CASE OF LEPURI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF LEPURI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

(Applications nos. 17829/23 and 7 others –

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

31 March 2026

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

In the case of Lepuri and Others v. Albania,

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

 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,
 Darian Pavli,
 Mateja Đurović, 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 applications to the Albanian Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr O. Moçka, State Advocate General;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 10 March 2026,

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. 17829/23, 19482/23, 19983/23, 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.  In applications nos. 19983/23, 26353/23, 38576/23, 4427/24, 6470/24, and 26336/24, the Constitutional Court also stated that the applicants’ lawyers had not provided their e-mail addresses to the Supreme Court for the purpose of serving that court’s judgments on them.

4.  On 23 March 2021 Law no. 44/2021, amending the Code of Civil Procedure, was introduced which provided for service of the Supreme Court’s judgments via electronic mail. That law entered into force on 29 May 2021.

        Lepuri, no. 17829/23

5.  The case concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant in which he was convicted to twenty years’ imprisonment for attempted murder and illegal possession of weapons. In these proceedings the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court on 18 May 2016, and the latter dismissed it in camera on 21 April 2022. The Supreme Court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 27 September 2022, after his lawyer enquired about it at the Registry of the Supreme Court. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint on 11 November 2022, and additional submissions on 2 December 2022. On 3 February 2023 the Constitutional Court declared it inadmissible as lodged out of the four-month time-limit, counted from the date the contested Supreme Court’s judgment had been adopted.

      BRAHO, No. 19482/23

6.  The case concerns an employment dispute in which the first and second instance courts ruled in the applicant’s favour. On 4 January 2017 the opposing party lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court, which on 17 March 2022 in camera reversed the lower courts’ judgments. The Supreme Court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 14 October 2022, after his lawyer enquired about it at the Registry of the Supreme Court. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint on 7 November 2022. On 19 December 2022 the Constitutional Court declared it inadmissible as lodged out of the four-month time-limit, counted from the date the contested Supreme Court’s judgment had been adopted.

    KULE, No. 19983/23

7.  The case concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant in which he was convicted to twenty-five years’ imprisonment for murder and illegal possession of weapons. In these proceedings the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court on 25 April 2016, and the latter dismissed it in camera on 22 April 2022. The Supreme Court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 31 August 2022, after his lawyer enquired about it at the Registry of the Supreme Court. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint on 21 November 2022. On 17 January 2023 the Constitutional Court declared it inadmissible as lodged out of the four-month time-limit, counted from the date the contested Supreme Court’s judgment had been adopted.

   MALLTEZI, No. 26353/23

8.  The case concerns a civil dispute between private parties in which the applicant sought compensation for alleged defamation. In these proceedings the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court on 19 December 2014. The applicant’s lawyer provided his e-mail address to the Supreme Court. On 8 June 2022 it dismissed the applicant’s appeal, sitting in camera, and on the same date published on its website the operative part of the judgment. The reasoned judgment was deposited (and made available to the parties) with the Supreme Court’s Registry on 12 July 2022. It was served on the applicant on 14 September 2022, after his lawyer enquired about it at the Registry of the Supreme Court.

9.  On 19 December the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint, and on 22 February 2023 the Constitutional Court declared it inadmissible as being lodged outside the four-month time-limit, counted from 12 July 2022.

     GURALUMI, No. 38576/23

10.  The case concerns a property dispute. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court on 16 November 2015. On 8 September 2022 the Supreme Court, sitting in camera, adopted its judgment. On 25 January 2023 the applicant sent a letter to the Supreme Court asking about progress of her case. The Supreme court replied with a letter on 31 January 2023 and attached its judgment to the letter. The applicant claimed that she had received that letter on 2 February 2023.

11.  On 24 April 2023 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint and on 8 June 2023 the Constitutional Court declared it inadmissible as being lodged outside the four-month time-limit, counted from the date the Supreme Court’s judgment had been adopted.

   ÇELA, No. 4427/24

12.  The case involved criminal proceedings against the applicant in which she was convicted to three years and four months’ imprisonment for fraud and abuse of her position. In these proceedings the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court on 22 July 2016. The applicant’s lawyer provided his e-mail address to the Supreme Court. It adopted its judgment on 24 February 2022, sitting in camera, and published a reasoned judgment on its website on 16 April 2022. It was served on the applicant on 6 September 2023, after she had enquired about her case at the Registry of the Supreme Court.

13.  The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint on 21 September 2023, and it was declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court on 23 November 2023 as being lodged outside the four-month time‑limit, counted from 16 April 2022.

BALLA, No. 6470/24

14.  The case concerns a property dispute. On 28 April 2014 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court. On 14 September 2022 the applicant’s lawyer provided his e-mail address to the Supreme Court and asked that the Supreme Court’s judgment be sent to him at that address. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 26 September 2022, in camera. It did not send it to the applicant’s lawyer’s e-mail address, but served it on the applicant on 2 June 2023, following his enquiry at the Registry of the Supreme Court.

15.  On 31 July 2023 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint which was declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court on 13 October 2023 as being lodged outside the four-month time-limit, counted from the date the contested Supreme Court’s judgment had been adopted.

KUQO, No. 26336/24

16.  The case concerns a civil dispute between the applicant and a financial institution. The appeal court ruled in the applicant’s favour. On 24 April 2014 the opposing party lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the appeal courts’ judgment on 11 April 2022, sitting in camera. On 1 July 2022 the applicant’s lawyer provided his e-mail address to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s judgment was published on that court’s website on 30 September 2022. After the applicant’s lawyer had enquired about the case, the Supreme Court sent him a letter with its judgment on 15 March 2024, and the applicant’s lawyer received it on 20 March 2024.

