European Court of Human Rights

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ZEQO AND SEAT SH.P.K. v. ALBANIA

(Applications nos. 61445/12 and 53157/15)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

22 June 2023

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Zeqo and Seat Sh.P.K. v. Albania,

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

     Ioannis Ktistakis, President,
     Darian Pavli,
     Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 1 June 2023,

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

PROCEDURE AND FACTS

1.  The case originated in two applications against Albania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

3.  The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the complaints regarding excessive length of civil proceedings under Article 6 of the Convention. An additional complaint about the lack of remedies to address the length of the proceedings was communicated in case no. 53157/15 under Article 13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

I.         JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

4.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

5.  The applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

6.  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Gazsó v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, § 15, 16 July 2015; and Topallaj v. Albania, no. 32913/03, § 75, 21 April 2016).

7.  In the leading cases of Luli and Others v. Albania, nos. 64480/09 and 5 others, 1 April 2014, and Mishgjoni v. Albania, no. 18381/05, 7 December 2010, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present cases.

8.  In application no.61445/12 the applicant only complained about the length of the proceedings before the Supreme Court. The proceedings started on 9 October 2009 and ended on 6 April 2012, when the Supreme Court rejected de plano the applicant’s appeal. Therefore, they lasted for almost two and a half years before one level of jurisdiction.

9.  As it transpires from the casefile, the applicant instituted proceedings against private parties regarding contractual obligations. Following the decisions of the first instance and appeal courts, the Supreme Court was called to decide whether it was for these two courts to assess proprio motu the lawfulness of the contract.

10.  The appeal to the Supreme Court did not contain any particularly complex legal issues and no procedural steps were ever taken by the Supreme Court during the period under examination. The Government did not provide any explanation for such a length of the proceedings before the Supreme Court. There is also no indication that the length of the proceedings was due to the complexity of the case or the applicant’s conduct. Therefore, the time it took the Supreme Court to issue a de plano refusal was excessive.

11.  In application no. 53157/15 the applicant complained about the proceedings which started on 17 November 2005 and ended on 10 April 2015, having thus lasted for almost nine years and five months. Having received the applicant’s claim about certain contractual obligations, it took the Tirana District Court, the first-instance court, more than three years to issue the judgment on 10 December 2008 by which it decided to dismiss the applicant’s claim. Following the decision of the appeal court to quash the judgment and initiate a new round of the examination, the proceedings ended with the final judgment of 10 April 2015, which was only served on the applicant on 24 April 2015. There is no evidence that the applicant contributed to the length of the proceedings in any way. The proceedings were not complex and there were significant periods of inactivity on the part of the domestic courts.

12.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level in respect of both applications. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in both applications the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

13.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

III.   OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

14.  The applicant in application no. 53157/15 also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of domestic remedies in respect of its complaint about the length of proceedings. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present application. It thus finds that there is no need to give a separate ruling on this complaint (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and Habilaj v. Albania [Committee], no. 2480/10, § 14, 15 September 2022).

IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15.  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.”

16.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Luli and Others, and Mishgjoni, both cited above) the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;

2.      Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings under Article 6 of the Convention, admissible, and decides that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention raised in application no. 53157/15;

3.      Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;

4.      Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 June 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

      Viktoriya Maradudina                                            Ioannis Ktistakis

    Acting Deputy Registrar                                                President

 

                       

 

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(excessive length of civil proceedings)

No.	Application no. Date of introduction	Applicant’s name Year of birth/registration	Representative’s name and location	Start of proceedings or date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of Albania (2 October 1996)	End of proceedings	Total length Levels of jurisdiction	Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damages per applicant (in euros)[1]	Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros)[2]
	61445/12 18/09/2012	Enver ZEQO 1963		09/10/2009	06/04/2012	2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 29 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction	900	-
	53157/15 20/10/2015	SEAT SH.P.K. 2003	Lamaj Agron Tirana	17/11/2005	10/04/2015 (decision received on 24/04/2015)	9 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 25 day(s) 4 level(s) of jurisdiction	800	250