issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 137 (2016)

21.04.2016

Judgments and decisions of 21 April 2016

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing four judgments¹and 16 decisions²

three Chamber judgments are listed below; for one other, in the case of Ivanova and Cherkezov

v. Bulgaria (application no. 46577/15), a separate press release has been issued;

the 16 decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.

The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).

Topallaj v. Albania (application no. 32913/03)

The applicant, Marketin Topallaj, born in 1951, is of Albanian origin and acquired United States

citizenship in 2012. He lives in the United States. The case concerned two sets of proceedings before

the Albanian courts, concerning the property rights of several landowners over a plot of land and

concerning the validity of a number of business contracts Mr Topallaj had concluded with the

landowners.

In December 1995 the Tirana District Court acknowledged the inherited property rights of several

landowners over a plot of land of 24 hectares. In February 1996 that court also acknowledged that

they had inherited property rights over installations and fuel tanks of a petrol station located on the

land. In January and February 1996, on the assumption that the landowners’ properties would be

restored in kind, Mr Topallaj concluded two agreements with one of the landowners, who was acting

on his own and the remaining heirs’ behalf, whereby Mr Topallaj’s company would assist the

landowners in the process of the privatisation of installations and fuel tanks on the land. In May

1996 the same landowner, again acting on his own and the remaining owners’ behalf, concluded a

notarised sales contract with Mr Topallaj for the sale of almost all of the fuel tanks and installations.

Following the conclusion of these contracts, all landowners appointed Mr Topallaj to act on their

behalf in proceedings related to the protection of their property rights.

In the meantime, a request by the landowners seeking restitution of the property by the authorities

was dismissed by the Commission on Property Restitution and Compensation. That decision was

quashed by the district court, which allocated the landowners a smaller plot of land measuring

56,500 sq. m. Furthermore, it ordered that the installations and fuel tanks be restored to them at no

cost. After the judgment had become final, in May 1996, the authorities issued a property

certificate, according to which the landowners had registered title to the plot of land. The petrol

station and fuel tanks, which were administered and exploited by two State-owned oil companies,

were subsequently expropriated in the public interest.

Between 1996 and 1998 the landowners’ property rights were unsuccessfully challenged by various

State authorities. On one occasion the courts dismissed the claim and on several other occasions the

Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber

judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a

panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and

deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the

Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.

Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.

Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution

Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.

proceedings were discontinued. Mr Topallaj joined the proceedings as a third party. In 1999 and

2000 the Ministry of Economy and the State-owned oil companies separately applied for supervisory

review of the decisions acknowledging the landowners’ property rights. The Supreme Court

accepted those applications, and the case was remitted. Eventually the courts ruled in favour of the

landowners, the final decision being given by the Constitutional Court in September 2009.

In parallel, in 2002 and again in 2005, the landowners brought proceedings against Mr Topallaj

seeking the annulment of the contracts concluded between February and May 1996. In April 2006

the district court declared those contracts null and void, finding that they had been concluded

fictitiously while the property in question was at all times administered by the State and no property

rights had been transferred to the landowners. Mr Topallaj’s appeals were rejected, the final

decision being given by the Constitutional Court in November 2010.

Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European

Convention on Human Rights, Mr Topallaj complained of the length of the proceedings challenging

the landowners’ property rights. He also complained that he had not had an effective remedy

available in respect of that complaint, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).

Violation of Article 6 § 1– concerning the length of the proceedings which started on 12 May 2000

and ended on 20 September 2009

Violation of Article 13

Just satisfaction: 1,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage

Chengelyan and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 47405/07)

The applicants are seven Bulgarian nationals born between 1927 and 1988. Five of them live in

Plovdiv (Bulgaria), one of them lives in the United States. One applicant, who died in 2014, lived in

Burgas (Bulgaria); her heirs have pursued the application on her behalf.

The case concerned the applicants’ complaint that a final judgment in their favour, granting them

restitution of property, had not been respected by the domestic courts.

Ancestors of the applicants had owned a plot of land in the old part of Plovdiv with a two-storey

house built on it, which had been expropriated in 1966 and the applicants’ ancestors had received

compensation. Following the adoption of a Restitution Act in 1992, some of the applicants applied

for the revocation of the expropriation. Initially the mayor refused their application, the decision

being upheld by the regional court. However, in a final judgment of October 1998 the Supreme

Administrative Court reversed the decision, finding that the expropriation and subsequent use of the

property had been in breach of the law. The applicants subsequently paid back to the municipality

the compensation received by their ancestors at the time; they also obtained a notarial deed which

named the applicants as the property’s owners.

The applicants could not take possession of the property, which was being used by the municipality.

After unsuccessfully attempting to negotiate an agreement they brought proceedings against the

municipality in order to have the restitution enforced. Their action was dismissed by a final

judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation in June 2007 which found that the 1998 judgment was

open to indirect judicial review, in particular because the municipality had not participated in the

earlier proceedings and therefore was not bound by that judgment.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complained that the domestic courts

had disregarded the binding force of the Supreme Administrative Court judgment of October 1998.

They also complained, in particular, of a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of

property).

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Just satisfaction: The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction)

of the Convention, insofar as it concerned the claims for pecuniary damage, was not ready for

decision, and reserved it for examination at a later date. It further awarded EUR 2,000 to each

applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,645.35 jointly to all applicants in respect of

costs and expenses.

Ha.A. v. Greece (no. 58387/11)*

The applicant, Mr Ha.A., is an Iraqi national who was born in 1993 and lives in Athens.

The case concerned his allegations of poor conditions of detention at the Tychero border post and

the proceedings in which he had challenged the lawfulness of his detention.

On 6 August 2010 Mr Ha.A. arrived in Greece and was arrested by the Tychero police for unlawfully

entering Greek territory. He was held in the Tychero detention centre. On 14 August 2010 the

Alexandroupoli police chief ordered the applicant’s deportation and his detention on the grounds

that he posed a flight risk. Mr Ha.A. filed an unsuccessful asylum claim. On 13 December 2010 he

lodged an application with the President of the Alexandroupoli Administrative Court. Relying on the

case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, he alleged that his detention was unlawful and

that the Tychero detention centre was not an appropriate place in which to detain him. His

objections were overruled. Mr Ha.A. submitted a fresh application, which was allowed by the

President of the Administrative Court on 3 January 2011 on the grounds that his detention had not

been lawful since he could have been accommodated by a non-governmental organisation.

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Ha.A. complained of the

conditions of detention at the Tychero border post. Under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and

security and right to obtain a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention), he further alleged that

his detention had been unlawful and that the judicial review of that detention had been ineffective.

Violation of Article 3 – concerning the conditions of detention at the Tychero border post

No violation of Article 5 § 1

Violation of Article 5 § 4

Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.

This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,

judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive

the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter

@ECHR_Press.

Press contacts

echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08

Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)

Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)

Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)

Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member

States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.