BAKIU AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
Inadmissible
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström
1. The case originated in seventeen applications (43928/13, 43934/13, 44107/13, 44132/13, 44136/13, 44140/13, 44147/13, 44150/13, 44152/13, 44153/13, 44522/13, 44526/13, 44535/13, 44542/13, 44548/13, 44611/13 and 44632/13) against the Republic of Albania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by thirty-five Albanian nationals on 30 April 2013. 2. The applicants were represented by Mr D. Matlija and Mr T. Alexandridis, two lawyers practising in Tirana. The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. Hicka of the State Advocate’s Office. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. The applicants, whose personal details are set out in the appended table, are Albanian nationals. They have been grouped according to the family they are part of. 5. During the communist period, families lived in State-owned housing in accordance with lease agreements. Private dwellings which passed into State ownership through legislation on nationalisation were given by the communist government to other families, who as a rule worked for State institutions at the time. In such cases, the local authorities issued occupancy authorisations, which had the effect of granting the right to a tenancy of a flat (“secure tenancy”). A secure tenancy agreement was concluded between tenants and the State-owned Housing Maintenance Company (Ndërmarrja Komunale Banesa – “the Housing Company”). 6. In 1992, following the end of communist rule, the Privatisation of State-Owned Housing Units Act provided for the privatisation of all Stateowned housing in favour of occupying families. No provision was made for the privatisation of private dwellings which had been nationalised and were occupied by tenants (see “Privatisation of the State-Owned Housing Units Act” below for detailed information). 7. In 1993 the Property Restitution and Compensation Act was enacted. Former owners or their heirs were entitled to claim restitution of expropriated or nationalised properties as well as compensation. The restitution of dwellings occupied by tenants did not affect the secure tenancy agreements concluded in the meantime, which remained controlled by law (see the “Property Act 1993” section below for detailed information). 8. In 2004 and 2006 the legislature introduced a time-limit within which tenants had to vacate the dwellings restored to former owners. The said provisions were struck down by the Constitutional Court in 2005 and 2007, respectively (see Constitutional Court’s decisions nos. 26/05 and 11/07 below for detailed information). 9. The applicants had been living as tenants for many years (between twenty-one and sixty-seven years) in housing units that, following the fall of communism, were restored to the former owners. The applicants had been paying State-controlled rent in accordance with domestic law (see “Relevant domestic law” below). 10. On 1 August 2012 the Government introduced a Normative Act ordering tenants to vacate dwellings which had been restored to the former owners (“the Normative Act 2012”). 11. On 13 September 2012 Parliament enacted a law endorsing the Normative Act 2012. 12. On 20 August 2012 the Association of Tenants living in Expropriated Properties (Shoqata e Qiramarrësve në Shtëpitë Shtetërore Ish Pronë Private – “the Association”) challenged the constitutionality of the Normative Act 2012. 13. On 31 October 2012 the Constitutional Court rejected the Association’s constitutional complaint and declared the Normative Act 2012 constitutional. The reasoned decision became public on 6 February 2013 (see “Domestic proceedings” in the “Normative Act 2012” section below for detailed information). 14. Pursuant to the Normative Act 2012, eviction orders as well as enforcement writs were issued against the applicants. 15. On 12 December 2012 the Association and 638 tenants, including all the applicants, addressed a petition to the Council of Ministers, claiming that the Normative Act 2012 did not provide effective measures for provision of housing for them. They further called upon the authorities to postpone their eviction until after the Christmas holidays. The end of the letter read as follows: “the appellants, some members of the Association” (kërkuesit, disa anëtarë të Shoqatës së Qiramarrësve në Banesat Shtetërore Ish Pronë Private). No reply was given by the Council of Ministers. 16. None of the applicants possessed any real estate or other alternative housing at the time the eviction orders and the enforcement writs were issued against them. The applicants’ economic status is briefly described in Appendix 1 hereto. 17. In 2013 and 2014 the National Commercial Bank (“the Bank”) (see “Normative Act 2012” section below for more information) concluded agreements for zero-interest loans with seven families, namely Bakiu (application no. 43928/13), Toqi (application no. 43934/13), Kovaci (application no. 44132/13), Ilirjan Subashi (application no. 44153/13), Paja (application no. 44535/15), Vladimir Dhimitri (application no. 44611/13) and Kadareja (application no. 44632/13), respectively on 11 September 2013, 28 June 2013, 20 March 2013, 2 August 2013, 25 March 2014, 24 June 2013 and 23 May 2013, disbursing loans in the amounts of 37,000 euros (EUR), EUR 40,700; EUR 28,260; EUR 31,500; EUR 25,440; EUR 40,700; and EUR 18,000, respectively. 18. The applications for a zero-interest loan submitted by the Batku (application no. 44107/13), Xhillari (application no. 44147/13), Vincani (application no. 44150/13), Spahiu (application no. 44522/13) and Fikaj (application no. 44548/13) families were refused by the Bank on the grounds that they did not meet its requirements to obtain a loan. 19. The Reci (application no. 44526/13) and Lulzim Dhimitri (application no. 44542/13) families were classified as “homeless” (i pastrehë) but failed to complete the documentation necessary to obtain a loan. The authorities did not have any other information in respect of the three remaining families, namely Meta (application no. 44136/13), Nikolla (application no. 44140/13) and Bujar Subashi (application no. 44152/13). 20. As the file was lacking some information concerning the individual situations of the applicants at the time of the communication of the case to the Government, the Court asked the applicants to submit factual information as regards: the size of the dwelling, the estimated value of the dwelling, the location of the dwelling, the monthly rent paid, the average monthly rent and their monthly earnings. They were further asked to inform the Court whether the eviction orders had been enforced. They were also asked to provide information about their housing situation at that time and how they intended to find long-term accommodation. 