Communicated on 15 February 2018
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 32850/16
ILIRIA SRL IN LIQUIDAZIONE
against Albania
lodged on 28 May 2016
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the failure of the Albanian authorities to execute the final decisions which made executable an international arbitration court decision (the decision) in favour of the applicant company. The establishment of an international arbitration court was provided for in an agreement concluded between Albania and Italy.
On 2 April 1998 the Tirana Court of Appeal made executable (exequatur) an international arbitration court decision (the decision) in favour of the applicant company. The decision ordered the Albanian Government to pay the applicant company a certain amount of Italian Lira and annual interest. On 5 May 2000, after having found that the decision of 2 April 1998 was incomplete, the Tirana Court of Appeal issued a new decision integrating the decision of 2 April 1998 (final decisions). It appears that the final decisions were never executed.
On 26 December 2003 the Tirana Court of Appeal accepted the Government’s request for an out of time appeal against the final decisions.
By a judgment of 12 April 2012, following frequent remittals of the case, the Supreme Court rejected the applicant company’s complaints as inadmissible.
On 22 December 2015 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant company’s constitutional complaint as manifestly ill-founded.
The applicant company complains about a breach of the principle of legal certainty and its right of access to court as provided for by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In addition it complains of a breach of its right to property as protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a consequence of the Albanian authorities’ failure to enforce the decision.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Was the decision no. 179 of 26 December 2003 of the Tirana Court of Appeal, which granted to the Albanian Government a leave to appeal out of time against the final decisions in breach of the principle of legal certainty, as provided by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see for example Driza v. Albania, no. 33771/02, §§ 69-70, ECHR 2007‑V (extracts) and Ustimenko v. Ukraine, no. 32053/13, §§ 46-47, 29 October 2015)?
2. Did the delay in the execution of the final decisions impair the essence of the right protected under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see for example Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 126, 18 December 2007)?
3. Was the applicant entitled to any possession, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see for example Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301‑B and Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 18 December 2007)? If so, was there an interference with its right to property and, if so, was this interference justified?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy