THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ALSULA AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

(Application no. 63975/10 and 2 others–see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

30 November 2023

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

 ALSULA AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA JUDGMENT

In the case of Alsula and Others v. Albania,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Ioannis Ktistakis, President,
Darian Pavli,
Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 November 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Albania lodged with the
Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated
in the appended table.
2. The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the
applications.

THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set
out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed
enforcement of domestic decisions. Some applicants also raised other
complaints under the Court’s well-established case-law.

THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the

Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATION

NO. 6932/15 UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

6. In application no. 6932/15 the Government submitted a unilateral

declaration which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for
human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to
continue its examination of the cases (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects
the Government’s request to strike the application out and will accordingly
pursue the examination of the merits of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey
(preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003 VI).

1
 ALSULA AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA JUDGMENT

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

7. The applicants complained principally of the non-enforcement or

delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied,
expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
8. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court
must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of
Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or
delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece,
no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II).
9. In the leading cases of Qufaj Co. Sh.p.k. v. Albania, no. 54268/00,
18 November 2004, and Gjyli v. Albania, no. 32907/07, 29 September 2009,
the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the
present case. More recently in Elgakoti Sh.p.k and Others v. Albania
[Committee], nos. 63986/10 and 5 others, 6 July 2023, the Court reiterated
the principles set regarding the delayed enforcement or non-enforcement of
domestic judgements in employment cases in Albania .
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not
found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different
conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints as that it
reached in the above cited judgments. Having regard to its case-law on the
subject, the Court considers that in the instant cases the authorities did not
deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and/or in due time the decisions
in the applicants’ favour.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED

CASE-LAW

12. The applicant in application no. 35321/11 also complained under

Article 13 about the lack of effective domestic remedies in the enforcement
proceedings. The applicant in application no. 6932/15 also complained under
Article 1 of Protocol 1 about the non-enforcement and delayed enforcement
of the domestic decisions in her favour. Having regard to the facts of the case,
the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that
it has examined the main legal question raised in the present applications. It
thus finds that there is no need to give a separate ruling on these complaints
(see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania
[GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and Habilaj v. Albania [Committee],
no. 2480/10, § 14, 15 September 2022).

2
 ALSULA AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA JUDGMENT

V. ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION PROVIDES:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols
thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the
injured party.”
13. As regards application no. 63975/10, the parties have not submitted
an updated information on the payment of salary arrears as decided by the
Commission decision and later supported even in the decision of the
Constitutional Court. Therefore, the Court considers it relevant to order the
full enforcement of the decision regarding the salaries to which the applicant
would be entitled from the date of her dismissal on 27 September 2007 until
her reinstatement 10 October 2013, less any payments already effected to the
applicant by the domestic authorities in respect of the said decision.
14. As regards application no. 6932/15, the applicant claims that from her
dismissal until the reach of her retirement age, her salary has increased several
times, for which the authorities did not pay its indexation upon. The Court
recalls what it already reiterated in Elgakoti Sh.p.k. and Others v. Albania,
nos. 63986/10 and 5 others, § 17, 6 July 2023, that had the applicant been
reinstated in due time, as the decision ordered, she would have been entitled
to receive the salary in full, and the indexation of her salary should be
considered as an integral part of the domestic courts’ ruling. Furthermore, this
approach is supported by the domestic provisions of the Labour Code, under
Article 120, entitling employees to benefit automatically from the indexation.
The debtor in the enforcement proceedings, that is the authorities in the
present case, has to contest the amount to be enforced (see Memishaj
v. Albania [Committee], no. 40430/08, § 39, 25 March 2014).
15. Finally, regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its
case-law (see, in particular, Qufaj Co. Sh.p.k, cited above, §§ 46-48, and
Gjyli, also cited above, §§ 62-76), the Court considers it reasonable to award
the applicants the sums for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses,
indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;

2. Rejects the Government’s request to strike application no. 6932/15 out of

the list;

3. Declares the complaints concerning the non-enforcement or delayed

enforcement of domestic decisions under Article 6 of the Convention
admissible, and decides that there is no need to examine the remaining
complaints;

3
 ALSULA AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA JUDGMENT

4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the

Convention concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of
domestic decisions;

5. Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within
three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decisions referred
to in the appended table, also taking into account the Court’s findings in
paragraphs 13 and 14 above;

6. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months,
the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the
currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement;
(b) 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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 November 2023, pursuant

to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Ioannis Ktistakis

Acting Deputy Registrar President

4
 ALSULA AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA JUDGMENT

APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)

No. Application Applicant’s name Representative’s Relevant Start date of End date of non-enforcement period Domestic Details of Amount Amount awarded
no. Year of birth name and domestic non- Length of enforcement proceedings award (in enforcement writ awarded for for costs and
Date of location decision enforcement euros) non-pecuniary expenses per
introduction period damage per application
applicant (in euros)2
(in euros)
1

1. 63975/10 Ardita ALSULA Civil Service 26/02/2010 10/10/2013 Civil Service Enforcement writ 2,100 -
23/10/2010 1971 Commission, (on that date the applicant was reinstated to her previous position Commission issued by the
12/02/2008 as Director of the Centre for Official Publications; she held that decision of Tirana District
position until 2018 when she was again dismissed following 12/02/2008 Court on
another set of disciplinary proceedings) ordering her 18/12/2008
reinstatement
3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 15 day(s) in respect of the and payment of
reinstatement salary arrears
until
and still pending enforcement for payment of salary arrears reinstatement

2. 35321/11 Edmond PEJO Tirana 24/01/2011 05/04/2020 Tirana District Tirana District 3,600 -
08/06/2011 1955 District (on that date the applicant reached the retirement age) Court decision Court
Court, of 15/06/2009 enforcement writ
15/06/2009 9 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 13 day(s) as upheld by the of 24/01/2011
Tirana Court of
Appeal on
01/12/2010,
ordering the
applicants

1 Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

2 Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

5
 ALSULA AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA JUDGMENT

No. Application Applicant’s name Representative’s Relevant Start date of End date of non-enforcement period Domestic Details of Amount Amount awarded
no. Year of birth name and domestic non- Length of enforcement proceedings award (in enforcement writ awarded for for costs and
Date of location decision enforcement euros) non-pecuniary expenses per
introduction period damage per application
applicant (in euros)2
(in euros)
1

reinstatement to
the previous
post or,
alternatively, to
a similar job
position, and to
pay him salary
arrears until his
reinstatement
3. 6932/15 Tatjana MILO Saccucci Andrea Tirana Court 13/07/2007 15/07/2017 Applicant’s Tirana District 2,500 250
30/01/2015 1957 Rome of Appeal (on that date the applicant reached the retirement age) reinstatement Court’s
decision no. into her enforcement writ
848, 10 year(s) and 3 day(s) previous job no.1270 of
27/06/2007 and payment of 13/07/2007
salary arrears
until
reinstatement