issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 181 (2020)
23.06.2020
Judgments of 23 June 2020
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 26 judgments1:
one Chamber judgment is summarised below; two separate press releases have been issued for five
other Chamber judgment in the cases of Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia (application no. 10795/14),
OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia (nos. 12468/15, 23489/15 and 19074/16), Engels v. Russia (no.
61919/16) and Bulgakov v. Russia (no. 20159/15), and Omorefe v. Spain (no. 69339/16);
20 Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, can be
The judgment summarised below is available in English only.
Kasmi v. Albania (application no. 1175/06)
The applicant, Gezim Kasmi, is an Albanian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Tirana.
The case concerned the applicant’s legal efforts to evict tenants from a former nationalised property
which had been restored to his family.
In 1997 the applicant and his siblings inherited two houses which had been nationalised during the
communist period but which had been restored to their father. One of the houses was occupied by
tenants and the applicant lodged a civil action with Tirana District Court to evict them. The District
Court upheld his action in March 2003, however, on appeal by the tenants, the judgment was
quashed in respect of three of the four tenants.
The Court of Appeal held that the tenants had been occupying the house since the 1980s. It found
that one of them was legally homeless and had had a right to a tenancy since 1993. Two others had
been living abroad as economic migrants for two years but had not established any permanent
residence there and had not abandoned their dwelling in Albania.
The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision in July 2005, finding that the three tenants
were legally homeless and had a right to occupy the house. The applicant informed the Court in May
2010 that he had taken possession of the house after the tenants living there had died.
The applicant complained of a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the
European Convention on Human Rights as he had been unable to recover possession of his house
and receive income from it.
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Just satisfaction: 30,000 euros (EUR) (pecuniary damage)
1
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
