Last Updated on November 30, 2023 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the Court’s well-established case-law.
Full text of the document.
European Court of Human Rights
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ALSULA AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
(Application no. 63975/10 and 2 others–see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 November 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Alsula and Others v. Albania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Ioannis Ktistakis, President,
Darian Pavli,
Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 November 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Albania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the Court’s well-established case-law.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATION NO. 6932/15 UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. In application no. 6932/15 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the cases (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out and will accordingly pursue the examination of the merits of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003 VI).
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
7. The applicants complained principally of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
8. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II).
9. In the leading cases of Qufaj Co. Sh.p.k. v. Albania, no. 54268/00, 18 November 2004, and Gjyli v. Albania, no. 32907/07, 29 September 2009, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. More recently in Elgakoti Sh.p.k and Others v. Albania [Committee], nos. 63986/10 and 5 others, 6 July 2023, the Court reiterated the principles set regarding the delayed enforcement or non-enforcement of domestic judgements in employment cases in Albania .
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints as that it reached in the above cited judgments. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant cases the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and/or in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
12. The applicant in application no. 35321/11 also complained under Article 13 about the lack of effective domestic remedies in the enforcement proceedings. The applicant in application no. 6932/15 also complained under Article 1 of Protocol 1 about the non-enforcement and delayed enforcement of the domestic decisions in her favour. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present applications. It thus finds that there is no need to give a separate ruling on these complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and Habilaj v. Albania [Committee], no. 2480/10, § 14, 15 September 2022).
V. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
13. As regards application no. 63975/10, the parties have not submitted an updated information on the payment of salary arrears as decided by the Commission decision and later supported even in the decision of the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the Court considers it relevant to order the full enforcement of the decision regarding the salaries to which the applicant would be entitled from the date of her dismissal on 27 September 2007 until her reinstatement 10 October 2013, less any payments already effected to the applicant by the domestic authorities in respect of the said decision.
14. As regards application no. 6932/15, the applicant claims that from her dismissal until the reach of her retirement age, her salary has increased several times, for which the authorities did not pay its indexation upon. The Court recalls what it already reiterated in Elgakoti Sh.p.k. and Others v. Albania, nos. 63986/10 and 5 others, § 17, 6 July 2023, that had the applicant been reinstated in due time, as the decision ordered, she would have been entitled to receive the salary in full, and the indexation of her salary should be considered as an integral part of the domestic courts’ ruling. Furthermore, this approach is supported by the domestic provisions of the Labour Code, under Article 120, entitling employees to benefit automatically from the indexation. The debtor in the enforcement proceedings, that is the authorities in the present case, has to contest the amount to be enforced (see Memishaj v. Albania [Committee], no. 40430/08, § 39, 25 March 2014).
15. Finally, regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Qufaj Co. Sh.p.k, cited above, §§ 46-48, and Gjyli, also cited above, §§ 62-76), the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the sums for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Rejects the Government’s request to strike application no. 6932/15 out of the list;
3. Declares the complaints concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions under Article 6 of the Convention admissible, and decides that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints;
4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions;
5. Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decisions referred to in the appended table, also taking into account the Court’s findings in paragraphs 13 and 14 above;
6. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Ioannis Ktistakis
Acting Deputy Registrar President
___________
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)
| No. | Application no.
Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
|
Representative’s name and location | Relevant domestic decision | Start date of non-enforcement period | End date of non-enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings |
Domestic award (in euros) | Details of enforcement writ | Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros) |
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2] |
| 1. | 63975/10
23/10/2010 |
Ardita ALSULA
1971 |
|
Civil Service Commission, 12/02/2008
|
26/02/2010
|
10/10/2013
(on that date the applicant was reinstated to her previous position as Director of the Centre for Official Publications; she held that position until 2018 when she was again dismissed following another set of disciplinary proceedings) 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 15 day(s) in respect of the reinstatement and still pending enforcement for payment of salary arrears |
Civil Service Commission decision of 12/02/2008 ordering her reinstatement and payment of salary arrears until reinstatement | Enforcement writ issued by the Tirana District Court on 18/12/2008 | 2,100 | – |
| 2. | 35321/11
08/06/2011 |
Edmond PEJO
1955 |
|
Tirana District Court, 15/06/2009
|
24/01/2011
|
05/04/2020
(on that date the applicant reached the retirement age) 9 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 13 day(s) |
Tirana District Court decision of 15/06/2009 as upheld by the Tirana Court of Appeal on 01/12/2010, ordering the applicants reinstatement to the previous post or, alternatively, to a similar job position, and to pay him salary arrears until his reinstatement | Tirana District Court enforcement writ of 24/01/2011
|
3,600 | – |
| 3. | 6932/15
30/01/2015 |
Tatjana MILO
1957 |
Saccucci Andrea
Rome |
Tirana Court of Appeal decision no. 848, 27/06/2007
|
13/07/2007
|
15/07/2017
(on that date the applicant reached the retirement age) 10 year(s) and 3 day(s) |
Applicant’s reinstatement into her previous job and payment of salary arrears until reinstatement | Tirana District Court’s enforcement writ no.1270 of 13/07/2007 | 2,500 | 250 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply