Published on 3 January 2022
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 1377/16
SH.A. PRODHIM VESHJE NO. 2
against Albania
lodged on 30 December 2015
communicated on 7 December 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
On 27 March 2015 notice of application no. 34649/14 was given to the respondent Government on account of an alleged breach of the applicant company’s right of access to court owing to the Constitutional Court’s tied vote, an alleged lack of impartiality of the Court of Appeal and the alleged lack of reasons in a decision given by the Supreme Court. That application concerned the domestic courts’ dismissal of the applicant company’s civil action in relation to the cessation of certain construction works and the demolition of a building which had been erected by a third party on a plot of land allegedly owned by the applicant company. Following the outcome of those proceedings, the domestic courts decided to lift an injunction order (masa e sigurimit të padisë) which had been imposed against the third party ordering it to refrain from continuing the construction works in exchange for the applicant company depositing 100,000 euros (“EUR”) as a guarantee in a bank.
The present application concerns the proceedings that the third party instituted against the applicant company for the payment of damages resulting from the imposition of the injunction order and the halting of construction works. The domestic courts, following an expert’s report, accepted the third party’s claim and ordered the applicant company to pay EUR 724,014.9 in loss of profits and EUR 108,033.35 in accrued interests in addition to transferring the deposit to the third party as well as 6,074,244 Albanian leks (approximately EUR 43,052 at the time) to other parties. The applicant company complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that it did not attend the proceedings before the domestic courts, that the domestic judgments lacked sufficient reasons and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the domestic courts imposed an excessively high amount of damages to pay to the third party.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) Was the applicant company effectively notified of the hearings held before the District Court and the Court of Appeal? Did the District Court and the Court of Appeal send writs of summons to the applicant company’s correct address and/or its representative’s address to attend the domestic proceedings (see, for example, Dilipak and Karakaya v. Turkey, nos. 7942/05 and 24838/05, § 80, 4 March 2014)?
The Government and the applicant company are invited to provide information about the statutory rules and procedure that apply to appellate courts summoning the parties to a set of domestic proceedings.
(b) Did the applicant company have the opportunity to present its case, including the possibility to challenge and respond adequately to the findings of the expert’s opinion regarding the calculation of damages (see, for example, Letinčić v. Croatia, no. 7183/11, § 48-50, 3 May 2016)?
(c) Were the domestic courts’ decisions adequately reasoned as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:
(i) In addition to the payment of damages by the applicant company to the third party, did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons for the transfer of the deposit which had been placed as a guarantee by the applicant company?
(ii) Was the Supreme Court required to provide any reasons in its (de plano) decision of 24 July 2014 in view of the grounds of appeal raised in the cassation appeal by the applicant company (compare with Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, 18 December 2007)?
2. Has there been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular:
(a) Was there an interference with the applicant company’s property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, for example, Milhau v. France, no. 4944/11, § 45, 10 July 2014, and Zhidov and Others v. Russia, nos. 54490/10 and 3 others, § 95, 16 October 2018)? If so, did it pursue a legitimate aim? If so, was the interference proportionate?
(b) Assuming that the domestic proceedings involved a litigation between private parties, did the respondent State comply with its positive obligations under the Convention (see, for example, Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 83, ECHR 2007‑I; Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 44, 10 January 2012)?