LASKU A OSTATNÍ proti Albánii

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF LASKU AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

(Application no. 6045/14)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

18 November 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Lasku and Others v. Albania,

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

Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,
Darian Pavli,
Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 6045/14) against the Republic of Albania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 31 December 2013 by 13 Albanian nationals, relevant details listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”) who were represented by Mr E. Hicka, a lawyer practising in Tirana;

the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning legal certainty, property rights and length of proceedings to the Albanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr O. Moçka, General State Advocate, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 14 October 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. the cIrcumstances of the case

1. The case concerns, principally, a complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that domestic authorities annulled three final property commission’s decisions, thus breaching the principle of legal certainty.

1. Background to the case

2. In 1996 and 1997 the Tirana Commission on Property Restitution and Compensation (“the Commission”) recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights over three plots, measuring in total 1,070 sq. m, and ordered their restitution to the applicants. The Immovable Property Registration Office (“the IPRO”) registered the applicants’ title to the land.

3. In 1996 the Tirana Municipality issued a building permit to the applicants for the construction of a gas station on a plot of 700 sq. m that was part of the land restituted by the Commission. The construction was carried out in cooperation with M. company. In 1998 the IPRO registered the applicants’ title to the gas station.

4. The applicants transferred the administration and possession of the gas station to M. company through a cooperation agreement, with the aim of sharing the profits equally.

5. The complaints lodged by the applicants concern different proceedings which are intertwined with each other and concern the same plots.

2. First set of proceedings

6. In 2000 M. company brought a civil claim against the applicants, seeking recognition of its ownership of the building and the land on which it was situated. The applicants lodged a counterclaim demanding restitution of the possession. In 2004 both claims were dismissed by the courts on the grounds that the agreement between the parties (see paragraph 4 above) constituted an obstacle to the award of possession to either party.

3. Second set of proceedings

7. In 2003 the applicants brought a civil claim against M. company, seeking payment of their share of the profits. On 12 March 2013 the Tirana Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”), allowed the claim. On 22 November 2022 the Supreme Court upheld that judgment, recognizing M. company’s obligation to pay the applicants their share of the profits.

8. On 13 July 2021 the applicants complained about the length of these proceedings to the Supreme Court. On 26 July 2023 the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint under Articles 399/1 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the grounds that the case had already been adjudicated and that the excessive length of the proceedings was attributable to the judicial reform in Albania.

4. Third set of proceedings

9. After amendment of the Property Act in 2007 (see paragraph 16 below), the director of the Agency for the Restitution and Compensation of Property (“the Agency”), which had succeeded the Commission, was granted the power to review and annul, of his or her own motion, the decisions of former commissions and regional branches of the Agency. No time-limit was provided for such a review.

10. On 27 November 2007 the Agency annulled the Commission’s three decisions concerning the restitution to the applicants of the 1,070 sq. m plots, on the grounds that the relevant commission at the time had lacked jurisdiction and that the decision should have been taken by a special commission. It argued that the 1993 Property Act gave commissions the power to recognise the right to property and to decide on its restitution, but not the authority to order its actual restitution. Furthermore, the plot of land in question could not be restituted despite being registered as state property (see paragraph 18 below). The decision recognizing the applicants’ inherited rights remained in force.

11. In late 2007 applicant Bledar Lasku and A.K. (applicants Shpresa Kekezi and Teri Kekezi being his heirs) challenged the decision of the Agency before the Tirana District Court (“the District Court”), which allowed their claim, holding that the annulment was based on the Code of Administrative Procedure which had entered into force three years after the Commission’s decision. On 15 February 2010 that judgment was quashed by the Court of Appeal which dismissed that claim. On 28 June 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment. On 24 April 2013 the Constitutional Court found violations of the applicants’ right to a fair trial by the Supreme Court and remitted the case. After the retrial, on 22 January 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law lodged by the applicants for a second time, in accordance with Article 472 of the Code of Civil Procedure (no valid grounds for appeal).

12. On 10 April 2015, the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional complaint finding that at the time when the case was adjudicated by the Court of Appeal, the Agency’s power to review the final decisions had still been in force, and that the Constitutional Court’s judgments did not have retroactive effect (see paragraph 16 below).

5. Fourth set of proceedings

13. In 2008 the applicants brought a new claim against M. company. The District Court decided to terminate their agreement with the company but dismissed the applicants’ claim for restitution of the property. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in 2011 and 2022, respectively. On 29 May 2023 the applicants’ ensuing constitutional complaint against these proceedings was dismissed. While the Constitutional Court found the second set of proceedings before the Supreme Court to be excessively lengthy (see paragraph 8 above), it held that it lacked jurisdiction to award any compensation.

