CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 4 March 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 24267/16 Afërdita ZYBERI against Albania lodged on 25 April 2016 communicated on 13 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged non enforcement of a final judgment adopted by the Vlora Appeal Court on 16 February 2009, which recognised the applicant’s ownership on a plot of land measuring 1,096 sq. m, and ordered a third party to vacate the applicant’s occupied property. An enforcement order in respect of that judgment was issued by the Vlora District Court on 10 April 2009. However, the third party brought a claim against the above-mentioned enforcement order, asking that the order be annulled due to legalisation in 2011 of his illegal constructions on the applicant’s property. That legalisation, based on Law no. 9482 (2006), had occurred during the time when the enforcement proceedings concerning the applicant’s ownership were pending. The third party’s claim was granted by the Vlora District Court on 23   February 2012, and the enforcement order of 10 April 2009 was annulled. The applicant alleges that the proceedings initiated by the third party were conducted contrary to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, resulting in denial of the enforcement order concerning her ownership, and, in fact, amounted to a review of the final judgment in her favour, violating her rights under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards non-enforcement of the Vlora Appeal Court’s judgment of 21 December 2006? (b)     Did the annulment of the enforcement order of 10 April 2009 by the Vlora District Court’s judgment of 23 February 2012 constitute an infringement of the principle of legal certainty (see Kakamoukas and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 38311/02, § 32, 15 February 2008; Driza v.   Albania , no.   33771/02, § 64, 13 November 2007)?   2.     In view of the judgment of 23 February 2012, has there been an interference with the administration of justice and/or the applicant’s right to property in the proceedings concerning the enforcement of the judgment of 16 February 2009 by the legislature and/or the executive (through legalisation of the third party’s construction or any other relevant legal act on legalisation of informal constructions)? If yes, was it compatible with the applicant’s rights under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention and/or under Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Vegotex International v.   Belgium [GC], no.   49812/09, §§ 92-93, 3   November 2022, and Ducret v.   France , no.   40191/02, §§ 32-35, 12 June 2007; and Brumărescu v.   Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, §§ 74-80, ECHR   1999-VII)?   3.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (compare with Driza , cited above, § 116)?