Communicated on 15 January 2019<\/p>\n
SECOND SECTION<\/p>\n
Application no.24908\/18
\nMimozaMAHO and others
\nagainst Albania
\nlodged on 24 May 2018<\/p>\n
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE<\/p>\n
The present case concerns the non-enforcement of a 1989 local-authority decision which recognised the applicants\u2019 occupancy rights to a flat. The applicants complain under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the non\u2011enforcement 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 \u00a7 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.<\/p>\n
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0Did the decision of 3 June 1989 generate enforceable rights on behalf of the applicant?<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0Did the applicant exhaust all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 \u00a7 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.<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0Has there been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 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 \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement contained in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Luli and Others v. Albania, nos. 64480\/09 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a091, 1 April 2014?<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 as required by Article 13 of the Convention?<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0 Has there been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for her home, within the meaning of Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention?<\/p>\n
(a)\u00a0In 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, Pauli\u0107 v. Croatia, no. 3572\/06, \u00a7\u00a7 40-45, 22 October 2009,\u0106osi\u0107 v. Croatia, no. 28261\/06, \u00a7\u00a7 20-23, 15\u00a0January2009, Bre\u017eec v. Croatia, no. 7177\/10, 18 July 2013, and Kryvitska and\u00a0Kryvitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 30856\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 43-44, 2\u00a0December 2010)?<\/p>\n
(b)\u00a0\u00a0What arrangements did the authorities make for providing alternative housing to vulnerable applicants?<\/p>\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\n| Firstname LASTNAME<\/strong><\/td>\n | Birth year<\/strong><\/td>\n | Nationality<\/strong><\/td>\n | Place of residence<\/strong><\/td>\n | Representative<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n | 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n | Mimoza MAHO<\/td>\n | 1956<\/td>\n | Albanian<\/td>\n | Tirana<\/td>\n | S. M\u00ebneri<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | 2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n | Arben MAHO<\/td>\n | 1961<\/td>\n | Albanian<\/td>\n | Alexandria<\/td>\n | S. M\u00ebneri<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | 3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n | Saime MAHO<\/td>\n | 1937<\/td>\n | Albanian<\/td>\n | Tirana<\/td>\n | S. M\u00ebneri<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n | |