6.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Tirana. 7.  On 28 December 1994 the Vlora Commission on Property Restitution and Compensation (“the Commission”) recognised the applicant’s and other heirs’ inherited title to a number of plots of land, amongst which a plot of land measuring 10,500 sq. m. As the restitution of that plot of land was impossible since it was occupied, the Commission decided that the applicant and the other heirs would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law. 8.  On 11 September 1997, relying on the right of first refusal, the applicant concluded a sale contract with the Vlora regional office of the National Privatisation Agency for the purchase of a pharmacy and its corresponding plot of 79.5 sq. m, which was allegedly part of the plot of land measuring 10,500 sq. m. 9.  The chemist of the pharmacy lodged a complaint with the Vlora prosecutor office alleging that the sale contract was unlawful. 10.  On 12 February 1998 the Vlora prosecutor initiated civil proceedings with the Vlora District Court (“the District Court”) seeking the nullity of the sale contract and the nullity of the Commission decision. The chemist intervened as a third party. 11.  On 15 December 1999 the District Court declared null and void, in part, the Commission’s decision in so far as it had restored to the applicant the plot of 79.5 sq. m which corresponded to the site of the pharmacy. Relying on an expert’s report, it found that the plot of 79.5 sq. m had been expropriated in 1920, as a result of which the Property Act was inapplicable ratione temporis. Thus, the applicant could not claim a property right over that plot of land pursuant to the Property Act in so far as it had not been expropriated by the communist regime. Furthermore, the court decided to annul the contract for the purchase of the pharmacy since any such contract was based on the premise that only the owner of the site had the right of first refusal over the buildings constructed on it. However, the operative part of the judgment stated that the applicant would be compensated only in respect of 79 sq. m, the remainder of the property rights over 10,500 sq. m having been declared null and void. 12.  On 21 March 2000 the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision. It found that the prosecutor had locus standi to lodge a civil action in accordance with the Prosecutor’s Office Organisation and Operation Act. It also held that the civil action was not time-barred as it had been lodged pursuant to the Property Act. It further dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the assessment of evidence and the credibility of the expert’s report. 13.  On 20 March 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal since it did not contain any lawful ground of appeal in accordance with Article 472 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 14.  On 21 May 2001 the applicant filed a supervisory review request (rekurs në interes të ligjit) with the Supreme Court Joint Benches. 15.  On 28 January 2003 the Supreme Court Joint Benches dismissed the applicant’s supervisory review request in the light of impending review proceedings that she had instituted (see “The review proceedings” below). 16.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed a constitutional appeal. 17.  On 4 November 2005 the Constitutional Court, sitting in plenary session, dismissed the applicant’s appeal finding that there had been no breach of the right to fair hearing. It found that the prosecutor’s civil action had been supported by the intervention of the chemist who had full interests in the case and did not disclose any breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial. It further held that there was no other compelling evidence that the fairness of the proceedings had been tainted. 18.  On an unspecified date the applicant requested revision of the decision of 15 December 1999. 19.  On 6 February 2002 the District Court dismissed the revision request. 20.  On 13 May 2003, following the applicant’s appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 15 December 1999. 21.  It would appear that the applicant’s appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed on an unspecified date. 22.  On 12 January 2005 the applicant lodged a request with the District Court for the interpretation of its decision of 15 December 1999, arguing that there existed a discrepancy between the reasoning and the operative part of the decision. 23.  On 18 February 2005 the District Court entertained her request and rectified the operative part of the decision of 15 December 1999. It confirmed that the applicant’s property rights could not be recognised in respect of 79 sq. m and that the applicant should be compensated as regards the plot of land measuring 10,500 sq. m in one of the ways provided for by law. 24.  The decision became final and binding on 7 March 2005, no appeal having been filed against it. 25.  To date, the authorities have still not complied with the District Court decision of 15 December 1999, as rectified and interpreted by the decision of 18 February 2005.