6. Legalisation proceedings

14. At an unspecified time, M. company built an unauthorised construction on the applicants’ land, in addition to the existing structure (see paragraph 3 above), and in 2013 that construction was legalised. In 2014 the State sold to the company a 595.8 sq. m plot, on which the legalised construction was situated. This plot formed part of the land claimed by the applicants. The applicants did not challenge the legalisation proceedings or the sale contract.

15. In 2016 the IPRO removed the applicants’ names from the list of owners of the existing building and registered it as a property of M. company. While the applicants submitted an administrative appeal against the actions of the IPRO, they have not yet instituted proceedings.

2. relevant domestic law and practice

16. On 26 May 2010 and on 6 October 2011, the Constitutional Court held that the amendments granting the Agency the power to review and overturn final decisions of the previous Commissions were in violation of the Constitution and were subsequently annulled. The Constitutional Court held that these amendments violated, inter alia, the principle of legal certainty and the right to property. A detailed summary of the relevant domestic provisions and case-law was made in Gaba v. Albania (no. 33369/17, §§ 43-56, 17 December 2024).

17. Relevant provisions concerning the remedy for the length of proceedings are set out in Bara and Kola v. Albania (nos. 43391/18 and 17766/19, § 37, 12 October 2021) and ARB SHPK and Others v. Albania (nos. 39860/19 and 2 others, §§ 65-67, 27 May 2025).

18. The Agency referred in its annulment decision to the Council of Ministers’ Decision (“CMD”) no. 528/1996, which determined the procedures for the compensation of the properties located in touristic areas.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
   1. Legal Certainty
      1. Admissibility

19. The Government argued that only Bledar Lasku and A. K. (see paragraph 11 above) had contested the Agency’s decision before domestic courts, and that, therefore, the other applicants did not have victim status.

20. The Court observes that the applicants instituted several proceedings against the domestic authorities and M. company concerning the plots of land in question. The third set of proceedings (see paragraphs 9- 12 above), which concerns this complaint, was initiated to protect the proprietary rights of all the heirs, and the domestic courts’ findings concerned the restitution of all three plots. The Court therefore considers that the domestic authorities were afforded the opportunity to remedy the alleged violation in respect of all the applicants. Furthermore, all applicants have shown a proactive approach towards the properties in question, as evidenced by their participation in the other proceedings concerning the same plots. The proprietary interests of the other applicants’ have been affected by the Agency’s decision and the relevant courts’ judgements. Therefore, in the circumstances of the present case, the Government’s argument in this respect should be rejected.

21. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

22. The applicants submitted that the three Commission decisions of 1996 and 1997 were final. Their annulment, therefore, violated the principle of legal certainty. The Agency’s power to review the Commission decisions proprio motu had been invalidated by the Constitutional Court at the time of the Supreme Court’s adjudication of the case.

23. The Government argued that domestic courts had acted in accordance with legal provisions as in force at the relevant time. They further added that the decisions had been annulled on the grounds that they had been issued in contravention of the law.

24. The Court finds that this case presents similar issues to those in Gaba (cited above), where a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 was found on account of the annulment of a final decision of the property restitution commission without substantial and compelling circumstances. In that case, the Court found problematic the fact that the State Advocate could have sought, indefinitely, a review of a final decision of a former commission on any legal grounds of a general nature, rather than only on the grounds of substantial and compelling circumstances (idem., §§ 88‑89).

25. In the case at hand, the applicants’ titles were annulled about ten years after the relevant Commission’s decisions had become final. The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court confirmed the Agency’s reasoning that the relevant commission had lacked jurisdiction to order restitution of the applicants’ plot, referring to CMD no. 528/1996 (see paragraph 18 above) and since the land in question was not legally eligible for restitution. The courts failed to explain, however, the applicability of that CMD to the applicants’ case, considering that it specifically referred to touristic areas and the fact that the plot in question was not designated as such. Therefore, the courts did not provide clear reasons or indicate a clear legal basis as to why the land in question was not fit for restitution.

26. Furthermore, after the land was taken from the applicants, part of it was transferred to other private parties, who continue to own it to this day (see paragraph 14 above). As a result, the Government failed to provide a compelling reason for revoking the commissions’ restitution decisions. It must also be noted that the administrative and judicial review raised no doubts as to the veracity of the documents provided by the applicants to prove their ancestor’s ownership, nor any other evidence that could indicate bad faith on their part. The decision for the recognition of their inherited rights on the three plots of 1,070 sq. m is still in force, since the annulment concerned only their restitution in natura.

27. Therefore, the Government have failed to show that there were substantial and compelling circumstances justifying the annulment of the decisions in question that could persuade the Court to reach a different conclusion from the one in Gaba (cited above, §§ 89-92). There has accordingly been a violation of the principle of legal certainty inherent in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

2. Length of proceedings

28. The applicants also complained that the second set of proceedings has not been concluded within a “reasonable time”. They argued that the Constitutional Court should have awarded them compensation and not only found a violation of their right.

29. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to lodge a compensation claim with the District Court based on Articles 399/6 and 399/10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see reference in paragraph 17 above) and had therefore failed to exhaust domestic remedies.

30. The Constitutional Court found that there had been a violation of the applicants’ right to have their case heard within a reasonable time before the Supreme Court in the second set of proceedings. Based on Article 399/6 and 399/10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, they should have lodged a claim for compensation with the District Court. The Court has found, in principle, the compensatory remedy for excessive length of proceedings to be an effective one (see Bara and Kola, §§ 110-18, and ARB SHPK and Others, § 192, both cited above). The applicants have not availed themselves of this remedy. Therefore, the complaint concerning the length of proceedings must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

2. alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

31. The applicants also complained that the annulment of the 1996 and 1997 Commission’s decisions had amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible.

32. The Court notes that the 1996 and 1997 decisions, which were final, conferred on the applicants title to the plots that had been expropriated from their late ancestors (see paragraph 2 above). The applicants’ title was then registered with the Land Registry and they exercised property rights over it. Hence, it considers the applicants’ claim over that plot of land sufficiently established in domestic law to qualify as an enforceable “possession” under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Ramadhi and Others v. Albania, no. 38222/02, § 71, 13 November 2007, and Vikentijevik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 50179/07, § 60, 6 February 2014).

33. The quashing of the final restitution decisions amounted to an interference with the applicants’ possessions (see Nelyubin v. Russia, no. 14502/04, § 32, 2 November 2006, and Vikentijevik, cited above, § 61). It must therefore be ascertained whether the interference complained of was lawful and, if so, whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

34. The Court notes that this complaint is closely linked to the one examined under Article 6 § 1 in relation to the annulment of the commission’s decisions (see paragraphs 22-27 above) (see Vrioni and Others v. Albania, no. 2141/03, §§ 74-75, 24 March 2009). Having found that the authorities acted in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court observes that the annulment of three final Commission decisions without substantial and compelling circumstances, in a manner which was incompatible with the principle of legal certainty, frustrated the applicants’ reliance on binding restitution decisions and deprived them of the opportunity of enforcing their titles to their property.

35. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

36. The applicants claimed 3,240,894 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 20,000 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and for those incurred before the Court.

37. The Government contested those claims as unjustified.

38. The Court considers that the applicants should be put as far as possible in a situation equivalent to the one in which they would have been had there not been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention if the respondent State restored their title to the property in issue and returned it to them (including by way of reopening the domestic proceedings, if applicable). At the same time, given the circumstances of the case, it is possible that restitutio in integrum might not be feasible (compare with Vrioni, cited above, § 83). Consequently, if the Government cannot ensure such restoration, either in whole or in part, the applicants should receive adequate monetary compensation (calculated in accordance with the domestic requirements on the valuation of property at current value and the Court’s practice), or provision of a comparable property in current value (compare with Brumărescu v. Romania (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 28342/95, §§ 19‑24, ECHR 2001 I; Drozdyk and Mikula v. Ukraine, nos. 27849/15 and 33358/15, §§ 60-62, 24 October 2024; and Jella and Others v. Albania [Committee], no. 7564/07, § 32, 5 March 2024).

39. The Court awards the applicants jointly EUR 3,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

40. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants jointly EUR 3,000 for the costs and expenses related to the proceedings before it, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the length of proceedings inadmissible and the complaints concerning the breach of legal certainty under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the domestic authorities annulling the 1996 and 1997 Commission’s decisions for the restitution of the property to the applicants;
3. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to ensure, by appropriate means and within twelve months, full restitution of the applicants’ title to the plots of land in issue, or the provision of monetary compensation or of comparable property to the applicants;

(b) that the respondent State is to pay jointly to the applicants the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i) EUR 3,600 (three thousand and six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses;

(iii) 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;

4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 November 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Olga Chernishova Úna Ní Raifeartaigh
Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX