003-5354116-6681520

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 judgments1 and 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   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   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   [email protected] | 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.   3