19 December 2008

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 18439/05
by Astrit BEJKO
against Albania
lodged on 2 May 2005

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Astrit Bejko, is an Albanian national who was born in 1950 and has been living in Chiaravalle, Italy, since 2002. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Puto, a lawyer practising in Tirana.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

In 1988 the applicant sought to obtain housing from the State. In 1990 his wife was issued with an occupancy authorisation (autorizim) by the Neighbourhood People’s Council (Këshilli Popullor i Lagjes) to a flat in a State-owned building. On 22 May 1990 a secure-tenancy agreement was concluded between the applicant’s wife and the State-owned housing maintenance authority (Ndërmarrja Komunale Banesa) (see “Relevant domestic law” below).

On 11 August 1990 the applicant entered into an agreement with the local authority to vacate the flat and exchange it with another flat, whose construction had not been completed. He concluded a provisional secure-tenancy agreement in respect of the new flat on 17 February 1992.

In 1992 the Privatisation of State-Owned Housing Act entered into force. A National Housing Agency (“the Agency”) was also established (see “Relevant domestic law” below).

On 24 February 1994 the municipality of Tirana (“the Municipality”), decided to issue the applicant with an occupancy authorisation to another flat. He was unable to conclude a secure-tenancy agreement with the housing maintenance authority in the light of a letter of 18 April 1994 notifying him of a decision by the Municipality to halt further action.

On 10 May 1994 the Municipality revoked its decision of 24 February 1994.

On 10 October 1996 the Tirana Municipal Council (“the Council”) decided that the applicant should be provided with a new occupancy authorisation for another flat and this was issued on 15 October 1996. It indicated the exact address of the applicant’s new two-bedroom flat, which was different from the address of the flat indicated in the Municipality’s decision of 24 February 1994.

The building in which the applicant’s new flat was located had been constructed with the aid of contributions from a State-owned company. In accordance with the statutory requirements, the State-owned company had submitted a list of its homeless employees to the local authorities in order to be entitled to housing (see “Relevant domestic law” below). Consequently, a third party, R.S., had been issued with an occupancy authorisation for a one-bedroom flat which it was subsequently discovered coincided with the applicant’s flat (see below) and, another party, F.D., had been issued with authorisation for a three-bedroom flat, adjacent to the applicant’s [and R.S.’s].

On 6 August 1996 F.D. concluded a provisional contract with the Agency for the purchase of his flat, while the final contract was entered into on 11 March 1997. On 30 January 1997 R.S. concluded a provisional contract with the Agency for the purchase of his flat; the final contract was entered into on 24 February 1997.

Confronted with pressing housing needs, the applicant occupied the flat on an unspecified date in 1996 before its completion. A third party, R.B., occupied the neighbouring flat on the strength of an occupancy authorisation for a two-bedroom flat. The applicant found that the construction company, on instructions from the Agency, had amended the layout of the building so that the flat occupied by the applicant had only one bedroom [corresponding to R.S.’s occupancy authorisation]. The neighbouring flat, allocated to R.B., had been modified to a three-bedroom flat instead of the original two-bedroom flat [this corresponded to F.D.’s occupancy authorisation]. The applicant and R.B. then converted the flats into two-bedroom flats, with the approval of the Municipality. However, despite the applicant’s attempt to conclude a sale contract with the Agency, none was ever signed [as the Agency had concluded a sale contract with R.S.].

By a letter of 6 February 1997 the Agency requested the Municipality and the Council to terminate the applicant’s occupancy of the flat since the flat had already been assigned to R.S and F.D. On 15 May 1997 the Council decided to amend the applicant’s occupancy authorisation of 10 October 1996 and to grant him a new authorisation in respect of a flat whose construction had not begun.

On an unspecified date the applicant initiated legal proceedings contesting the Council’s decision of 15 May 1997. These proceedings, which continued until 27 January 2003 at various levels of jurisdiction, ended with the dismissal of the applicant’s claims.

On an unspecified date in May 2001 the applicant began a hunger strike to protest against the injustices he believed he had suffered (he submitted newspaper cuttings as evidence of this). Consequently, on 20 July 2001 the Council decided to amend his occupancy authorisation of 15 May 1997 by changing the address back to the one indicated in its decision of 10 October 1996.

In October 2001 the applicant was forcibly evicted from his flat by the police.

1. Proceedings by F.D. against the applicant

On 20 January 1998 F.D. initiated legal proceedings against the applicant. He requested that the applicant restore to him the room he had occupied as a