Code, according to which a day of pre-trial detention equals a fine of ALL 5,000.

3. Compensation for Unlawful Detention Act (law no. 9381 of 28 April 2005)

The Compensation for Unlawful Detention Act was enacted by parliament on 28 April 2005 and it entered into force on 15 June 2005.

Article 5 § 1 lists out the criteria to be considered by the court in determining the amount of compensation. Article 5 § 1 (ç) refers to the national minimum wage as one criteria in respect of those persons who were unemployed one month prior to detention. Article 5 § 2 states that the maximum amount of compensation is ALL 3,000 for one day of pre-trial detention.

According to Article 10 all cases pending for examination before domestic courts would be governed by the criteria established in the Supreme Court ’ s case-law.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention about the low amount he was awarded by way of compensation. He also complains under Article 8 that the unjust detention tarnished his honour and reputation. Without invoking an Article, the applicant implicitly complains about the delay of the proceedings before the Supreme Court.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the amount awarded to the applicant for his illegal imprisonment, can he still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention? If so, do the facts of the case, in particular the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant, disclose a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see Ganea v. Moldova , no. 2474/06 , §§ 25-31 , 17 May 2011; Attard v. Malta ( dec. ), no. 46750/99, 28 September 2000; and Cumber v. the United Kingdom , no. 28779/95, Commission decision of 27 November 1996)?

2. Has there been a breach of the applicant ’ s right to respect for private life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention by reason of his unjust detention?

3 . Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as a result of the length of proceedings before the Supreme Court?