THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 18948/22
Bukurije PETRELA and Others against Albania
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18 March 2025 as a Committee composed of:

 Lətif Hüseynov, President,
 Darian Pavli,
 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications (nos. 18948/22, 20351/22, 20354/22, 21643/22, and 22197/22) 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”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein, who were represented before the Court by Mrs S. Mëneri, a lawyer practising in Tirana;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

1.  The applications concern the prolonged non-enforcement of final administrative decisions which recognised the applicants’ right to compensation in one of the ways provided for by law in lieu of the restitution of their properties which had been nationalised by the former communist regime.

2.  During 1995 the Tirana Commission for the Restitution and Compensation of Property (“the Property Commission”) issued several decisions recognising the applicants’ inherited property rights to several plots of land. For the part of the plots that were occupied, it decided that the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law.

3.  On 8 May 2017 the financial evaluation in respect of the applicants’ properties was published in the Official Notices Bulletin (Buletini i Njoftimeve Zyrtare), in accordance with Law no. 133/2015 on the Treatment of Property and Finalisation of the Property Compensation Process Act (“the 2015 Property Act”). The applicants did not challenge that financial evaluation decision. Between May and August 2017 they submitted the required forms and documents and applied for financial compensation on the basis of the decision by the Agency for the Treatment of Property (“the ATP”).

4.  In 2022, replying to the applicants’ requests for information, the ATP acknowledged the evaluation of their properties in 2017 and informed them that no further steps had been taken in respect of their compensation, as further legislative amendments were expected following the Constitutional Court’s decision (see paragraph 9 below).

5.  On 5 October 2023, 14 December 2023, 13 October 2023, 23 August 2023, and 20 January 2022, respectively, the ATP informed the applicants that the newly approved provisions (see paragraph 8 below) would be applicable to them, asked them to indicate their preferred form of compensation and to submit documents necessary to finalise the compensation proceedings. It does not follow from the case file materials that the applicants have complied with these requests.

relevant domestic law

6.  An overview of relevant domestic law and practice under the 2015 Property Act is presented in the case of Beshiri and Others v. Albania ((dec.), nos. 29026/06 and 11 others, §§ 29-109, 17 March 2020). In that decision, the Court found that the remedy introduced by virtue of the 2015  Property Act was effective, within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.

7.  The ATP was to carry out, within three years from the effective date of the Act, the financial evaluation of all final decisions recognising the right to compensation, in accordance with section 15 § 1 of the Property Act. On the expiry of the three-year time-limit, former owners would be entitled to institute proceedings with the Administrative Court of First Instance, seeking the financial evaluation of final decisions recognising property rights and the right to compensation, in accordance with section 15 § 2, provided that the ATP had failed to do so.  Under section 19 of the Act, ATP’s decisions concerning financial evaluation could be appealed against, within thirty days of their notification, to the Administrative Court of Appeal, regarding only the quantum of the assessed compensation.

8.  The Council of Ministers’ Decision no. 223/2016 (see Beshiri and Others, cited above § 83) was amended by decision no. 766/2017, which entered into force on 27 December 2017. This amendment, in particular, determined a cap of financial (i.e. monetary) compensation at 20% of the value obtained as a result of the evaluation and at 80% for compensation in kind from the Land Fund. These changes also included the order of priority for the following types of compensation: (a) compensation in kind within the former owner’s expropriated property, (b) compensation in kind from the Land Fund, and (c) monetary compensation. Thus, monetary compensation would be awarded only if compensation in kind could not be awarded and it would be capped at 20% of the overall financial evaluation (see Beshiri and Others, cited above §§ 90-98).

9.  Subsequent to the delivery of Beshiri and Others (cited above) on 15 February 2021, the Constitutional Court delivered a decision in response to a request for an in abstracto constitutional review of certain provisions of the 2015 Property Act, repealing its section 7 (2) (a) and (b) and certain provisions of implementing decisions. In Ruçi and Bejleri v. Albania (dec.), the Court considered that the Constitutional Court’s findings did not warrant a departure from its findings that the compensation still remained an effective remedy, within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention ([Committee], nos. 56937/10 and 191 others, § 22, April 2021).

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

10.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

11.  The applicants complained that there had been a breach of Article 6  § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, on account of the authorities’ failure to enforce final decisions establishing their right to receive compensation in lieu of the restitution of properties, based on financial evaluation decisions that they deemed to have become final in 2017.

12.  The applicants argued that the newly introduced provisions were not applicable to them and that the monetary compensation was not capped at 20% of the overall financial evaluation (see paragraph 8 above) when they had applied for compensation.

