Judgment Ramaj v. Albania - apparent structural issue with regard to registering property

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 293 (2024)   10.12.2024   Apparent structural issue in Albania with regard to registering property   The case Ramaj v. Albania (application no. 17758/06) concerned a 6,700 sq. m plot of land in the Uji i   Ftohtë area, which had been seized by the communist regime. A 2004 judgment restoring title of the   land to Mr Ramaj has never been enforced, while the authorities have repeatedly refused his   requests to register his ownership.   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously,   that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the   European Convention on Human Rights as concerned the part of the plot of land which had been   occupied by illegal buildings Those particular parts of the land had in effect been expropriated and   Mr Ramaj could have applied for compensation, which he had apparently not done.   However, it held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the   Convention as concerned the remaining part of the plot of land.   The Court found in particular that the authorities’ manner of dealing with Mr Ramaj’s situation had   lacked clarity and transparency. Interference by the executive with property titles, faulty land-   registry maps, a lack of clear procedures in cases of overlapping titles, and discrepancies in the   domestic legal practice over compliance with court-ordered registration had all contributed to   leaving Mr Ramaj in a state of uncertainty over his property for more than 26 years.   The issues that had led to the non-enforcement of the final judgment in Mr Ramaj’s favour   apparently went beyond this specific case and were part of a challenging context of complex   historical events. The Court advised the national authorities to establish efficient and transparent   procedures and a functional immovable property registration system in order to ensure respect for   property owners’ rights.   Principal facts   The applicant, Bashkim Ramaj was an Albanian national who was born in 1942. He lived in Tirana.   Mr Ramaj is now deceased, and his son has continued the application in his place.   During the communist period a 6,700 sq. m plot of land belonging to Mr Ramaj’s father in Uji i Ftohtë   in the Vlora district was seized by the regime to set up a collective farm.   In 1991 use of the plot was returned to his father, and title was restored in 1996. That decision was   however annulled in 2000 on the grounds that his father did not have rights to the property.   In 2003 Mr Ramaj joined a civil action to contest the annulment-of-title decision. Ultimately, in April   2004 the Vlora Court of Appeal found in his favour and Mr Ramaj’s title to the plot of land was   confirmed. The decision was not appealed against and became final. The court-of-appeal judgment   has never been enforced.   Mr Ramaj’s repeated requests to register his title to the plot of land have all been refused. Following   his father’s death, Mr Ramaj had tried to register the plot in his name, as the heir, in 1998. Since the   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its 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.   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.   2004 judgment in his favour, he had also submitted numerous requests together with relevant   documents and maps of his property to the registration authorities, in vain.   Initially the refusals had been based on the Prime Minister ordering a review of all title deeds and   property registrations in the Uji i Ftohtë area. Subsequently, the land-registry authorities informed   Mr Ramaj that he could not be issued with an ownership certificate because of competing claims or   registration of titles to the same plot of land, as well as unauthorised buildings which had in the   meantime been erected on it.   Most recently the Albanian legislature has chosen to prioritise the de facto claims of persons seeking   to legalise unauthorised construction over the interests of the owners of agricultural land, such as   Mr Ramaj. In the context of this legalisation process, title to the parts of Mr Ramaj’s land occupied   by unauthorised buildings has been or will be transferred to those who had erected them.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of   Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Ramaj   complained in particular of the non-enforcement of the Court of Appeal’s decision restoring his title   to the plot of land. He alleged that he had never been in real and effective possession of the land   because of the refusal to register his title.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 April 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Ioannis Ktistakis (Greece), President,   Lətif Hüseynov (Azerbaijan),   Darian Pavli (Albania),   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir (Iceland),   Diana Kovatcheva (Bulgaria),   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh (Ireland),   Mateja Đurović (Serbia),   and also Milan Blaško, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)   Firstly, the Court considered that Mr Ramaj had had a property claim which constituted a possession   within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Although he had never actually been registered as   the owner of the plot of land in question, under Albanian law lack of registration did not affect the   validity of the title to the land as such. The registration authorities had never, moreover, disputed   the validity of Mr Ramaj’s title to the land, rather they had found that registration had not been   possible.   Next the Court rejected the Government’s argument that Mr Ramaj had not used all the legal   avenues available at national level for his complaint. It found that they had not shown that the legal   remedies they had referred to had been adequate or effective. For over two decades – even after   the application had been brought to the Court – the registration authorities had given different and   at times conflicting reasons for not registering his property. It was not therefore satisfied that any   fresh proceedings would have guaranteed registration. In point of fact, Mr Ramaj had been   prevented from bringing adequate legal action, as he had only been given basic details about the   2 overlapping titles, conflicting registrations and unauthorised construction on the land in June 2015,   some 17 years after his original registration request.   The Court went on to find that there had been an interference with Mr Ramaj’s rights over the plot   of land. That interference could be divided into two categories: the authorities’ persistent refusal of   his registration requests, while allowing registration of competing claims by third parties to the same   plot of land; and, the transfer or future transfer of ownership of those parts of his property that   had been illegally occupied by third parties.   Those parts of Mr Ramaj’s property occupied by unauthorised buildings had therefore in effect been   expropriated and he was entitled to seek compensation. He had not indicated that he had applied   for such compensation under the relevant legal regime, and the Court concluded that there had   been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of those particular parts of the land.   However, as concerned the part of the land that was not occupied by unauthorised buildings, the   Court considered that the main responsibility for Mr Ramaj’s situation lay with the national   authorities, who had been under an obligation to implement the 2004 final and binding judgment   recognising his right to title of the land.   Indeed, the issues that had led to the non-enforcement of that final judgment had apparently been   structural, going beyond this specific case. Interference by the executive with property titles, faulty   land-registry maps, the lack of clear procedures in cases of overlapping titles, and the discrepancies   in the domestic legal practice over compliance with court-ordered registration had all contributed to   the failure to register Mr Ramaj’s property for more than 26 years, leaving him in a state of   uncertainty.   The Court reiterated that individuals should not be forced to bear the burden of mistakes made by   public authorities by being required to initiate long and costly proceedings. Recent national case-law   suggested that such issues continued to be a persistent problem in Albania.   The Court concluded that the authorities’ failure to comply with the 2004 final and binding court   decision had imposed a disproportionate and excessive burden on Mr Ramaj. The authorities had   failed to strike a fair balance between the demands of the public interest, on the one hand, and   Mr Ramaj’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, on the other. There had accordingly been   a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the part of the land that was   not occupied by unauthorised buildings.   Other articles   The Court considered that it had already determined the main legal issue in the case, and that there   was no need to examine Mr Ramaj’s complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 separately.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Albania was to pay the applicant 4,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary   damage and EUR 10,000 in respect of costs and expenses. It reserved the question of pecuniary   damage, holding that it was not yet ready for decision.   The judgment is available only in English.   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 X   (Twitter) @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   3 We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Neil Connolly (tel: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   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.   4