MAHO v. ALBANIA (European Court of Human Rights)

Last Updated on April 24, 2019 by LawEuro

Communicated on 15 January 2019

SECOND SECTION

Application no.24908/18
MimozaMAHO and others
against Albania
lodged on 24 May 2018

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The present case concerns the non-enforcement of a 1989 local-authority decision which recognised the applicants’ occupancy rights to a flat. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the non‑enforcement of the decision of 3 June 1989 and the length of the resulting proceedings. The also alleged that they did not have an effective remedy for the violation of their rights under Article 6 § 1, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention. Lastly, the applicants complain of a violation of their right to respect for home under Article 8 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1.  Did the decision of 3 June 1989 generate enforceable rights on behalf of the applicant?

2.  Did the applicant exhaust all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, to secure the enforcement of the decision of 3 June 1989? Did the applicants have at their disposal other legal remedies in order to seek redress in respect of their situations? If so, did they make use of those remedies? The Government are invited to submit any relevant domestic case-law in this respect.

3.  Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by reason of the fact that the decision of 3 June 1989 has not been enforced? In particular, has the length of the impugned proceedings complied with the “reasonable time” requirement contained in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Luli and Others v. Albania, nos. 64480/09 and 5 others, § 91, 1 April 2014?

4.  Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 6 § 1 as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

5.   Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

(a) In particular, did the authorities comply with the requirement to establish proper justification for the interference with their right to respect for home (see, mutatis mutandis, Paulić v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, §§ 40-45, 22 October 2009,Ćosić v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, §§ 20-23, 15 January2009, Brežec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, 18 July 2013, and Kryvitska and Kryvitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 30856/03, §§ 43-44, 2 December 2010)?

(b)  What arrangements did the authorities make for providing alternative housing to vulnerable applicants?