Published on 6 October 2025
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 38568/23
Helidon GJIKOKA
against Albania
lodged on 20 October 2023
communicated on 18 September 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the seizure of the applicant’s property, a plot of land and the building constructed on it, on suspicion of fraud.
On 7 April 2021 the Tirana Prosecution Office adopted a decision on the seizure of the property that was suspected of being acquired by fraud, on the basis of Article 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), which provided for seizures for evidentiary purposes. On 3 March 2022 the Vlora First Instance Court lifted the seizure, reasoning that Article 208 CCP authorised the prosecution to seize only material evidence necessary for the establishment of the facts of the case. It considered the measure to be a preventive seizure in disguise and that under Article 274 CCP a preventive seizure could only be adopted by a court upon a request by the prosecution. On 12 July 2022, the Vlora Court of Appeal overturned that judgment, ruling that the measure was lawful and necessary in the context of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, relying on Articles 208 and 274 CCP.
On 16 January 2023 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal, holding that the decision to send the case for trial could not be appealed, as provided for under Article 332/gj of the CCP. It did not provide any reasoning as to the seizure measure.
On 21 June 2023 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint, ruling that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies since the case was still pending trial, where the applicant’s complaints could still be addressed.
Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains about an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions due to the unlawfulness of the seizure measure against his property.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Zela v. Albania, no. 33164/11, § 56, 77-79, 11 June 2024, with further references)? In particular:
(a) was the interference with the applicant’s property lawful (see Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev v. Azerbaijan, nos. 74288/14 and 64568/16, § 67, 14 October 2021)?
(b) was the seizure measure imposed against the applicant’s property evidentiary or preventive and, in either case, on the basis of which legal provision?
(c) without prejudice to the foregoing, was the measure imposed proportionate (see Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, § 115, 13 December 2016)?