CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 septembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s1B9C96E3 { width:14.2pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD6845F38 { font-family:Arial; color:#0072bc } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B08A3BC { width:27.19pt; display:inline-block } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s9D419EF6 { width:141.06pt; display:inline-block } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .s9A659E2E { width:118.41pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 11485/11 ALBANIAN WRESTLING FEDERATION and Viron BEZHANI against Albania   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19   September 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.   11485/11) 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 16 February 2011 by the Albanian Wrestling Federation ( shoqata “Federata Shqiptare e Mundjes” – the “federation” or the “first applicant”) registered with competent court in 2009 and having its seat in Tirana and Mr Viron Bezhani, born in 1958 and living in Tirana (the “second applicant” or collectively the “applicants”). They were represented by Mr A. Hajdari, a lawyer practising in Tirana; the decision to give notice of the application to the Albanian Government (“the Government”), initially represented by their Agent, Ms   A.Hiçka, 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 by domestic authorities of an arbitral decision which had declared void the elections held by the federation. Background 2.     The first applicant is an association whose purposes include, among others, the federation of all the Albanian clubs and associations in the field of wrestling, the organization of the national wrestling competition and the representation of the wrestling community domestically and abroad. It appears that in fulfilling those purposes, the first applicant enjoys an exclusive right which was granted to it by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, Youth and Sports (“Ministry”). 3.     At the relevant time the second applicant was the federation’s General Secretary. Decision of the Sport Arbitration Commission 4.     On 1 March 2009 some members of the federation held an extraordinary assembly which elected A.Z. and A.H. as, respectively, President and General Secretary of the federation (the “disputed elections”). 5 .     On 3 March 2009 the Ministry approved A.H. as General Secretary of the federation. Its decision, given in the form of an order, was based on section 14 § 2 of the Sport’s Act (Law no. 9376 as amended) which provided that any intended amendments to the statutes of “federations” (i.e. associations such as the first applicant which have been granted the exclusive right to federate other associations and clubs in a given sport) shall be submitted for approval to the Ministry. 6.     On 11 March 2009 A.B. and the second applicant, in their purported quality of, respectively, President and General Secretary of the federation challenged the lawfulness of the disputed elections before the Sport Arbitration Commission (“SAC”) which is a domestic arbitration forum in the field of sports. 7.     On 2 April 2009 the SAC admitted the action and declared that the elections held on 1 March 2009 were void (“SAC’s decision”). The decision did not indicate who was the defendant in the proceedings. The arbitral tribunal referred to the second applicant as General Secretary of the federation and found that the extraordinary assembly of 1 March 2009 had been called and organized by unauthorized individuals. 8.     On 9 April 2009 the second applicant forwarded to the Ministry the SAC’s Decision. 9.     On 17 July 2009 the District Court of Tirana issued an execution writ ( urdhër ekzekutimi ) which provided for the enforcement of the SAC’s decision. On 31 July 2009 the Tirana Bailiff Office started the enforcement procedure and asked the Ministry to implement the SAC’s decision. 10.     On 2 September and 24 November 2009 the bailiff asked again the Ministry to implement the SAC’s Decision and declare that the elections of 1   March 2009 were void. 11.     On 2 December 2009 the Ministry informed the bailiff that in the Ministry’s understanding the defendant in the proceedings was the federation, not the Ministry, therefore there was no obligation on them to take any measures in connection to the SAC’s decision. 12.     In a subsequent correspondence of 8 December 2009 to the bailiff the Ministry stated that the federation was an independent private entity therefore the Ministry could not interfere with the enforcement of the SAC’s decision which should have rather been enforced, in their view, by the governing bodies of the federation. Judicial proceedings. 13.     On 30 October 2009 the District Court of Tirana noted that the second applicant had failed to appear at the hearing regarding his challenge against the Ministry’s order to approve A.H. as General Secretary of the federation (see paragraph 5 above). It accordingly discontinued the proceedings. Subsequent events 14.     On 30 January 2010 another general assembly of the federation took place and elected the second applicant as President of the federation. 15 .     On 17 May 2010 in a correspondence to the Municipality of Laç, the Ministry stated that it “recognizes, finances and grants the right to represent Albania in domestic and international competitions to the [federation] having as its President [A.Z.] and [A.H] as General Secretary”. 16.     In a correspondence of 14 June 2010 the second applicant complained to the Ministry that they had not yet approved him as President of the federation. 17 .     On 6 October 2010 the Ministry informed the federation’s bodies that the enforcement of the SAC’s decision of 2 April 2009 amounted to a legal obligation. 18.     In a further correspondence of 3 December 2010 the Ministry informed the federation that the Ministry would support any decision taken by the “wrestling community” in connection to their representation in domestic and international competitions. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 19.     The applicants complained under Article 6   § 1 of the Convention that the lawful bodies of federation were not yet recognized in the domestic and international level and that the SAC’s decision of 2 April 2009 had remained de facto unenforced. 20.     The Court notes that, in view of the domestic disputes, it could be open to debate whether the second applicant could represent the federation and lodge on its behalf the present application as he did. However, this question may be left open as the complaint is in any event manifestly ill-founded. 21.     The questions of whether the elections of 30 January 2010 held by the federation were lawful and whether the State authorities failed to recognize their result were not submitted before domestic courts or arbitration tribunals therefore they are inadmissible before the Court. The scope of the case before the Court is therefore limited to whether any actions or omissions of State authorities led to the non-enforcement of the SAC’ decision of 2 April 2009 (see general principles in Sekul v. Croatia (dec.), no.   43569/13, § 54, 30   June   2015). 22.     The Ministry’s statements in the letter of 17 May 2010 (see paragraph 15 above) that A.Z. and A.H were lawful officers of the federation appears to disregard the SAC’ decision which had invalidated their election into office. The Government submission before the Court did not include any explanation in this connection. 23.     However, although the said correspondence is cause for concern, in absence of additional actions or omissions by State authorities, it is insufficient by itself to support a conclusion that the domestic authorities failed to enforce the SAC’s decision. 24.     Although with some delay after the above correspondence, the domestic authorities ultimately adopted a clear position that the SAC’s decision was binding and was to be implemented by the bodies of the federation (see paragraph 17 above). 25.     It is furthermore relevant that the SAC’s decision was essentially declaratory and it did not direct any State authority to perform any specific action. Neither did the applicants point to any action which the State authorities were implicitly required and failed to take by virtue of the SAC’s decision. 26.     It follows that the complaint concerning the non-enforcement of the Sport Arbitration Commission decision of 2 April 2009 is manifestly   ill-founded   and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 (a) and   4 of the Convention. Other complaints 27.     The applicant’s complaint that the non-enforcement of the SAC’s decision amounted to a violation of Article 11 of the Convention is also manifestly ill-founded for the same reasons as those set out in the preceding paragraphs. 28.     The second applicant complained that he had not received his monthly salary as President of the federation therefore there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. However, the federation’s obligation to pay the applicant did not form part of the matters resolved by the SAC’s decision. Neither did the second applicant start any domestic proceedings to seek payment of his salaries. It follows that this complaint is inadmissible for non-exhaustion   of domestic remedies pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 12 October 2023.   {signature_p_1}   {signature_p_2}   Olga Chernishova   Georgios A. Serghides   Deputy Registrar   President