5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Tirana. 6.  The relevant domestic proceedings concern an application for the restitution of land. 7.  In pre-war Albania the applicant’s late father had owned a bakery in Tirana and a plot of land measuring 6,000 square metres In 1960 the Albanian authorities demolished the building and expropriated the land. 8.  On 27 September 1994 the Tirana District Court restored the applicant’s property rights over his late father’s property pursuant to the Property Restitution and Compensation Act 1993 (hereinafter, the Property Act). The decision became final and binding at the latest on 11 October 1994. 9.  As it was unable to return the original property, the Tirana City Council decided on 30 April 1996 that the applicant had a right to receive compensation in kind for the original property. It allocated him a piece of land situated two kilometres from the centre of Tirana and measuring 5,000 sq. m. The land was divided into two plots measuring, respectively, 1,650 sq. m. (hereinafter, the smaller plot) and 3,350 sq. m. (hereinafter, the larger plot). 10.  By decision no. 621 of 20 June 1996 the Tirana Commission on the Restitution of Properties and Compensation (hereinafter referred to as the “Tirana Commission”) upheld the Tirana City Council’s decision. 11.  On 15 August 1996 the applicant’s title to the land was entered in the Tirana Land Register. 12.  In 1996 and 1997 a series of possession orders concerning the two plots of land were issued by the Tirana City Council and the Tirana District Court. However, the applicant was unable to recover possession from the occupants. 13.  On 10 September 1997 he concluded a preliminary contract to sell the smaller plot. 14.  F.Z., a former member of an agricultural cooperative, had previously been granted under Law no. 7501 of 19 July 1991 the right to use the smaller of the two plots allocated to the applicant. 15.  On an unspecified date she brought a civil action in the Tirana District Court claiming full title over the smaller plot under Law no. 8053 of 21 December 1995. She also asked the District Court to set aside the Commission’s decision of 20 June 1996 in so far as it related to that plot. 16.  On 10 October 1997 the Tirana District Court set aside the Commission’s decision relating to the smaller plot on the grounds that the Commission had first to award compensation to the user and to the former owner of the land. 17.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Tirana Court of Appeal claiming full title to the plot. He argued that, when the Commission reached its decision, the plot was State property that was available for allocation to former owners in lieu of compensation. He added that F.Z. was merely a user of the land at the time. 18.  On 2 June 1998 the Tirana Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s appeal, quashed the District Court’s decision as being defective in law and upheld the validity of the Commission’s decision concerning the applicant’s title. 19.  On 17 December 1998 the Supreme Court (Administrative Division) deciding on the merits, upheld the applicant’s rights over the smaller plot of land that had been allocated as compensation for the original property. The judgment became final and binding on an unspecified date. 20.  On an unspecified date, while the enforcement proceedings were in progress, F.Z. lodged an application with the Supreme Court for supervisory review (Rekurs në interes të ligjit) of the merits of the Supreme Court (Administrative Division’s) judgment of 17 December 1998 and of the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 2 June 1998, on the grounds that they conflicted with substantive law. 21.  The application for supervisory review was examined by the Supreme Court (Joint Colleges). On 5 July 2001, approximately two and a half years after the final decision, the Supreme Court granted the application. On the same date, it quashed, by a majority, the judgments of 2 June 1998 and 17 December 1998 in favour of the applicant, and upheld the District Court’s decision of 10 October 1997 dismissing the applicant’s claims relating to the smaller plot of land. It found that the Commission’s decision had been based on a misinterpretation of the substantive law (Property Act 1993). 22.  The applicant was neither informed of the supervisory-review proceedings nor invited to attend the hearings before the Supreme Court. He was not served with the Supreme Court’s judgment within the six-month time-limit for appealing and so did not appeal against it. 23.  Of the fifteen Supreme Court judges who decided the case on 5 July 2001, three (B. C., N. SH. and M.S.) had been members of the panel which on 17 December 1998 had decided the merits of the case. A further three (Th. K., P.Z., and V.K.) had sat on the panel which on 7 December 2000 had decided the merits of the case in the proceedings concerning both plots of land (see paragraph 29 below). The first three judges were called upon to rule in the supervisory-review proceedings on their alleged misinterpretation of substantive law while the other three judges had to determine the merits of the case for the second time in the same proceedings. 24.  In 1997 the State Supreme Audit Institution (Kontrolli i Larte i Shtetit), acting on its own behalf and at the instance of S. SH., the user of the larger plot of land allocated to the applicant, brought an action in the Tirana District Court for an order setting aside the Commission’s decision of 20 June 1996 in its entirety, on the ground that it had exceeded its jurisdiction by allocating land to the applicant. 25.  On 22 December 1997 the Tirana District Court set aside the Commission’s decision in its entirety as being defective in law. It also held that the State had an obligation to pay the applicant compensation under the Property Act for a plot of land measuring 5,000 sq. m. 26.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal with the Tirana Court of Appeal seeking the reinstatement of the Commission’s decision allocating him the land. 27.  On 9 April 1999 the Tirana Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the District Court’s decision. 28.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court (Civil Division) arguing that the lower courts had failed to rule on the question of the users’ title to the land. 29.  On 7 December 2000 the Supreme Court (Civil Division), deciding the merits of the case, upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment on the ground that the Commission had exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding on the form of compensation the applicant should receive for the loss of his original property. It noted that pursuant to a Council of Ministers’ decision of 13 May 1996, Commissions were to be set up by the municipal councils to assess compensation for land situated in tourist areas. These Commissions had yet to be established. Lastly, the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s right under the Property Act to obtain the payment of compensation for a 5,000 sq. m. plot of land. 30.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court under Article 131 (f) of the Constitution, arguing that the Supreme Court’s judgments of 7 December 2000 and 5 July 2001 were unconstitutional. 31.  The appeal was declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court on 8 April 2002 pursuant to Article 31 of the Constitutional Court Act, as being “outside its jurisdiction”. 32.  The applicant says that an apartment block has now been built on the larger plot of land by third parties and the apartments sold to, and occupied by, new owners. The smaller plot is occupied by temporary structures. The applicant has not received any compensation from the authorities.