Communicated on 27 March 2015
FOURTH SECTION
Application no 5753/15
Dritan AVDYLI against Albania
lodged on 23 January 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dritan Avdyli, is an Albanian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Tirana. He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Metaj, 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.
On 14 May 2000 the applicant’s spouse was found dead. He was initially detained on suspicion of having committed a murder and subsequently released for lack of evidence. He submits that no formal charges were brought against him.
On 6 March 2003 the applicant’s father-in-law, E., instituted legal proceedings requesting that the applicant be declared ineligible to inherit his deceased spouse’s possessions. The father-in-law relied on Article 322 of the Albanian Civil Code which provides, inter alia, that the person who humiliated and ill-treated the deceased is unworthy of inheriting the deceased’s possessions.
On 29 March 2004 the Tirana District Court (“the District Court”) rejected E.’s action finding that he did not have a legitimate interest in instituting the proceedings, given that her two children were the next heir-at-law eligible to inherit the deceased’s heirs.
On 8 February 2005 the Tirana Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the decision and sent the case back the District Court. It held that E. had standing to institute the proceedings, because he was considered to be a potential heir. A copy of the decision has not been submitted.
On 3 March 2006, following the applicant’s appeal, the Supreme Court rejected it.
On 4 October 2006 the Tirana District Court, having examined the evidence before it, accepted the civil action and declared the applicant unworthy of inheriting his deceased spouse’s possessions. The applicant appealed.
On 7 April 2008 the Court of Appeal, re-examining the same evidence, made a different interpretation, quashed the decision and rejected E.’s action.
On 5 February 2013, following E.’s appeal, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had erroneously assessed and interpreted the evidence before it. It quashed that decision and upheld the District Court’s decision of 4 October 2006.
On 28 March 2014 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
On 3 November 2014 the Constitutional Court, in a formation of eight out of the nine judges provided for by the relevant law on its functioning and organisation, dismissed the applicant’s appeal since its vote was tied. The court’s reasoning was limited to the fact that the court could not reach a majority on any of the issues raised in the present case. The applicant was invited by virtue of section 74 of the Constitutional Court Act to lodge a fresh appeal.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
Relevant domestic law and practice have been described in detail in the case of Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, §§ 68-72, 18 December 2007. Other relevant provisions, in so far as this application is concerned, are as follows.
1. Constitutional Court’s practice
In decision no. 19/14 of 2 April 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected the appellant’s complaint about the lack of impartiality of the domestic courts on account of tied votes.
2. Civil Code
Under Article 322 a person is unworthy of inheriting the deceased’s property if s/he humiliated or ill-treated the deceased.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about (i) a breach of his right of access to court on account of the Constitutional Court’s tied vote and its inability finally to determine his appeal and (ii) the excessive length of proceedings. Under Article 13 he complains that there was no effective remedy as regards his length-of-proceeding complaint.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right of access to court on account of the Constitutional Court’s tied vote (Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, 18 December 2007 and Avdić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 28357/11, 31549/11 and 39295/11, 19 November 2013)?
(b) Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his length-of-proceedings complaint under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy