The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the Court\u2019s well-established case-law.<\/p>\n
Full text of the document.<\/em><\/p>\n European Court of Human Rights This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Alsula and Others v. Albania,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having deliberated in private on 9 November 2023,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in applications 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 the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0The Albanian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the Court\u2019s well-established case-law.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. THE GOVERNMENT\u2019S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATION NO. 6932\/15 UNDER ARTICLE 37 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 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 \u00a7 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government\u2019s 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, \u00a7 75, ECHR 2003 VI).<\/p>\n III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a06 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 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 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 8. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a \u201chearing\u201d for the purposes of Article\u00a06. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v.\u00a0Greece, no.\u00a018357\/91, \u00a7\u00a040, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011II).<\/p>\n 9. In the leading cases of Qufaj Co. Sh.p.k. v. Albania, no. 54268\/00, 18\u00a0November 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.\u00a063986\/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 .<\/p>\n 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\u2019 favour.<\/p>\n 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 12.\u00a0The applicant in application no. 35321\/11 also complained under Article 13 about the lack of effective domestic remedies in the enforcement proceedings.\u00a0The 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 C\u00e2mpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848\/08, \u00a7 156, ECHR 2014, and Habilaj v. Albania [Committee], no. 2480\/10, \u00a7 14, 15 September 2022).<\/p>\n V. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/strong><\/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. 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.<\/p>\n 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, \u00a7 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\u2019 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.\u00a0Albania [Committee], no. 40430\/08, \u00a7 39, 25 March 2014).<\/p>\n 15. Finally, regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Qufaj Co. Sh.p.k, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a046-48, and Gjyli, also cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Rejects the Government\u2019s request to strike application no. 6932\/15 out of the list;<\/p>\n 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;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions;<\/p>\n 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\u2019s findings in paragraphs 13 and 14 above;<\/p>\n 6. Holds<\/p>\n (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;<\/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 30 November 2023, 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 \u00a0Ioannis Ktistakis ___________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/p>\n (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)<\/p>\n
\nTHIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF ALSULA AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 63975\/10 and 2 others\u2013see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n30 November 2023<\/p>\n
\nIoannis Ktistakis, President,
\nDarian Pavli,
\nOddn\u00fd Mj\u00f6ll Arnard\u00f3ttir, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n