17.  On 20 March 2024 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint which was declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court on 9 May 2024 as being lodged out of the four-month time-limit, counted from 30 September 2022.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT        JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

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

      ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

19.  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.

20.  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).

21.  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).

22.  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 falls 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). Even when the Supreme Court’s judgments are published on its website, the time-limit for lodging a constitutional complaint is to be counted from the date when an applicant learned of the contested Supreme Court’s judgment (compare Supergrav Albania Shpk, cited above, § 29).

23.  The Government alleged that neither the applicants nor their lawyers submitted their e-mail addresses to the Supreme Court for the purpose of serving judgments of that court via e-mail. However, in all applications the appeals to the Supreme Court had been submitted before the end of May 2021, when service of the Supreme Court’s judgments via e-mail was introduced in domestic law.

24.  Further to this, in applications nos. 26353/23, 4427/24 and 26336/24, the applicants’ lawyers did provide their e-mail addresses to the Supreme Court.

In application no. 26353/23, the applicant claimed that the Supreme Court’s judgment had not been sent to his lawyer via e-mail, and the Government did not contest that.

In application no. 26336/24, the Supreme Court adopted its judgment on 11 April 2022. The applicant’s lawyer provided his e-mail address to the Supreme Court on 1 July 2022. The Supreme Court published its full reasoned judgment on its website on 30 September 2022, but did not send it to the applicant’s lawyer via e-mail.

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

    REMAINING COMPLAINTS

26.  In application no. 17829/23 the applicant also complained under Article 6 about the lack of fairness of the criminal proceedings against him.

27.  In application no. 19482/23 the applicant also complained under Article 6 about the lack of fairness of the proceedings before the Supreme Court.

28.  In application no. 19983/23 the applicant also complained under Article 6 about the lack of fairness of the criminal proceedings against him.

29.  In application no. 26353/23 the applicant complaint under Article 8 of the Convention that his right to respect for his private life had been violated.

30.  In application no. 38576/23 the applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that his right o peaceful enjoyment of her possessions had bene violated.

31.  In application no. 4427/24 the applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 4 about the lack of fairness of the criminal proceedings against her and prohibition of imprisonment for debt.

32.  In application no. 6470/24 the applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 about the lack of fairness of the civil proceedings and his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

33.  In application no. 26336/24 the applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No 1, no. 26336/24 about the lack of fairness of the civil proceedings and his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

34.  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.

35.  Having regard to its finding concerning the applicants’ right of access to the Constitutional Court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see paragraph 25 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

36.  The applicants in applications nos. 19482/23, 19983/23, 38576/23, 6470/24 and 26336/24 requested compensation in varying amounts in respect of pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage. The applicant in application no. 26353/23 claimed non-pecuniary damage, but left the amount to be awarded to the Court’s discretion. The applicants in applications nos. 19482/23, 26353/23, 38576/23, 6470/24 and 26336/24 also submitted requests for costs and expenses for their representation in the proceedings before domestic courts and the Court.

37.  The remaining applicants did not submit claims for damage or for costs and expenses.

38.  The Government objected to these amounts.

39.  The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects these claims. The Court awards each applicant in applications nos. 19482/23, 19983/23, 26353/23, 38576/23, and 6470/24 3,600 euros (EUR), and the applicant in application no. 26336/24 EUR 3,000 (as claimed) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

40.  The Court, having regard to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, rejects the claims for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings (compare Supergrav Albania Shpk, cited above, § 38). It considers it reasonable to award the applicants in applications nos. 19482/23, 26353/23 and 6470/24 EUR 2,000, and the applicant in application no. 26336/24 EUR 1,855, as claimed, in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

41.  The Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses in application no. 38576/23 since the applicant was not legally represented in the proceedings before the Court.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints concerning the applicants’ right of access to the Constitutional Court admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the applicants’ right of access to the Constitutional Court;Holds  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;  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;Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 31 March 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 

 Olga Chernishova Úna Ní Raifeartaigh
 Deputy Registrar President

 

APPENDIX

 

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Case name

Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality

 

Represented by

Just satisfaction amount (in euros)[1]

Costs and expenses amount (in euros)[2]

1.

17829/23

27/04/2023

Lepuri v. Albania

Mirash LEPURI
1973
Shkoder
Albanian

 

Klodjan RECI

-

-

2.

19482/23

05/05/2023

Braho v. Albania

Arian BRAHO
1970
Tirana
Albanian

 

Gentian NEBIAJ

3,600

2,000

3.

19983/23

12/05/2023

Kule v. Albania

Perikli KULE
1968
Korcë
Albanian

 

Gianluca PIEMONTE

3,600

-

4.

26353/23

28/06/2023

Malltezi v. Albania

Jamarber MALLTEZI
1972
Tirana
Albanian

 

Ledi BIANKU

3,600

2,000

5.

38576/23

18/10/2023

Guralumi v. Albania

Margarita GURALUMI
1939
Tirana
Albanian

 

-

3,600

-

6.

4427/24

02/02/2024

Çela v. Albania

Ornela ÇELA
1971
Tirana
Albanian

 

Ndue PJETRA

-

-

7.

6470/24

23/02/2024

Balla v. Albania

Shyqiri BALLA
1949
Bulqizë
Albanian

 

Ahmet JANGULLI

3,600

2,000

8.

26336/24

10/09/2024

Kuqo v. Albania

Taulant KUQO
1987
Princeton, USA
Albanian

 

Gjergji NOLE

3,000

1,855

 

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy