FIRST SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 6974/05
by Ilaz KASUMAJ
against Greece
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5 July 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrL. Loucaides, President,
MrC.L. Rozakis,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrS.E. Jebens,
MrG. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 February 2005,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ilaz Kasumaj, is of Albanian origin living in Kosovo, Republic of Serbia. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Vula, a lawyer practising in Pristina, Kosovo. The Greek Government (“the Government”) were represented by the delegates of their Agent, Mr K. Georgiadis, Adviser at the State Legal Council and Mrs Z. Hatzipavlou, Legal Assistant at the State Legal Council. The Government of Serbia did not make use of their right to intervene (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention).
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of two plots of land situated in Varosh in the municipality of Ferijah, which cover a total of 2.69 hectares. In June 1999 this land, which was used for agricultural purposes, was occupied by Greek KFOR (NATO-led peacekeeping forces) soldiers and became the main national base in Kosovo for the Greek KFOR contingent. Since then the applicant was denied access to and use of his land.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained that the occupation of his property constituted a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He claimed in particular that since 1999 he had lost all control over his property without receiving any compensation.
2. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been denied access to a court in the determination of his civil rights. He contended that the claims procedures followed by the Headquarters of KFOR in consultation with KFOR Contingent commanders were not in compliance with the requirements of independence and impartiality.
3. The applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no adequate, accessible and effective remedy open to him in Kosovo.
THE LAW
The applicant complained, under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that since 1999 the Greek KFOR soldiers had been occupying his land without any compensation.
The Government essentially contended that the application was incompatible with the provisions of the Convention because the applicant did not fall within their jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention.
The applicant disagreed.
In its recent decision in two similar cases the Court held that KFOR actions were in principle attributable to the UN, which had a legal personality separate from that of its member States and which was not a Contracting party to the Convention. The Court further held that it was not competent ratione personae to review the acts of the respondent States carried out on behalf of the UN (Behrami and Behrami v. France and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway (dec.), nos. 71412/01 and 78166/01, ECHR 2007-...).
In the light of the above decision the Court concludes that the applicant’s complaints must also be declared incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention.
It follows that the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Søren NielsenLoukis Loucaides
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy