Published on 2 May 2023
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 83896/17
KAPTAN METAL DIS TICARET VE NAKLIYAT A.S
against Albania
lodged on 14 December 2017
communicated on 12 April 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the length of proceedings, the length of non‑enforcement of a court’s decision recognising an arbitration decision, the applicant company’s right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions because of the non-enforcement of the above-mentioned decision, as well as the lack of an effective remedy for these complaints.
In the context of proceedings against an Albanian commercial company, on 1 July 2010 the International Court of Arbitration in Geneva awarded the applicant company 4,625,241.90 US dollars with interests.
On 1 March 2011 the Tirana Appeal Court recognised the arbitration’s decision in Albania. A third party lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.
On 29 March 2011 the applicant company lodged a request for enforcement order with the Tirana Appeal Court, which was issued on 21 February 2012. On 25 April 2012 the Supreme Court stayed the enforcement proceedings at the third party’s request. On 28 September 2017 the Supreme Court upheld the Appeal Court’s decision.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant company exhausted all available domestic remedies in respect of its complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the alleged non-enforcement of the decision recognising an arbitration decision? In particular, was the applicant company required to lodge an action under Article 399/1 et seqq. of the Code of Civil Procedure?
2. Was the length of the proceedings before the Tirana Appeal Court and the Supreme Court in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Luli and Others v. Albania, nos.64480/09 and 5 others, § 91, 1 April 2014; and Bara and Kola v. Albania, nos. 43391/18 and 17766/19, § 63-73, 12 October 2021)?
3. Without prejudice to Question 1, has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by reason of the fact that the decision recognising the arbitration’s decision has allegedly not been enforced (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 66, ECHR 2009, and Sharxhi and others v. Albania, no.10613/16, § 92, 11 January 2018)?
4. Was there a violation of the applicant company’s right to property due to the alleged non-enforcement of the decision recognising the arbitration decision in its favour (see Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 71186/01, §§ 90-91, 7 June 2005, and Bushati and Others v. Albania, no. 6397/04, §§ 93-94, 8 December 2009)?
5. Did the applicant company have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy that would allow adequate and sufficient redress for prolonged non‑enforcement of an arbitration decision (see Gjyli v. Albani, no. 32907/07, §§ 53-54, 29 September 2009, and Mishgjoni v. Albania, no. 18381/05, §§ 68-73, 7 December 2010)?
6. The parties are asked to provide updated information about any attempts made to secure, or other developments concerning, the enforcement of the decision recognising the arbitration decision after the Supreme Court’s decision of 2017, and copies of the relevant documents.