Communicated on 2 October 2017
SECOND SECTION
Application no 33164/11
Skender ZELA
against Albania
lodged on 5 May 2011
SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE
The application concerns the demolition of the applicant’s 3-storey building consisting of his house and a bakery, a warehouse, a tyre-shop and offices for his business, despite an injunction order issued by the Tirana District Court on 19 September 2002 ordering the suspension of the building demolition order, until the judicial proceedings concerning the ownership and the validity of the demolition order were finalized. The applicant complains that the judicial proceedings that lasted in total for eight years before the domestic courts were in breach of the reasonable time requirement, as provided under Article 6 of the Convention. Further, he complains that the demolition of his building was in breach of his right to property, as provided by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and in breach of his right to respect for his home, as provided by Article 8 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the authorities’ disregard of the court’s injunction order dated 19 September 2002 (see, for example, Okyay and Others v. Turkey, no. 36220/97, ECHR 2005‑VII)?
2. Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Does the Constitutional Court provide for an effective remedy in respect of the applicant’s complaints under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
4. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example Demades v. Turkey, no. 16219/90, 31 July 2003)? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?
5. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see for example Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999‑V)?
6. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy