European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

FIRST SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF RISTA AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

 

(Applications nos. 5207/10, 24468/10, 36228/10, 39492/10, 39495/10, 40751/10 and 48522/10)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

 

17 March 2016

 

 

 

This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.




In the case of Rista and others v. Albania,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Kristina Pardalos, President,
          Robert Spano,
          Pauliine Koskelo, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 23 February 2016,

Having noted that the underlying legal issue in the applications below is already the subject of well-established case-law of the Court (see Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania, nos. 604/07, 43628/07, 46684/07 and 34770/09, § 31 July 2012),

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in seven applications (nos. 5207/10, 24468/10, 36228/10, 39492/10, 39495/10, 40751/10 and 48522/10), against the Republic of Albania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by 57 persons of various nationalities. Details of the applicants and representatives are set out in Appendix No. 1 attached to the judgment.

2.  On 29 September 2014 the heirs of Mr Kurtesh Gjikolli, who was one of the initial applicants in application no. 24468/10, Ms Pakize Zajmi née Gjikolli, Ms Rajmonda Karapici née Gjikolli and Adnan Gjikolli expressed their wish to pursue the proceedings on his behalf. On 29 September 2014 the heirs of Mr Nuri Xhikaj, who was one of the initial applicants in application no. 24468/10, Ms Ganimete Xhikaj, Mr Përparim Xhikaj, Ms Dhurata Xhikaj, Mr Adrian Xhikaj, Ms Pamela Xhikaj, Mr Velson Xhikaj, expressed their wish to pursue the proceedings on his behalf. On 22 June 2015 the heirs of Ms Hysnije Xhikolli, who was one of the initial applicants in application no. 24468/10, Mr Muharrem Xhikolli, Mr Burhan Xhikolli and Ms Edmila Molla née Xhikolli, expressed their wish to pursue the proceedings on her behalf.

3.  On 19 August 2014 the heir of Mr Sherafedin Hasa, who was the initial applicant in application no. 36228/10, Mr Erol Hasa expressed his wish to pursue the proceedings on his behalf.

4.  On 11 May 2015 the heirs of Ms Nermin Bubani, who was one of the initial applicants in application no. 39495/10, Mr Loredan Bubani, Ms Elvana Zami née Bubani and Mr Gjergj Bubani expressed their wish to pursue the proceedings on her behalf.

5.  For practical reasons, the applicants Mr Kurtesh Gjikolli, Mr Nuri Xhikaj, Mr Sherafedin Hasa, Ms Nermin Bubani and Ms Hysnije Xhikolli will continue to be referred to in this judgment as the applicants, although their heirs are now to be regarded as such (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI, and Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, §§ 97-101, ECHR 2013).

6.  The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. Hicka of the State Advocate’s Office.

7.  On 20 December 2013 the applications were communicated to the Government.

8.  As regards applications nos. 5207/10, 36228/10 and 40751/10, the Government failed to submit written observations on the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction by the time-limit allowed.

9.  As regards application no. 5207/10 the applicant failed to submit claims for just satisfaction by the time-limit allowed.

THE FACTS

I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

A.  Application no. 5207/10: Rista

10.  On 11 May 1995 the Fier Commission recognised the applicant’s and other heirs’ inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring 55,200 sq. m of which 8,186 sq. m were restored. It also decided that the Commission would decide on the compensation of the remaining plot at a further moment. On 29 January 1999 the Fier District Court amended the Commission decision of 11 May 1995 and restored the applicant and other heirs a plot measuring 9,107 sq. m.

11.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a civil action seeking the vacation of the property, which was occupied by third parties. The third parties lodged a counter-action requesting the annulment of the Commission decision of 11 May 1995. On 27 September 2001 the Supreme Court finally amended the Commission decision in respect of the applicant’s share of property, which corresponded to a plot measuring 930 sq. m. Since the plot of land was occupied, the Supreme Court decided that the applicant would be compensated in one of the ways provided by law.

12.  On 11 April 2011 the Fier District Court granted the applicant’s and other heirs’ leave to appeal out of time against the Commission decision of 11 May 1995 in respect of the remaining plot of land measuring 47,014 sq. m (see paragraph 10 above). The parties failed to provide information about the progress of this set of proceedings. It would appear that the proceedings are pending.

