THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42684/15
Kleoniqi SOVJANI
against Albania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3 October 2024 as a Committee composed of:
Peeter Roosma, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 August 2015,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Albania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 25 August 2015 by an Albanian citizen, Mrs Kleoniqi Sovjani who was born in 1930 and who lived in Fort Lee, the United States. The applicant died on 25 June 2018. Her daughter, Mrs Elida Minga, expressed a wish to pursue the application in her late mother’s stead.
2. The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
3. In 1995 the applicant obtained from the Government a number of so called “privatisation bonds”, i.e., tradeable financial instruments with a face value expressed in Albanian leks (ALL) which could be used to purchase public property. Their initial validity date was most recently extended to 31 December 2027.
4. On 14 November 1995 the applicant signed a sale-purchase agreement with the National Privatisation Agency (“Agency”) for the purchase a public property (“1995 agreement”). Under the agreement, she paid in cash 870,000 ALL (approximately 4% of the purchase price) and 22,153,520 ALL in the privatisation bonds (the remaining 96% of the purchase price).
5. A third party challenged the 1995 agreement in court. On 4 November 1998 the Korça Court of Appeal ruled that the agreement was invalid (“1998 judgment”), mainly because the Agency had ignored the claimant’s pre-emptive right to the sold property. The court ordered that all parties be returned to their status quo ante. On 20 July 1999 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal, and the 1998 judgment became final.
6. In view of the authorities’ refusal to return the amounts paid under the 1995 agreement, the applicant lodged a claim against the successor of the Agency, the Directorate of Administration and Sale of Public Property, seeking the payment of the equivalent of the entire purchase price in Albanian leks.
7. On 2 June 2008 the Tirana District Court ruled partly in her favour, ordering the defendant to refund to the applicant the amounts in the same form that they had been paid in 1995, i.e., partly in cash and partly in bonds (“2008 judgment”). In absence of any appeals, the above judgment became final on 17 June 2008.
8. On 23 December 2008 the Ministry of Finance and Economy refunded to the applicant the amount of ALL 870,000.
9. As regards the bonds, on 25 February 2009 the Ministry informed the applicant that no such bonds were available. The Ministry stated that they expected to collect such bonds following the privatisation of a number of state properties at which time they would transfer the bonds to the applicant.
10. On 16 April 2010 the Tirana District Court issued an enforcement writ in respect of the 2008 judgment.
11. On 16 May 2014 the Ministry informed the bailiff that the privatisation process had been suspended and would only restart after the adoption of a new legal framework. Until then, the restitution of the bonds was impossible.
12. Four days later the Ministry of Finance informed the Ministry of Justice that it was inclined to fulfil its obligation towards the applicant; however, that was impossible due to the suspension of the privatisation process and the absence of a legal framework allowing the Ministry of Finance to purchase privatisation bonds in the private market. They also referred to the “absence of an official exchange rate” of the bonds. Accordingly, the Ministry of Finance asked the Ministry of Justice to take appropriate actions.
13. The applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the impossibility to obtain the enforcement of the 2008 judgment. In their defence, the Ministry of Finance reiterated the above issues. On 5 February 2015 the Constitutional Court found that the Ministry of Finance had not made enough efforts to enforce the 2008 judgment and that there was therefore a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial.
THE LAW
14. The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the 2008 judgment. The Court considers that the case falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
15. The Court firstly finds that the applicant’s daughter and heir, Mrs Elida Minga, has a legitimate interest to pursue the application in her late mother’s stead (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, §§ 1 and 39, ECHR 1999 VI, and Ernestina Zullo v. Italy [GC], no. 64897/01, § 37, 29 March 2006).
16. The Court further observes, that after unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, on 4 November 2021 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the complaint. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
17. Under the declaration the Government expressed their regret for the partial non-enforcement of the 2008 judgment and undertook to extend the validity date of the privatisation bonds, as well as to fully enforce the 2008 judgment. They also undertook to pay 3,850 (three thousand, eight hundred and fifty) euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. These undertakings would be fulfilled within three months from the date of the notification of the Court’s decision. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment. In the event of failure to pay the above amount within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
18. The applicant submitted that she did not believe that the Government would extend the validity date for the bonds. Moreover, she submitted that at present there remained very limited possibilities to use the bonds.
19. The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:
“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
20. Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
21. The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions (see, for example, Qufaj Co. Sh.p.k. v. Albania, no. 54268/00, 18 November 2004, and Gjyli v. Albania, no. 32907/07, 29 September 2009).
22. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the validity date of privatisation bonds has already been extended (see paragraph 3 above). As regards the applicant’s submission that there remained very few possibilities to use the bonds, this issue did not form part of the matter decided under the 2008 judgment. It, accordingly, does not form part of the scope of the case before the Court.
23. Therefore, in view of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
24. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
25. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides that the daughter and heir of the applicant, Mrs Elida Minga, has standing to pursue the application on behalf of her late mother;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 24 October 2024.
Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter Roosma
Acting Deputy Registrar President