SULKJA v. ALBANIA

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 45799/13
Durim SULKJA
against Albania

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5 December 2023 as a Committee composed of:

 Georgios A. Serghides, President,
 Darian Pavli,
 Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 45799/13) against the Republic of Albania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 9 July 2013 by an Albanian national, Mr Durim Sulkja (“the applicant”), who was born in 1950, lives in Elbasan and was represented by Ms S. Sulkja, a lawyer practising in Elbasan;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Albanian Government (“the Government”), represented initially by their Agent, A. Hiçka and E. Muçaj, and subsequently by Mr O. Moçka, General State Advocate;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The case concerns the alleged non-enforcement of a judgment in the applicant’s favour.

In 1996 the Elbasan National Housing Authority (“NHA”) authorised the applicant to use a State-owned apartment. In 1999 the NHA evaluated the apartment at 981,305 Albanian Lek (ALL).

2.  The applicant intended to use his statutory right to purchase the apartment, but he disagreed with the NHA’s evaluation. On an unspecified date he started judicial proceedings against them.

3.  On 3 July 2009 the Elbasan District Court (“the District Court”) annulled the NHA’s evaluation of the apartment and ordered them to enter into a sale contract with the applicant, at the price of ALL 10,889, determined by a court appointed expert.

4.  On 23 October 2012 the judgment was upheld by the Durres Court of Appeal.

5.  On 21 November 2017 the Supreme Court rejected the NHA’s appeal on points of law.

6.  On 11 February 2021 the Constitutional Court rejected for non-exhaustion of legal remedies the applicant’s complaint that the length of proceedings had been unreasonable.

7.  Following the decision of the court of appeal, the judgment of 3 July 2009 became enforceable under domestic law. On 1 February 2013 the District Court issued a writ of enforcement.

8.  On 5 March and 22 May 2013 the NHA summoned the applicant for the signature of the sale contract, based on the template agreement that the institution had in use at that time.

9.  It appears that the draft proposed by the NHA included a clause stating that the applicant could not sell the apartment for a fifteen years period. It also appears that the applicant did not agree with this and some other terms, therefore he refused to sign the draft.

10.  On 30 March 2015 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint about non-enforcement of the judgment of 3 July 2009. The court observed that the NHA had been prepared to enter into a sale contract with the applicant and that the latter had asked for unreasonable terms to be inserted into it. The court concluded that the situation was the result of the applicant’s own refusal to sign the agreement.

11.  Between 2014 and 2021 the NHA and the applicant exchanged letters, whereby the former stated that the draft agreement was a standard one as approved by their legal department, while the latter proposed a different text.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

12.  The applicant complained that there has been a breach of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention as well as of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment of 3 July 2009.

13.  The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II).

14.  The judgment by the District Court of 3 July 2009 determined the apartment’s value. Neither the applicant nor the documents in the case-file suggest that the authorities required a different amount from the applicant.

15.  The outstanding disagreement between the applicant and the NHA concerns other terms of the contract. The applicant submitted that it followed implicitly from the District Court’s judgment of 3 July 2009 that the remaining terms of the contract should have been based on the template used at that time. In support of his contention he submitted several agreements concluded by the NHA around that period and alleged that the draft he had submitted to the NHA was in line with those. The Government contested that argument and submitted that the NHA’s draft should be used.

16.  Having regard to the documents submitted and the parties’ arguments, the Court is unable to uphold the applicant’s contention that the judgment of 3 July 2009 implicitly covered other terms of sale than the apartment’s price. Neither the operative clause nor the text of that judgment support that contention. The decision of the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 10 above) interpreted the situation in the same way. In the absence of any indication in that respect, it is not for the Court to rule as a first instance court on the dispute regarding the remaining terms of the sale between the applicant and the NHA.

17.  Accordingly, in view of the fact that the authorities have not refused to comply with the District Court’s judgment of 3 July 2009, the Court finds that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 18 January 2024.

 Olga Chernishova Georgios A. Serghides
 Deputy Registrar President