13.  To date, no compensation has been paid in respect of the applicant’s land measuring 930 sq. m.

B.  Application no. 24468/10: Gjikolli and Molla

14.  On 19 January 2000 the Tirana Commission recognised, amongst others, the applicants’ inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring 10,600 sq. m. Since the plot of land was occupied, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided by law.

15.  On 14 April 2008 the applicants requested that unoccupied plots measuring 3,142 sq. m, situated within the plot measuring 10,600 sq. m, be restored to them. On 3 December 2008 the Tirana Commission rejected their application since the plot of land was occupied.

16.  To date, no compensation has been paid in respect of the plot of land measuring 10,600 sq. m.

C.  Application no. 36228/10: Hasa

17.  On 15 January 2008 the Elbasan Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights over two plots of land totalling 16,500 sq. m. Since the plots of land were occupied, the applicant would be compensated in one of the ways provided by law.

18.  To date, no compensation has been paid.

19.  On 19 August 2014 Mr Erol Hasa, a Macedonian national, expressed his wish to pursue the proceedings on his father’s behalf (see paragraph 3 above). He submitted an English translation of a notarised document, which recognised him as the sole testamentary heir in respect of the property situated in Elbasan. The original document, no copy of which was submitted to the Court, appears to have been issued by a notary of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. That document has not been recognised by the Albanian authorities in accordance with the Albanian law.

D.  Application no. 39492/10: Galanxhi and Others

20.  On 25 October 1995 the Gjirokastër Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring 4,527 sq. m of which 920 sq. m. were restored. Since the remaining plot measuring 3,607 sq. m was occupied, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided by law.

21.  To date, no compensation has been paid.

E.  Application no. 39495/10: Frashëri and Others

22.  On 23 September 1996 the Tirana Commission recognised, amongst others, the applicants’ inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring 208,696 sq. m of which 7,452 sq. m were restored. Since the remaining plot measuring 201,244 sq. m was occupied, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided by law.

23.  To date, no compensation has been paid.

F.  Application no. 40751/10: Merlika and Others

24.  On 22 October 1994 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring 1,730 sq. m. Since the plot of land was occupied, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided by law. On 22 December 2007 the Agency decided to award financial compensation to the applicants in respect of 200 sq. m.

25.  To date, no compensation has been paid in respect of the remaining plot measuring 1,530 sq. m.

G.  Application no. 48522/10: Dhimertika and Nika

26.  On 24 October 1995 the Saranda Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring 69,186 sq. m, situated within the city boundaries (vijës së verdhë të qytetit), of which 5,000 sq. m were restored and another 5,000 sq. m were compensated in kind. Since another plot measuring 59,184 sq. m was occupied, the applicants would be compensated in State bonds on the basis of Agricultural Land Act.

27.  To date, no compensation has been paid.

II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

28.  The relevant domestic law and practice has been described in detail in, inter alia, the judgment of Ramadhi v. Albania (no. 38222/02, 13 November 2007); Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania (nos. 604/07, 43628/07, 46684/07 and 34770/09, §§ 23-53, 31 July 2012) and, more recently, Sharra and Others v. Albania [Committee] (nos. 25038/08, 64376/09, 64399/09, 347/10, 1376/10, 4036/10, 12889/10, 20240/10, 29442/10, 29617/10, 33154/11 and 2032/12, §§ 33-43, 10 November 2015).

III.  COUNCIL OF EUROPE MATERIALS

29.  Relevant material was referred to in this Court’s judgments of Sharra and Others, cited above, § 44; Metalla and Others v. Albania [Committee] (nos. 30264/08, 42120/08, 54403/08 and 54411/08, §§ 15-17, 16 July 2015); Siliqi and Others v. Albania [Committee] (nos. 37295/05 and 42228/05, §§ 12-13, 10 March 2015); and Karagjozi and Others v. Albania [Committee] (nos. 25408/06, 37419/06, 49121/06, 1504/07, 19772/07, 46685/07, 49411/07, 27242/08, 61912/08 and 15075/09, §§ 36-38, 8 April 2014).

