Text rozhodnutí
Datum rozhodnutí
Rozhodovací formace
Číslo stížnosti / sp. zn.




Application no. 60262/10
Makbule MANDIJA and Ledina MANDIJA
against Albania

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 January 2023 as a Committee composed of:

Ioannis Ktistakis, President,
Darian Pavli,
Andreas Zünd, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 September 2010,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:


The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

The applicants were represented by Mr A. Shehu, a lawyer practising in Tirana.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the delayed enforcement of domestic decisions were communicated to the Albanian Government (“the Government”). Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.


Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the application should be declared inadmissible.

The Court notes that following the entry into force of Protocol No. 15 to the Convention on 1 February 2022, the time-limit to introduce an application to the Court was reduced from six to four months. However, this new timelimit would not be retroactive because it would not apply to applications in respect of which the final domestic decision was taken before the entry into force of the new rule.

Therefore, the Court notes that the object of the six-month limit under Article 35 § 1 is to promote legal certainty, by ensuring that cases raising issues under the Convention are dealt with in a reasonable time and that past decisions are not continually open to challenge. The rule also affords the prospective applicant time to consider whether to lodge an application and, if so, to decide on the specific complaints and arguments to be raised (see, for example, Worm v. Austria, 29 August 1997, §§ 32-33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V, and Mitrea v. Romania, no. 26105/03, § 16, 29 July 2008).

Where it is clear from the outset that the applicant had no effective remedy, the six-month period runs from the date on which the act complained of took place or the date on which the applicant was directly affected by or became aware of such an act or had knowledge of its adverse effects (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 157, ECHR 2009, and Dennis and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76573/01, 2 July 2002). Furthermore, where the alleged violation constitutes a continuing situation against which no domestic remedy is available, it is only when the situation ends that the six-month period starts to run (see Varnava and Others, cited above, § 159, and Sabri Güneş v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, § 54, 29 June 2012).

The Court observes that in the Albanian legal system a person who considers that there has been a violation of his right to a fair hearing can, if he or she has exhausted all domestic remedies, lodge a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court under Article 131 (f) of the Constitution.

However, in Gjyli v. Albania (no. 32907/07, §§ 55-58, 29 September 2009), the Court held that the Constitutional Court’s declaratory findings about a breach of an appellant’s right of access to court on account of the non-enforcement of a final court judgment did not offer any adequate redress. In particular, the Constitutional Court was not in a position to make any awards of pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary damage, nor could it offer a clear perspective to prevent the alleged violation or its continuation.

Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the applicants submitted that the six-month time-limit should run from 23 March 2010, the date of the delivery of the Constitutional Court’s judgment. However, having regard to the fact that, as already noted above, a constitutional complaint was not at the relevant time an effective remedy as regards the length of proceedings or delayed enforcement, the Court concludes that the six-month time-limit had started running from the date on which Gjyli judgment (cited above) became final, namely on 29 December 2009 (see, mutatis mutandis, Alekseyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 14988/09 and 50 others, §§ 10-16, 27 November 2018, and more recently, Komarova v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 44570/11, § 18, 26 May 2020). The Court notes that from that date onwards, sufficient information existed which would have enabled the applicants to reasonably anticipate the application of the exhaustion and six-month requirements in their case. Accordingly, as the application was introduced on 23 September 2010, it must be rejected as belated pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 9 February 2023.

Viktoriya Maradudina Ioannis Ktistakis
Acting Deputy Registrar President


Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Relevant domestic decision

Start date of non-enforcement period

End date of non-enforcement period

Length of enforcement proceedings

Domestic award







Shehu Avni


Shkodër Court of Appeal, 15/06/1998

Shkodër Court of Appeal, 08/09/1998




10 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 29 day(s)


9 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 11 day(s)

Shkodër Court of Appeal decision of 15 June 1998 ordered the Shkodër City Hall to pay the applicants ALL 4,238,070 compensation for the nationalisation of their property recognised by the Commission on Property Restitution and Compensation.

Shkodër Court of Appeal decision of 8 September 1998 ordered the Shkodër City Hall to pay the applicants ALL 1,613,910 compensation for the nationalisation of another piece of property.