13.  In the above-cited case of Beshiri and Others, the Court held that the 2015 Property Act had been designed to address the issue of enforcing former owners’ rights to compensation in an effective and meaningful manner, taking account of the Convention requirements (cited above, §§ 215  and 217). In that decision the Court stated that it was not its task “to determine the hierarchy of compensation forms to be awarded by the domestic authorities”, and that the domestic legal framework “ought to describe and circumscribe with sufficient clarity the exercise of discretion by the ATP – or other implementing authorities – in making decisions relating to the award of compensation” (ibid., §§ 179 and 180).

14.  The Court reiterates that administrative property decisions are ‘final’ for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, insofar as they remain unchallenged and “generated rights which are final and enforceable” (see, for example, Ramadhi and Others v. Albania, no. 38222/02, § 36, 13 November 2007; Hamzaraj v. Albania (no. 1), no. 45264/04, § 26, 3 February 2009; and Nuri v. Albania, no. 12306/04, § 28, 3 February 2009).

15.  As to the cases at issue, the Court notes that the financial evaluations of the applicants’ properties that could not be restituted were published in May 2017 (see paragraph 3 above). The applicants’ main line of argument is that the amendments introduced by the Council of Ministers’ decision no. 766/2017, a piece of secondary legislation, should not have been “retroactively” applied to their cases, which had been administratively decided by the Agency prior to the entry into force of those amendments. The applicants are thus inviting the Court to settle a dispute about interpretation of national law, without having taken any steps whatsoever to challenge the Agency’s interpretation before the national courts. The Court recalls that Agency decisions related to the quantum of compensation are, in principle, subject to appeal before the Administrative Court of Appeal (see paragraph 7 above), which constitutes therefore a remedy to be exhausted. To the extent that the applicants argue that no effective “ordinary” remedies exist under national law in the circumstances of their cases, the applicants have failed to raise that argument, at the very least, with the national Constitutional Court, which is in principle required to assess whether that is indeed the case and grant any appropriate remedies for their claims under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

16.  The Court notes that the ATP has informed the applicants that no final decision had been taken about their compensation as further legislative and regulatory changes were needed to comply with a decision of the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 4 above). Under the relevant legal regime that resulted from those amendments (see paragraph 8 above), the estimated value could be awarded as in‑kind compensation, financial compensation, or a combination of both. In any event, any dispute about this matter would be subject, in principle, to an appeal before the Administrative Court of Appeal.

17.  Furthermore, following the Agency evaluations, the applicants have taken no effective steps to ensure the implementation of the compensation decisions. In particular, they have not complied with the ATP’s requests to provide the required documents and to indicate their choice of the forms of compensation (see paragraph 5 above). The Court thus notes that the applicants have either failed to comply with these requirements or failed to inform the Court of any action to challenge them. Considering the specifics of the property restitution legislation, requiring the applicants’ active participation could not be seen as placing an excessive or unreasonable burden on them.

18.  Lastly, at present there appears to be no final administrative decision by the ATP on the modalities and type of compensation to be awarded to the applicants. The applicants are therefore required to avail themselves of the domestic remedies in respect of the types of compensation awarded to them, or for the ATP’s failure to make such decisions.

19.  The Court maintains that the domestic authorities, which are in the best position to assess the practicalities, priorities, and conflicting interests on a domestic level, enjoy a wide margin of appreciation as regards the choice of forms of redress for breaches of property rights (see Beshiri and Others, cited above, § 188). The Court sees no reason to depart from this conclusion as regards the determination of the type and modalities of the appropriate compensation.

20.  The Court recalls, in conclusion, that frequent changes to the national compensation scheme in the property restitution context tend to undermine the principle of legal certainty and should be avoided. In this respect, questions might arise, in principle, about the justification for the significant amendments introduced by decision no. 766/2017, a little more than a year after the adoption of the implementing regulations of the 2015 Property Act through Council of Ministers’ Decision no. 223/2016 (see Beshiri and Others, cited above, § 201). Be that as it may, the Court is unable to address such questions in the present cases, where the very applicability of those 2017 amendments to the applicants’ cases has yet to be tested at the national level and where no final compensation decisions have been adopted by the national authorities.

21.  It follows that the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

22.  The Court sees no reason to depart from its previous finding concerning the accessibility and efficiency of the remedy provided for by the 2015 Property Act (see Beshiri and Others, cited above, § 221, and Ruçi and Bejleri, cited above, § 26). The applicants’ complaint under Article 13 of the Convention is therefore manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 24 April 2025.

 Olga Chernishova Lətif Hüseynov
 Deputy Section Registrar President

Appendix

List of cases: