CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 janvier 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 24 January 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 73274/17 Pëllumb ÇELA against Albania lodged on 9 October 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 about the lack of access to court. The last decision in the applicant’s domestic civil proceedings was issued on 11 November 2016, after which the applicant had a two-year time limit to lodge a constitutional appeal. On 1 March 2017 new legislation was adopted providing for a four-month time-limit instead. On 2 June 2017 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal, which was rejected by the Constitutional Court as having been lodged out of the four-month time limit. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to the Court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Constitutional Court’s dismissal of his constitutional claim for being lodged out of time? In particular was the Constitutional Court’s approach in interpreting the new procedural rules relating to time-limits excessively formalistic given the fact that the new amendments have entered into force only on 1 March 2017 (see for example, Shkalla v. Albania , no. 26866/05, §§   48-54, 10 May 2011?