CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 juin 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 88 July-August 2006 Treska v. Albania and v. Italy (dec.) - 26937/04 Decision 29.6.2006 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court State’s refusal, on grounds of State immunity, to request enforcement of decisions restoring to the applicants their property assigned to a foreign Embassy: inadmissible   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions State’s refusal, on grounds of State immunity, to request enforcement of decisions restoring to the applicants their property assigned to a foreign Embassy: inadmissible   The applicants, two Albanian nationals, were allocated by final decisions of the judicial and administrative authorities, property rights over a villa in Albania, which had been unlawfully confiscated from their father without compensation, the right to recover it, and an order of restitution. Meanwhile, however, the property title had been transferred to the Italian Government through an inter-State agreement by which Italy purchased the property. The building was assigned to be the private residence of the Italian Ambassador in Albania. The applicants instituted proceedings in order to recover possession of their property, but the competent Albanian Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with the case. The Embassy was ordered to pay the applicants a monthly rental fee for use of the plot of land by a final and binding Albanian decision, but failed to comply with the judgment. The Albanian authorities did not act in order to have the final decision enforced. The Albanian Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal, the reason being that the immunity of the Italian Embassy and the inviolability of its premises gave rise to a circumstance where the Court’s decision could not be enforced in practice. The Italian courts rejected the applicants’ request for the validation of the Albanian judgment which had decided on the Embassy’s obligation to pay them a rental fee. Complaint under Article   1 Protocol No. 1 against Italy : The applicants complained of the Albanian authorities’ refusal to execute the court decision in their favour and to take enforcement measures. Italy did not exercise any jurisdiction over the applicants; the proceedings in issue were conducted exclusively in Albanian territory; the Albanian courts were the only bodies with sovereign power over the applicants; and the Italian authorities had no direct or indirect influence over the decisions and judgments delivered in Albania. Hence, Italy’s responsibility cannot be engaged: incompatibleratione personae . Complaint under Article   6(1) against Albania : The property allocated to the applicants is assigned to be the private residence of the Italian Ambassador in Albania and accordingly constitutes “premises of mission” within the meaning of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relation. Regard being had to the rules of international law on sovereign immunity, the Albanian Government cannot be required to override against their will the rule of State immunity, which is designed to ensure the optimum functioning of diplomatic missions and to promote comity and good relations between sovereign States. Hence, the decisions in which the national courts refused to order the administrative authorities to take measures of constraint with regard to the property possessed by the Italian Embassy in Albania can be regarded as a justified restriction on the applicants’ right of access to a court: manifestly ill-founded . Complaint under Article   1 Protocol No 1 against Albania : Italy had notified the Albanian authorities that it had title to the building in issue, which title has not been invalidated by any final judicial decision. No domestic court has invalidated the applicants’ title to the properties in issue, which title cannot expire with the passing of time; on the contrary, it can be converted into a title for future compensation to be paid pursuant to the domestic law relating to the compensation of former owners. Hence, the Albanian authorities’ failure to take steps to restore to the applicants’ possession of the property - on grounds of “public-interest” directly linked to observance of the principle of State immunity - did not upset the requisite fair balance: manifestly ill-founded .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes