CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 février 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 19 February 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 83902/17 Vjollca PAJOVA against Albania lodged on 13 December 2017 communicated on 1 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of civil proceedings concerning a property dispute, and the dismissal of the applicant’s constitutional complaint due to the allegedly unforeseeable application of the new four-month time-limit, depriving the applicant of the right of access to the Constitutional Court, both contrary to the guarantees under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the civil proceedings, which commenced in 2010 and were concluded by the Constitutional Court’s decision of 16 June 2017, in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR   2000-VII)?   2.     Did the Constitutional Court’s decision, rejecting the applicant’s constitutional complaint as being lodged out of time, violate the applicant’s right of access to a court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Çela v. Albania , no. 73274/17, §§ 20-41, 29 November 2022)?