003-6729099-8971473

WyrokETPCz2020-06-23

Analiza orzeczenia

Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.

Zagadnienie prawne
Czy niemożność odzyskania posiadania nieruchomości i czerpania z niej dochodów, która została zwrócona skarżącemu po nacjonalizacji, stanowi naruszenie prawa do poszanowania mienia z art. 1 Protokołu nr 1 Konwencji?
Ratio decidendi
Trybunał stwierdził naruszenie art. 1 Protokołu nr 1 do Konwencji, ponieważ skarżący, mimo odzyskania własności nieruchomości po nacjonalizacji, przez długi czas nie mógł odzyskać jej posiadania i czerpać z niej dochodów. Sytuacja ta, wynikająca z decyzji sądów krajowych uznających prawo lokatorów do zajmowania domu, stanowiła nieproporcjonalne obciążenie dla skarżącego i naruszyła jego prawo do poszanowania mienia.
Stan faktyczny
Gezim Kasmi, obywatel Albanii, w 1997 roku odziedziczył dom, który wcześniej został znacjonalizowany, a następnie zwrócony jego rodzinie. Dom był zajmowany przez lokatorów, a skarżący podjął kroki prawne w celu ich eksmisji. Sąd Rejonowy w Tiranie początkowo uwzględnił jego powództwo w marcu 2003 roku, jednak Sąd Apelacyjny uchylił to orzeczenie w stosunku do trzech z czterech lokatorów, uznając ich za prawnie bezdomnych lub nieopuszczających na stałe Albanii. Sąd Najwyższy podtrzymał tę decyzję w lipcu 2005 roku. Skarżący odzyskał posiadanie domu dopiero w maju 2010 roku, po śmierci lokatorów.
Rozstrzygnięcie
Stwierdza naruszenie art. 1 Protokołu nr 1. Zasądza 30 000 euro (EUR) tytułem szkody majątkowej.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

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);   Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, can be   consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   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   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)   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   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_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   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)   Patrick Lannin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 18)   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.   2

© Rada Europy / Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka, źródło: HUDOC (hudoc.echr.coe.int), pozyskano 15.07.2026. · Źródło