FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 49130/06
by Idriz SHATELI and Others
against Albania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24 August 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 November 2006,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Idriz Shateli, Mr Perparim Shateli, Mr Ali Shateli, Mr Shpetim Shateli, Mr Kasem Mici and Mr Selman Mici, are Albanian nationals who live in Tirana. The Albanian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs E. Hajro.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 20 April 1993 the communes of Vorë and Kashar agreed that a number of plots of land (which were later awarded to the applicants) would be transferred to the administrative unit of the commune of Kashar. The Tirana Land Commission officialised this transfer by decision no. 2 of
20 June 1996.
On 3 September 2004 the Land Commission of the Tirana Regional Council (Komisioni i Tokës, Këshilli i Qarkut Tiranë) decided to declare null and void the Tirana Land Commission's decision of 20 June 1996 as it had been adopted in flagrant breach of a Council of Ministers' decision. It assigned the Section for Land Administration and Protection (Seksioni i Administrimit dhe Mbrojtjes së Tokës) to deal with all obligations arising out of the decision (“point 2”).
1. The circumstances of the case in respect of Mr Idriz Shateli
On 10 September 1996 the Land Commission recognised Mr Idriz Shateli's property rights over two plots of land both measuring 17,100 square metres. It appears that he sought to register the plot of land with the Office of Registration Immovable Property (Zyra e Regjistrimit të Pasurive të Paluajtshme – “the ORIP”), in accordance with the domestic law, but to no avail.
On an unspecified date the applicant filed a civil action in which he sought an order for the registration of his plots of land with the ORIP. On 11 July 2002 the Tirana District Court ruled in the applicant's favour and ordered the ORIP to register his plots of land. On 6 March 2003 the Tirana Court of Appeal upheld the Tirana District Court's decision.
As no further appeals were filed, the Tirana District Court's decision became final and enforceable at the latest on 7 April 2003.
2. The circumstances of the case in respect of the other applicants
On 10 September 1996 the Land Commission recognised Mr Perparim Shateli's, Mr Ali Shateli's, Mr Shpetim Shateli's, Mr Kasem Mici's and Mr Selman Mici's property rights over a plot of land measuring 4,700 sq. m, 4,800 sq. m, 4,600 sq. m, 4,300 sq. m and 3,300 sq. m, respectively.
It appears that the applicants sought to register their plots of land with the ORIP, in accordance with the domestic law, but to no avail.
On an unspecified date the applicants filed a civil action in which they sought orders for the registration of their plots of land with the ORIP. On
8 October 2004 the Tirana District Court ruled in the applicants' favour and ordered the Tirana ORIP to register their plots. On 12 May 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the Tirana ORIP's appeal and upheld the District Court's decision of 8 October 2004. That decision became final and enforceable, no constitutional appeal having filed against it.
3. Proceedings concerning the enforcement of the domestic courts' decisions
Enforcement proceedings in relation to the Tirana District Court's decisions of 6 March 2003 and 12 May 2006 were instituted on an unspecified date.
On 26 May 2006 the Tirana ORIP informed the bailiff's office that the documents required for the registration of the applicants' plots of land were incomplete. In their letter, the Tirana ORIP made reference only to the District Court's decision of 8 October 2004. They added that the court's decision of 8 October 2004 could not be enforced as a result of
the non-enforcement of point 2 of the decision of the Land Commission of
3 September 2004 (see above).
On 1 June 2006 the bailiff's office informed the Tirana ORIP that enforcement proceedings had been instituted in respect of both final court decisions. It ordered the Tirana ORIP to proceed with the enforcement of the domestic courts' decisions within 10 days of receipt of the letter.
On 24 October 2006 the bailiff's office sent another letter to the Tirana ORIP seeking the enforcement of the courts' decision within 10 days.
To date, it would appear that none of the courts' decisions has been enforced.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the Tirana District Court's decisions of 11 July 2002 and 8 October 2004.
THE LAW
By letter dated 15 June 2009 the Government's observations were sent to the applicants, who were requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 25 July 2009. The applicants' attention was also drawn to Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 of the Rules of Court according to which they needed to be represented by an “advocate” before the Court at this stage of the proceedings.
By letter dated 7 January 2010, sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that they had to submit the completed form of authority in compliance with Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 by 28 January 2010. The letter of 15 June 2009 was appended for information in case the applicants had not previously received it. Their attention was also drawn to the fact that a failure to respond would result in the Court's striking their case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicants do not intend to pursue their application. The applicants received this letter on 15 January 2010. However, to date no response has been received by the applicants.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Fatoş AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy