CASE OF IBRAHIMI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF IBRAHIMI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

(Applications nos. 81057/17 and 4 others – see appended list)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

14 January 2025

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

In the case of Ibrahimi v. Albania,

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

 Lətif Hüseynov, President,
 Darian Pavli,
 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications 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 the applicants listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;

the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the applicants’ right of access to the Constitutional Court, as well as the applicant’s right to participate in person in the criminal proceedings against him, and defend himself though legal assistance of his own choosing at a hearing held before the Supreme Court in the application no. 81057/17, and the applicant company’s right to participate in the proceedings before the Tirana District Court in the application no. 7386/22 to the Albanian Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr O. Moçka, State Advocate General, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;

the parties’ observations;

the comments submitted by Res Publica who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section, and the applicant’s observations in reply to the third-party submissions;

Having deliberated in private on 3 December 2024,

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

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The cases at issue concern various proceedings before domestic courts in which the applicants lodged their constitutional complaints against decisions of the Supreme Court adopted in their respective cases. In all cases the Constitutional Court declared the applicants’ constitutional complaints inadmissible as lodged out of the four-month time-limit, counting from the date the contested Supreme Court’s decisions had been adopted, and not from the date the applicants had effectively learned of them.

2.  In applications nos. 57542/18, 32939/21, 54121/21 and 7386/22, the Constitutional Court held that any time a party sought that a decision be served to it, a court that had issued the decision in question would put a stamp on it, and that such a stamp could not serve as decisive proof of the date the contested decision had first been served on a party. The Constitutional Court considered that it was on the party to prove that it had not been served with the contested decision on an earlier date.

3.  The case concerns the criminal proceedings against the applicant in which he was convicted to fifteen years’ imprisonment for murder. In these proceedings the Supreme Court adopted its decision on 25 June 2015. On 12 May 2017 a letter of the Supreme Court, notifying the applicant of its decision, was served on the applicant by the prison authorities.

4.  The applicant’s constitutional complaint lodged on 5 June 2017, in which he complained about the violation of his right to be informed of a hearing before the Supreme Court and his right to legal assistance, was declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court on 16 June 2017, as being lodged out of time, counting from the date the Supreme Court’s decision had been adopted.

5.  The case concerns a property dispute in which the applicants were parties. In these proceedings the Supreme Court adopted its decision on 25 June 2015. It was served on the applicants on 18 October 2017. The applicants lodged a constitutional complaint on 13 February 2018. On 30 May 2018 the Constitutional Court declared it inadmissible as lodged out of the four-month time-limit, counted from the date the contested Supreme Court’s decision had been adopted.

6.  The case concerns the proceedings before domestic courts in which the applicant challenged her dismissal from work as an inspector in the Forestry Directorate of Shkodër. In these proceedings the Supreme Court adopted its decision on 27 May 2020. It was served on the applicant on 14 January 2021. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint on 18 January 2021. On 26 February 2021 the Constitutional Court declared it inadmissible as lodged out of the four-month time-limit, counted from the date the contested Supreme Court’s decision had been adopted.

7.  The case concerns the proceedings before domestic courts in which the applicant challenged his dismissal from work. In these proceedings the Supreme Court adopted its decision on 27 July 2020. It was served on the applicant on 1 April 2021. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint on 9 June 2021. On 26 July 2021 the Constitutional Court declared it inadmissible as lodged out of the four-month time-limit, counted from the date the contested Supreme Court’s decision had been adopted.

8.  The case concerns civil proceedings related to the applicant company’s contractual obligations. In these proceedings the Supreme Court adopted its decision on 17 February 2021. It was served on the applicant company on 4 June 2021. The applicant company lodged a constitutional complaint on 29 September 2021. On 29 October the Constitutional Court declared it inadmissible as lodged out of the four-month time-limit, counted from the date the contested Supreme Court’s decision had been adopted.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

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

10.  The Court notes that the applicants’ complaints concerning their right of access to the Constitutional Court are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

11.  The general principles concerning the right of access to a court and, in particular, on access to superior courts have been summarised in Zubac v. Croatia ([GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-99, 5 April 2018).

12.  The Court has previously found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention where the time-limit for lodging a constitutional complaint had been counted from the date when the contested decision of the Supreme Court had been adopted and not from the date when it had been served on the applicant (see Supergrav Albania Shpk v. Albania, no. 20702/18, §§ 17-31, 9 May 2023).

13.  The Court also notes that the Constitutional Court held that every time a party sought to be served with the Supreme Court’s decision, a stamp was put on that decision with the date of service. In view of the Constitutional Court, that did not prove that the decision had not been served on a party earlier. However, the Constitutional Court did not clarify in what way a party could provide positive proof of the date of first notification (compare Aždajić v. Slovenia, no. 71872/12, § 69, 8 October 2015) or why a party alone should bear the burden of proof in this respect. The Court considers that it is primarily on the Supreme Court to ensure that there is evidence in its case file of the date of service of its decision to the parties (see, mutatis mutandis, Zela v. Albania, no. 33164/11, § 38, 11 June 2024).

14.  Given the above circumstances, the Court concluded that there has accordingly also been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ right of access to the Constitutional Court.

15.  In application no. 81057/17 the applicant also complained that his right to participate in person in the criminal proceedings against him, and defend himself though legal assistance of his own choosing at a hearing held before the Supreme Court were violated, contrary to the guarantees under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention.

16.  In application no. 7386/22 the applicant company complained that its right to participate in the proceedings before the Tirana District Court was violated, and that the composition of that court was not in accordance with the law, both contrary to the guarantees under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

17.  The Court has found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in so far as the manner in which the Constitutional Court had interpreted the time‑limit for lodging a constitutional complaint deprived the applicants of access to that court. Therefore, the Constitutional Court did not examine the merits of the applicants’ constitutional complaints.

18.  Having regard to its finding concerning the applicants’ right of access to the Constitutional Court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see  paragraph 14 above), the Court notes that the applicants now have an opportunity to seek the reopening of proceedings before that court. The latter would allow for an examination of the applicants’ remaining complaints under the Convention (see for example, in respect of the Constitutional Court’s possibility to address complaints concerning fair trial, Muçaj v. Albania [Committee], no. 37814/10, § 26, 11 July 2023, with further references). The Court cannot speculate on what the outcome of such proceedings would be. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicants’ remaining complaints are premature and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Baljak and Others v. Croatia, no. 41295/19, §§ 45-46, 25 November 2021).

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

19.  The applicants in applications nos. 81057/17, 57542/18 and 54121/21 requested compensation in varying amounts in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. The applicant company in application no. 7386/22 requested 538,000 Albanian Leks in respect of costs and expenses for its representation before the Court.

20.  The Government objected to these amounts.

21.  The Court awards each applicant in applications nos. 81057/17 and 54121/21, and to the applicants jointly in application no. 57542/18 3,600 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

22.  The Court, having regard to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, considers it reasonable to award the applicant company in application no. 7386/22 EUR 2,000 in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant company.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i)  EUR 3,600 (three thousand six hundred euros) to each applicant in application nos. 81057/17 and 54121/21, and jointly to the applicants in application no. 57542/18, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii)  EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to the applicant company in the application no. 7386/22, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant companies, in respect of costs and expenses;

(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 14 January 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Olga Chernishova Lətif Hüseynov
 Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of cases: