Judgment ARB SHPK and Others v. Albania - Delays in national courts lead to violations of right to a fair trial

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 129 (2025)   27.05.2025   Delays in national courts lead to violations of right to a fair trial   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of ARB SHPK and Others v. Albania (applications   nos. 39860/19, 38996/20, 6142/22 and 27370/22) the European Court of Human Rights held,   unanimously, that there had been:   a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights as regards   ARB SHPK’s and Mr Gazidedja’s applications, and   a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) as regards Mr Gazidedja’s application.   The case concerned alleged excessive length of proceedings in cases taken before the Albanian courts.   The Court found in particular that the delays of eight years and six months and seven years that ARB   SHPK’s cases had been pending before the Supreme Court had been excessive.   Regarding Mr Gazidedja’s case, the Court noted that he had not received compensation for the delays,   despite an order in that regard, and that his case had still not been finally judged before the courts in   Albania despite a delay so far of eight years and 11 months, which was excessive.   The Court indicated, under Article 46 (binding force and enforcement of judgments), that Albania   was to, in particular, reduce the backlog at various court levels by filling the relevant judicial vacancies   and providing the necessary resources to the judicial system.   Principal facts   The applicants are ARB SHPK (applications nos. 39860/19 and 38996/20), a company based in Albania   that specialises in private enforcement of judgments or writs, and two Albanian citizens, Kujtim   Llagami and Selman Gazidedja, who live in Tirana and were born in 1962 and 1954 respectively.   Albania has undergone judicial reform in recent years, including, in 2016, constitutional changes, the   make-up of the Supreme Court, reorganisation of the judiciary, vetting of judges. Sometimes this has   led to courts, including the Supreme Court, having to operate with a reduced number of judges.   ARB SHPK’s two applications concerned the length of the proceedings it took against two separate   local banks. Both sets of proceedings lasted over 10 years and three months. In both cases the   Constitutional Court noted that the Supreme Court had failed to issue a ruling on the complaint within   45 days, as required under the law. However, it found that, owing to the Supreme Court backlog – and   as it had not been operating with a full bench for some time – there had been no violation of the   “reasonable time” requirement. The appeals were dismissed.   Mr Llagami’s application concerned the length of proceedings (over nine years and two months) of his   complaint concerning alleged unlawful dismissal against a State body. Following his claim in that   connection, the Supreme Court found that there had been no violation of his right to a hearing within   a reasonable time. Any delay had been a result of reforms to the justice system.   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.   Mr Gazidedja’s complaint concerned the length of proceedings of his challenge to a decision not to   award him a miner’s pension alongside his old-age pension (the proceedings began in May 2016 and   his appeal in that matter before the Tirana Administrative Court of Appeal was still pending at the   time of his application to the European Court). He complained of the excessive length of the   proceedings, and the Constitutional Court agreed and ordered the Supreme Court to examine his   cassation appeal within six months. He was awarded damages in that connection by the Tirana District   Court, but that judgment has not been enforced, and an appeal on that matter too is pending.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants   complained of the length of proceedings and that they had no effective remedy for that complaint.   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 July and 20 December   2019, and 19 January and 26 May 2022.   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),   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh (Ireland),   Mateja Đurović (Serbia),   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat (Andorra),   and also Milan Blaško, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 6   The Court held that, owing to his not having lodged a constitutional appeal in Albania, Mr Llagami’s   complaint under this Article was inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.   The Court noted the significant challenges faced by the Albanian judiciary in the wake of the recent   reforms, and commended the progress made in reducing the Supreme Court backlog in particular. It   reiterated that where a violation had already been found, the authorities had an obligation to provide   an effective compensatory remedy.   Regarding ARB SHPK’s applications, it found that the three-and-a-half-year limit in which the Supreme   Court had to process a case was already long, and the length in the proceedings in these cases had   greatly exceeded that. It also stated that if the doctrinal position on “objective reasons” to not find   delays in proceedings were maintained by the Supreme Court in the future, it might call into doubt   the effectiveness of the available national remedies. The Court reiterated that all parties to civil   proceedings were entitled to a speedy trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and were not   required to prove any special or additional harm resulting from delays.   Concerning ARB SHPK’s first application, the Court considered that the delay of eight years and six   months before the Supreme Court was excessive. Similarly, for its second application, the Court   considered that the period of seven years that the case had been pending before the Supreme Court   of Albania had been excessive. There had been a violation of Article 6 in respect of both applications.   As concerns Mr Gazidedja, the Court noted that after three years waiting on his initial complaint, he   complained to the Supreme Court about the delay, but did not receive a timely ruling. It took 13   2 months overall to complete this first phase of the proceedings on the length of the original   proceedings, for which compensation should have been expected. However, the decision on   compensation had not been enforced and an appeal was still pending at the time of application,   alongside the original case on the pension, which is still pending three years after having been   remitted by the Supreme Court to the Administrative Court. He was therefore still a victim of the   delays.   Those delays were not caused by Mr Gazidedja, and the case had not been complex in either fact or   law. The overall length of proceedings of eight years and 11 months was excessive and in violation of   Article 6 of the Convention.   Article 13   Regarding both ARB SHPK’s applications, the European Court noted that the Constitutional Court had   comprehensively examined its complaints concerning length of proceedings on three occasions. Its   complaints under Article 13 were therefore manifestly ill-found.   Regarding Mr Llagami, the Court noted that he had not lodged a constitutional appeal, which had   been, in theory, an effective remedy. It therefore found this complaint inadmissible.   Mr Gazidedja’s complaint concerned the delays in finalising his compensation under the 2017 remedy.   The Court had already found that, owing to such delay and despite the favourable outcome of his   constitutional complaint, he retained victim status. It therefore found a violation of Article 13 in   conjunction with Article 6.   Other articles   ARB SHPK lodged new complaints after its application, under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (protection of property). The Court held that it had dealt with the major issues contained in   those complaints and that there was no need to give a separate ruling.   Article 46 (binding force and enforcement of judgments)   The Court indicated, with a view to assisting Albania in meeting its obligations under Article 46 of the   Convention, that the national authorities should undertake efforts to meet the Convention   “reasonable time” requirements by, among other measures, reducing the high backlog before the   appeal courts by filling the relevant judicial vacancies and by granting adequate human resources and   other necessary support to the judiciary. It also urged the Government to look again at the practical   effectiveness of the compensatory remedy under Articles 399/1 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Albania was to pay ARB SHPK 5,700 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary   damage and EUR 3,000 in respect of costs and expenses, and to pay Mr Gazidedja EUR 1,800 in respect   of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 in respect of costs and expenses.   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 and Bluesky @echr.coe.int.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   3 Neil Connolly (tel: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   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)   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