Communicated on 5 March 2019<\/p>\n
SECOND SECTION<\/p>\n
Application no.37570\/18
\nBraniellaZERVA and Stylianos ZERVAS
\nagainst Albania
\nlodged on 2 August 2018<\/p>\n
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE<\/strong><\/p>\n The application concerns the applicants\u2019 right to a fair hearing and their property rights. The applicants, Ms BraniellaZerva and Mr Stylianos Zerva are Albanian and Greek nationals respectively and live in Greece.<\/p>\n In 2006 the applicants bought two plots of land in Kor\u00e7a, Albania with the intention to build hotel facilities. In 2009, two of the former owners \u201c(third party)\u201d of the plot of land initiated court proceedings against the applicants claiming that the latter had not paid the full price of the land. On 10 September 2009 the Kor\u00e7a District Court decided to accept the third party\u2019s claim and ordered the applicants to pay the amount due. The trial was held without the presence of the applicants. On 20 October 2010 the Kor\u00e7a District Court\u2019s decision became final. On 22 February 2010 the Kor\u00e7a District Court issued a writ of execution of the final decision.<\/p>\n In 2011 the plots of land were auctioned. Given that the whereabouts of the applicants were not known to the authorities, they were assigned a representative in compliance with Article 522 of the Civil Procedure Code.<\/p>\n On an unspecified date, the applicants requested that the bailiff\u2019s legal actions for the auctioning of the plots of lands be declared null and void. On 9 June 2014 the Kor\u00e7a District Court rejected the complaints as manifestly ill-founded and out of time. On 20 November 2014 the Kor\u00e7a Court of Appeal upheld the Kor\u00e7a District Court\u2019s decision. On 21 April 2017 the Supreme Court rejected the applicants\u2019 appeal.<\/p>\n The applicants complain that the authorities failed duly to notify them of the bailiff\u2019s actions as well as of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision, thus breaching their right to a fair trial under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. Further, they complain about a breach of their property rights under Article\u00a01 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.<\/p>\n QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention?<\/p>\n In particular, would a constitutional appeal against the Supreme Court\u2019s decision of 21 April 2017 have been an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision?<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention?<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Have the applicants been deprived of their possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01? Were they afforded sufficient procedural protection in the ambit of the enforcement proceedings (see Rousk v. Sweden, no. 27183\/04, \u00a7 117, 25 July 2013)?<\/p>\n