THE LAW

I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

30.  Given that all applications raise the same issue, the Court decides that they should be joined pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

II.  ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AS WELL AS OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-ENFORCEMENT OF FINAL DECISIONS

31.  The applicants alleged that there had been a breach of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention as well as of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of final domestic decisions awarding them compensation in lieu of the restitution of their properties.

Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:

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

Article 13 of the Convention reads as follows:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention reads as follows:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

A.  Admissibility

1.  Introduction of a premature application

32.  As regards application no. 5207/10, the Government submitted that the applicant had requested the review of the Commission decision and that the administrative proceedings were pending. In this connection, they disputed the application of the well-established case-law procedure.

33.  The Court notes that the applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the Supreme Court’s decision as regards the payment of compensation in respect of 930 sq. m. The proceedings pending before the administrative authorities relate to the remaining plot measuring 47,104 sq. m, which is not the subject of the present application (see paragraph 12 above). Therefore, the Court rejects this Government’s objection and considers that the issue raised by this application is the subject of well-established case-law.

2.  Compatibility ratione personae

(a)  As regards application no. 36228/10

34.  On 19 August 2014 Mr Erol Hasa expressed his wish to pursue the proceedings on behalf of his father, who died on 23 May 2014. He submitted an English translation of a notarial document, the original copy of which was not provided, recognising him as the sole successor. Moreover, he failed to submit a document duly recognising him as heir in accordance with the Albanian law. In these circumstances, the Court considers that Mr Erol Hasa cannot claim to have any legal standing before the Court. This application must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

(b)  As regards application no. 40751/10

35.  The application form was lodged on behalf of all applicants, but was signed by Mr Gëzim Kaciu and Mr Edmir Merlika who were acting in their name. On 25 October 2010 all applicants were requested to submit duly signed powers of attorney authorising Mr Gëzim Kaciu and Mr Edmir Merlika. In response, they complied with the request. However, Ms Shpresa Merlika, who was one of the applicants, did not submit a power of attorney. Nor did she sign the application form. A power of attorney dated 26 October 2007 authorised Mr Gezim Kaciu and Mr Edmir Merlika to represent Ms Shpersa Merlika only before the Commission. In such circumstances, it cannot be considered that Ms Shpresa Merlika gave explicit and specific instructions to Mr Gëzim Kaciu or Mr Edmir Merlika to act on her behalf. She could not thus claim to have lodged an application and be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Post v. Netherlands, (dec.), application no. 2727/08, 20 January 2009; K.M. and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 46086/07, 29 April 2010; Şükrü Çetin v. Turkey (dec.), no. 10449/08, 13 September 2011; and Renata CYTACKA and others against Lithuania (dec.), no. 53788/08, 10 July 2012) and this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

36.  On 26 August 2014 Mr Edmir Merlika, who was one of the applicants admitted that he did not have legal standing to pursue the proceedings before the Court. He was not one of the legal heirs of the former owner; instead, his father, Mr Kujtim Merlika, was. In such circumstances, the Court accepts this submission and finds that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

(c)  As regards application no. 48522/10

37.  Mr Vasil Dhimertika failed to submit an authority form for his representation in the proceedings before the Court.

38.  The Court notes that Mr Vasil Dhimertika did not submit a power of attorney, nor did he sign the application form. In such circumstances, it cannot be considered that Mr Vasil Dhimertika gave explicit and specific instructions to his lawyer to act on his behalf. He cannot thus claim to have lodged an application and be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see also paragraph 35 above) and this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

3.  As regards the remaining applicants and complaints

39.  The Government did not raise any objection concerning the legal standing of the remaining applicants and of the admissibility of the remaining complaints.

40.  The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

B.  Merits

41.  Save for the objection raised in respect of application no. 5207/10, which was examined and rejected by the Court (see paragraphs 32-33 above), the Government did not dispute the merits of the applicants’ complaints.

42.  Having regard to its findings in previous cases against Albania in respect of which the Government did not put forward any arguments that would warrant a departure therefrom (see, amongst others, Manushaqe Puto and Others, cited above, §§ 93-97 and the references cited therein; and more recently, Sharra and Others, cited above, §§ 49-51; Metalla and Others, cited above, §§ 29-31; Siliqi and Others, cited above, §§ 19), the Court finds that the domestic authorities’ failure over so many years to enforce the final domestic decisions and, notably, to pay the compensation awarded, breached the applicants’ rights under Article 6 § 1 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

43.  The Court also concludes that there was, and continue to be, no effective domestic remedy that allowed for adequate and sufficient redress on account of the prolonged non-enforcement of the final domestic decisions awarding compensation. There is accordingly a violation of Article 13 of the Convention (see Manushaqe Puto and Others, cited above, §§ 72-84 and the references cited therein).

III.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS

44.  The applicants in applications nos. 24468/10, 39492/10, 39495/10, and 48522/10 complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of proceedings as a result of the non-enforcement of the Commission decisions.

45.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds and therefore declares it admissible.

46.  The Court considers that, in view of the findings in paragraphs 42-43 above, the issue of the length of proceedings must be regarded as having been absorbed by the issue of non-enforcement (see, for example, Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 34, ECHR 2002-II, and Popova v. Russia, no. 23697/02, § 44, 21 December 2006). The Court therefore finds that it is not necessary to examine separately this complaint.

IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

47.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A.  Damage

1.  The parties’ submissions

(a)  The applicants

(i)  General observations

48.  The applicants made the same submissions as those summarised in this Court’s judgment in the case of Sharra and Others, cited above, §§ 57-58.

(ii)  Specific claims in respect of each application

49.  The applicants made claims in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as tabulated in Appendix No. 2.

50.  As regards application no. 5207/10, the applicant submitted his claims for just satisfaction after the expiry of the time-limit fixed for that purpose (see also paragraph 9 above).

51.  As regards application no. 24468/10, the applicants requested that the Court apply the reference price of 30,376 Albanian leks (ALL)/sq. m as indicated in the property valuation maps 2013, instead of the reference price of 27,104 ALL/sq. m as indicated in the property valuation maps 2008. They submitted that they owned three fourths of the plot measuring 10,600 sq. m.

52.  As regards application no. 40751/10, the applicants claimed that the reference price as indicated in the valuation maps 2008 should be applied, that is 120,000 ALL/sq. m. They contended that they owned the entire property.

53.  As regards applications nos. 39492/10, 39495/10 and 48522/10, the applicants requested that the Court apply the reference price of 7,000 ALL/sq. m, 20,473 ALL/sq. m, 17,427 ALL/sq. m, respectively, as indicated in the property valuation maps 2008, instead of the reference price of 6,730 ALL/sq. m, 9,274 ALL/ sq. m, 12,193 ALL/ sq. m, respectively, as indicated in the property valuation maps 2013. As regards application no. 39495/10, the applicants contended that they owned seven eighths of the property. As regards applications nos. 39492/10 and 48522/10 they contended that they owned the entire property.

(b)  The Government

(i)  General observations

54.  The Government made the same submissions as those summarised in this Court’s judgment in the case of Sharra and Others, cited above, §§ 69-71.

(ii)  Specific comments in respect of each application

55.  As regards applications nos. 5207/10 and 40751/10, the Government failed to submit any comments on the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction within the time limit fixed for that purpose (see also paragraph 8 above).

56.  As regards application no. 24468/10, having regard to the fact that at the time of confiscation the plot of land had been agricultural, the Government proposed that the reference price for agricultural land on the basis of the valuation maps of 2014 should be applied, that is 230 ALL/sq. m. The Government confirmed that the applicants were entitled to three-fourths of the entire property.

57.  As regards application no. 39492/10 the Government submitted that the applicants should be compensated on the basis of the valuation maps of 2014, according to which the reference price was 4,865 ALL/sq. m. They confirmed that the applicants were entitled to the entire property.

58.  As regards application no. 39495/10, the Government submitted that, since at the time of confiscation the plot of land had been agricultural, the reference price for agricultural land should be applied. The applicants’ plot of land measuring 201,244 sq. m was located in two different cadastral areas: 88,429 sq. m were situated in the cadastral area no. 8320 which consisted of construction land, whose reference price was 10,556 ALL/sq. m. That cadastral area did not indicate any reference price in respect of agricultural land. However, they proposed that the reference price for agricultural land in respect of another closer cadastral area should be applied, that is 230 ALL/sq. m. The remaining 112,815 sq. m were situated in the cadastral area no. 3992, whose reference price in respect of agricultural land was 230 ALL/sq. m. The Government agreed that the applicants were entitled to seven eighths of the property.

59.  As regards application no. 48522/10 the Government submitted that the Agency could not locate the applicants’ plot of land in the valuation maps 2014. They also were unable to define the category of the land. The Government requested to submit further comments on the applicants’ just satisfaction claims after having been provided with complete information by the authorities. In the alternative, having regard to the fact that at the time of confiscation the plot of land had been pasture, they proposed that the reference price for pasture land indicated in the valuation maps 2014 should be applied, that is 55 ALL/sq. m.

2.  The Court’s assessment

60.  The Court examined the same submissions made by the parties in its judgment in the case of Sharra and Others, cited above, §§ 78-87. It concluded that the pecuniary damage should be determined on the basis of the property valuation maps 2008 (see Sharra and Others, cited above, § 90; Manushaqe Puto and Others, cited above, § 125; and Vrioni and Others v. Albania (just satisfaction), nos. 35720/04 and 42832/06, §§ 33-39, 7 December 2010). The Court sees no reason to depart from those findings.

61.  As regards applications nos. 24468/10 and 39495/10, the Court notes that the authorities had recognised the applicants’ right to compensation in respect of construction land and not of agricultural land or pasture as contested by the Government.

62.  As regards application no. 48522/10 the Court notes that the Saranda Commission decision noted the fact that the applicants’ land was construction land situated within the city boundaries. Therefore, the applicants’ property should be considered construction land. As to the form of compensation, the Court notes that the Commission recognised compensation in State bonds on the basis of the Agricultural Land Act, without specifying any financial amount. However, the Court notes that the Property Act 2004, which repealed the Agricultural Land Act, does not envisage for compensation by way of State bonds. Moreover, the financial compensation is the sole form of compensation currently awarded (see Manushaqe Puto and Others, cited above, §§ 77 and 80). Having regard to the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicants should be awarded financial compensation in respect of the plot measuring 59,184 sq. m.

63.  As regards application no. 5207/10, the applicant’s representative did not submit his claims within the time-limit allowed (see also paragraph 9 above). Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award the applicant any sum on that account (see, most recently, Apostu v. Romania, no. 22765/12, § 136, 3 February 2015). However, the Court considers that, insofar as the Commission decision remains in force, the respondent State’s outstanding obligation to enforce it cannot be disputed. Accordingly, the applicant is still entitled to enforcement of that decision. The Court reiterates that the most appropriate form of redress in respect of a violation of Article 6 is to ensure that the applicant as far as possible is put in the position he would have been in had the requirements of Article 6 not been disregarded (see, amongst others, S.C. Prodcomexim SRL v. Romania (no. 2), no. 31760/06, § 52, 6 July 2010). Having regard to the violation found, the Court finds that in the present case this principle applies as well. It therefore considers that the Government must secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the Supreme Court’s decision of 27 September 2001.

64.  As regards applications nos. 40751/10 and 48522/10, having regard to the findings in paragraphs 35-38 above, the Court considers that the applicants should be awarded compensation in respect of seven eighths of the plots of land measuring 1,530 sq. m and 59,184 sq. m.

65.  Having regard to the material in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to make the awards in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as tabulated in Appendix No. 3.

B.  Costs and expenses

66.  The applicants made claims in respect of costs and expenses as tabulated in Appendix No. 2.

67.  As regards applications nos. 24468/10, 39492/10, 39495/10 and 48522/10, citing Gjyli v. Albania (no. 32907/07, § 72, 29 September 2009), according to which costs and expenses have to be actually and necessarily incurred and reasonable, the Government left the matter to the Court’s discretion to determine the amount to be awarded under this head.

68.  According to the Court’s case-law, “an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum” (see Gjyli v. Albania, cited above, § 72). To this end, Rule 60 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court provides that applicants must enclose with their claims for just satisfaction “any relevant supporting documents”, failing which the Court “may reject the claims in whole or in part”.

69.  As regards application no. 5207/10 the Court will not make an award in respect of costs and expenses, the claims having been submitted out of time (see, most recently, Apostu, cited above, § 136).

70.  As regards application no. 40751/10, the Court will not make an award in respect of costs and expenses, the applicant having failed to make any specific claim.

71.  Having regard to its findings in paragraphs 42-43, the repetitive nature of the complaints raised in the above applications, the similar submissions made to the Court, the representation of the applicants by the same lawyer and the Court’s view that the majority of the costs and expenses claimed were not reasonable as to quantum, the Court considers it reasonable to make awards in respect of costs and expenses as tabulated in Appendix No. 3.

C.  Default interest

72.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.  Decides to join all applications;

 

2.  Declares the application no. 36228/10 inadmissible;

 

3.  Declares the complaints concerning Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as regards the non-enforcement of final domestic decisions and the length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

 

4.  Holds that Mrs Shpresa Merlika, Mr Edmir Merlika and Mr Vasil Dhimertika cannot deem to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention for the purposes of Article 34 of a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention as well as of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;

 

5.  Holds that there has been a breach of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention as well as of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of final domestic decisions;

 

6.  Holds that it is not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the length of the proceedings;

 

7.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State must secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the Supreme Court’s decision of 27 September 2001 given in the applicant’s favour in application no. 5207/10, within three months;

(b)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, in applications nos. 24468/10, 39492/10, 39495/10, 40751/10 and 48522/10 within three months, the amounts referred to in paragraphs 65 and 71 of the judgment and tabulated in Appendix 3, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(c)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

 

8.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 March 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

André Wampach                                                                 Kristina Pardalos
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President




 

APPENDIX 1 - LIST OF APPLICANTS

 

No.	Case name and no.	Name of applicants (year of birth)	Country of residence	Represented by	Introduction date
1.	Rista, no. 5207/10	Kozma Rista (1936)	Albania	J. Mërtiri, lawyer	12 January 2010
2.	Gjikolli and Molla, no. 24468/10	Kurtesh Gjikolli (1925) as substituted by his heirs Pakize Zajmi née Gjikolli, Rajmonda Karapici née Gjikolli, Adnan Gjikolli. Nuri Gjikolli (Xhikaj) (1930) as substituted by his heirs Ganimete Xhikaj, Perparim Xhikaj, Dhurata Xhikaj, Adrian Xhikaj, Pamela Xhikaj, Velson Xhikaj. Hysnije Xhikolli (1932) as substituted by her heirs Muharrem Xhikolli (1954), Burhan Xhikolli (1957), Edmila Molla née Xhikolli (1959) Muharrem Xhikolli (1954) Burhan Xhikolli (1957) Edmila Molla née Xhikolli (1959)	Albania         Albania           Albania           Albania Albania Italy	S. Puto, lawyer	16 April 2010
3.	Hasa, no. 36228/10	Sherafedin Hasa (1944) as substituted by his son Erol Hasa (1978)	Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia	K. J. Jovanova, lawyer	18 June 2010
4.	Galanxhi,and Others no. 39492/10	Nexhip Galanxhi (1932) Ylli Galanxhi (1949) Rozalt Galanxhi (1971) Fredi Lara (1957) Florentina Galanxhi (1947) Esmeralda Trolai (1981) Lirika Asllani Lara (1946) Haxhire Zhegu Galanxhi (1938) Rexhina Lara (1981) Ariana Lara (1958) Livia Lara (1990)	Albania Albania Albania Albania Albania Albania Albania Albania   Albania Albania Albania	S. Puto and A. Prifti née Memi, lawyers	9 July 2010
5.	Frashëri and Others, no. 39495/10	Orhan Jegeni (1936) Kapllan Jegeni (1937) Nermin Bubani (1939) as substituted by her heirs Loredan Bubani (1939), Elvana Bubani née Zaimi (1961), Gjergj Bubani (1966) Suat Jegeni (1942) Naide Shkodra née Frashëri (1929) Fiqirete Frashëri (1930) Hajri Frashëri (1951) Hysref Frashëri (1956) Ilona Ziso (1962)	Albania Albania Albania         Albania Albania   Albania Albania Albania Albania	S. Puto, lawyer	9 July 2010
6.	Merlika and Others, no. 40751/10	Edrmir Merlika (1974) Gëzim Kaçiu (1956) Sajrie Kuta née Merlika (1934) Lumnije Karami née Merlika (1937) Luljeta Ndreu née Kaçiu (1960) Liljana Kaçiu (1963) Shyqyri Merlika (1935) Kujtim Merlika (1941) Ilir Alija (Merlika) (1935) Ardjan Aliaj (1960) Hysen Kasmi (1946) Afrim Kaçiu (1958) Shpresa Merlika (1945)	Albania Albania Albania   Albania   Albania   Albania Albania Albania Albania Albania Albania Albania Albania	S. Dodbiba, lawyer	10 June 2010
7.	Dhimertika and Nika, no. 48522/10	Arjan Dhimertika (1961) Konde Dhimertika (1941) Engjell Dhimertika (1963) Jeta Dhimertika (1973) Evjeni Dhimertika (1938) Vasil Dhimertika (1958) Leonora Nika née Dhimertika (1962) Gëzim Dhimertika (1972)	Albania Greece Greece Greece Albania Albania Albania   Germany	S. Puto, lawyer	30 July 2010

