The applicants complained in substance of the excessive length of civil proceedings, in particular those before the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Lacej and Others v. Albania,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Andreas Z\u00fcnd, President, Having deliberated in private on 8 September 2022,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in an application against Albania lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 5\u00a0April\u00a02008.<\/p>\n 2. The applicants were represented by Mr B. Muslija, a lawyer practising in Shkoder.<\/p>\n 3. The Albanian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the application.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 5. The applicants complained in substance of the excessive length of civil proceedings, in particular those before the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a06 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement. They relied on Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01<\/p>\n \u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n A. Applicants Sadik Llukacej and Adan Ulqinaku<\/strong><\/p>\n 7. As to the applicants Sadik Llukacej and Adnan Ulqinaku, having regard to the materials before it the Court observes that these applicants were not a party to the domestic proceedings in question. Therefore, those applicants cannot claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d of a violation of their Convention rights because of the allegedly lengthy proceedings. It follows that in their regard the complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n B. Remaining three applicants, Hasan Lacej, Kisha Orthodokse Autoqefale e Shqip\u00ebris\u00eb and Komuniteti Musliman i Shqip\u00ebris\u00eb<\/strong><\/p>\n 8. As to the applicants, Hasan Lacej, Kisha Orthodokse Autoqefale e Shqip\u00ebris\u00eb (Kisha Orthodokse), Komuniteti Musliman i Shqip\u00ebris\u00eb (Komuniteti Musliman), the Court notes that they participated in the domestic proceedings in question, including those before the Supreme Court. In the light of the elements in its possession, the Court observes that the appeal on points of law was registered on 26 January 2010 before the Supreme Court, and it was almost after four years of inactivity, that is in 2014 when the Supreme Court held four hearings on the matter.<\/p>\n 9. In the leading cases of Luli and Others v. Albania (nos. 64480\/09 and 5\u00a0others, 1 April 2014), Mishgjoni v. Albania (no. 18381\/05, 7 December 2010) and Bara and Kola v. Albania (nos. 43391\/18 and 17766\/19, 12\u00a0October 2021) the Court already found a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the length of the proceedings at the national level, in particular before the Supreme Court. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement.<\/p>\n 11. The complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in respect of the above-mentioned three applicants.<\/p>\n II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 12. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Luli and Others, cited above, and Mishgjoni, also cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the three applicants, Hasan Lacej, Kisha Orthodokse Autoqefale e Shqip\u00ebris\u00eb (Kisha Orthodokse), Komuniteti Musliman i Shqip\u00ebris\u00eb (Komuniteti Musliman).<\/p>\n 14. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Declares the complaints brought by the three applicants, Hasan Lacej, Kisha Orthodokse and Komuniteti Musliman, admissible and the complaints by the remaining two applicants inadmissible;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that there has been a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;<\/p>\n 3. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the three applicants, Hasan Lacej, Kisha Orthodokse and Komuniteti Musliman, 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;<\/p>\n (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.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 September 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Andreas Z\u00fcnd ___________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF LACEJ AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 22122\/08)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n29 September 2022<\/p>\n
\nDarian Pavli,
\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Krenc, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nApplication raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention
\n(excessive length of civil proceedings)<\/p>\n