 




 

APPENDIX 2 - APPLICANTS’ CLAIMS FOR JUST SATISFACTION AS WELL AS FOR COSTS AND EXPENSES

 

No.	Application name and no.	Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses
1.	Rista, no. 5207/10	EUR 79,050 as regards the property value of the plot of land measuring 930 sq. m on the basis of the valuation maps 2008 (submitted out of time)	EUR 3,000 (submitted out of time)	EUR 1,000 (submitted out of time)
2.	Gjikolli and Molla, no. 24468/10	EUR 1,724,922 as regards the property value of the plot of land measuring 10,600 sq. m, in respect of the applicants’ share, on the basis of the valuation maps 2013	EUR 180,000	EUR 1,000 (receipts submitted)
3.	Galanxhi and Others, no. 39492/10	EUR 180,350 as regards the property value of the plot of land measuring 3,607 sq. m on the basis of the valuation maps 2008	EUR 180,000	EUR 1,000 (receipts submitted)
4.	Frashëri and Others, no. 39495/10	EUR 25,750,354 as regards the property value of the plot of land measuring 201,244 sq. m, in respect of the applicants’ share, on the basis of the valuation maps 2008	EUR 135,000	EUR 1,000 (receipts submitted)
5.	Merlika and Others, no. 40751/10	EUR 1,370,000 as regards the property value of the plot of land measuring 1,530 sq. m on the basis of the valuation maps 2008	EUR 50,000	None (no specific claim submitted)
6.	Dhimertika and Nika, no. 48522/10	EUR 7,367,140 as regards the property value of the plot of land measuring 59,184 sq. m on the basis of the valuation maps 2008	EUR 120,000	EUR 1,000 (receipts submitted)

 




 

APPENDIX 3 - THE COURT’S AWARD

 

No.	Application name and no.	Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses
1.	Rista, no. 5207/10	None (claims submitted out of time)	None (claims submitted out of time)
2.	Gjikolli and Molla, no. 24468/10	EUR 1,562,100 (one million five hundred and sixty two thousand one hundred)	EUR 850 (eight hundred and fifty)
3.	Galanxhi and Others, no. 39492/10	EUR 216,600 (two hundred and sixteen thousand six hundred)	EUR 850 (eight hundred and fifty)
4.	Frashëri and Others, no. 39495/10	EUR 3,330,500 (three million three hundred and thirty thousand five hundred)	EUR 850 (eight hundred and fifty)
5.	Merlika and Others, no. 40751/10	EUR 1,171,800 (one million one hundred and seventy one thousand eight hundred) jointly to the eleven applicants	None (no specific claim submitted)
6.	Dhimertika and Nika, no. 48522/10	EUR 4,416,900 (four million four hundred and sixteen thousand nine hundred) jointly to the seven applicants	EUR 850 (eight hundred and fifty)