21. Only some of the applicants replied in writing, giving some of the information requested by the Court. Detailed information is set out in Appendix 2 hereto. In reply to the Court’s question whether the eviction orders had been enforced, only the Bakiu (application no. 43928/13), Reci (application no. 44526/13) and Paja (application no. 44535/13) families submitted bailiff records according to which the first two families were evicted on 30 January 2013, whereas the Paja family was evicted on 12 February 2013. The remaining applicants did not submit bailiff’s records indicating the exact date of their eviction. The applicants submitted to the Court, amongst other information, the following. The applicants constituting the Bakiu family (application no. 43928/13) submitted that a 0% loan had been taken by their niece, who was not a member of the family, since they had not met the Bank’s requirements for obtaining a loan. They had subsequently bought an apartment, where they were living at the time of the submission. The applicants constituting the Bujar Subashi family (application no. 44152/13) submitted that a 0% loan had been granted but they had not been able to use it. Instead, some of the members were renting a flat; the remaining members were accommodated by their relatives. The applicants constituting the Ilirjan Subashi family (application no. 44153/13) had received a 3% loan from Tirana Municipality. Since the loan was not adequate they were obliged to solicit the help of another person to obtain another loan from a bank. It would appear that the applicants bought an apartment, where they were living at the time of the submission. The applicant Mr Reci (application no. 44526/13) was renting an apartment as he was unable to take a loan from the Bank for failure to meet the relevant requirements. The applicant Paja (application no. 44535/13) was granted a 0% loan. It would appear that she bought an apartment where she was living at the time of the submission. The applicants constituting the Lulzim Dhimitri family (application no. 44542/13) were renting an apartment at the time of the submission as they did not meet the Bank’s requirements to obtain a loan. The applicants constituting the Fikaj family (application no. 44548/13) were renting an apartment at the time of the submission. Their applications for a 0% loan and social housing had been rejected by the authorities for failure to meet the relevant requirements. The applicants constituting the Kadareja family (application no. 44632/13) had received a 0% loan. They had subsequently bought an apartment, where they were living at the time of the submission. 22. The remaining applicants informed their legal representatives that they had been accommodated by relatives, often under cramped conditions. They noted that due to their indigence, they did not have any possibilities of securing alternative housing for themselves and their families other than being provided with social housing. 23. Article 59 of the Constitution provides, amongst other things, that the State, within its constitutional powers and the means available to it, and with the aim of helping private industry and entrepreneurship, aims to fulfil the housing needs of its citizens. It further provides that the fulfilment of social objectives cannot be claimed directly through the courts. It is the law which defines the conditions under which and the extent to which a person may claim the realisation of this objective. 24. Article 101 of the Constitution empowers the Council of Ministers to introduce Normative Acts in cases of necessity and urgency. Normative Acts contain provisional measures. They have to be endorsed by Parliament in order to have the force of law. 25. Other relevant provisions at the material time read, as follows: Article 17 “1. The limitation of the rights and freedoms provided for in this Constitution may be established only by law for a public interest or for the protection of the rights of others. A limitation shall be in proportion with the situation that has dictated it. 2. These limitations may not infringe the essence of the rights and freedoms and in no case may exceed the limitations provided for in the European Convention on Human Rights.” Article 122 “1. Any international agreement that has been ratified constitutes part of the domestic legal system after it is published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Albania. It is directly applicable, except when it is not self-executing and its application requires the adoption of a law. The amendment and repeal of laws approved by a majority of all members of the Assembly is done by the same majority for the purposes of the ratification of an international agreement. 2. An international agreement ratified by law has priority over the laws of the country that are incompatible with it. 3. The norms issued by an international organization have priority, in case of conflict, over the law of the country when the direct application of the norms issued by the organization is expressly contemplated in the agreement ratified by the Republic of Albania for participation therein.” Article 131 “The Constitutional Court shall decide on: (a) the compatibility of a law with the Constitution or international agreements as provided for under Article 122 ... (c) the compatibility of Normative Acts introduced by central and local authorities with the Constitution or international agreements ... (f) final complaints by individuals alleging a violation of their constitutional rights to a fair hearing, after all legal remedies for the protection of those rights have been exhausted.” Article 134 §§ 1 (f) and 2 1. The Constitutional Court may initiate proceedings only at the request of: ... (f) political parties and other organisations; (g) individuals. 2. The entities designated in the first paragraph, letters ... (f) and (g), may lodge applications only on issues connected with their interests.” 26. Under Article 609 of the CCP a debtor may seek before the domestic courts to have an executable decision (titull ekzekutiv) declared invalid or to have it declared that the obligation does not exist or that it exists in a smaller amount or that it has later ceased to exist. 27. Under Article 610 of the CCP parties may complain to a court of an act or failure to act by a bailiff within five days of the said act or omission. 28. Article 611 of the CCP at the material provided that the appeal before the court against the bailiff’s acts or omissions had no suspensive effect on the execution. There was a right of appeal against the court decision. 29. The Act was intended to privatise State-owned housing units and to create a free market for housing, thus enabling tenants to become owners. Families living in State-owned flats, pursuant to a lease agreement, could purchase those flats and become owners subject to completion of a set of actions, such as payment of the full privatisation price and registration of the property at the relevant land registry office. 30. Section 16 of the Act provided that homeless citizens were entitled to receive loans from financial institutions to resolve their housing needs. The interest payments would be borne by the State through the National Housing Agency (Enti Kombëtar i Banesave – “the NHA”). Section 19 stated that rents for housing units which had previously been private property would be liberalised from December 1995. Section 21 provided that State-owned housing units which had previously been private property were not privatised under the Act. Section 25 stated that the State would provide rental housing, which would be constructed in the future, to, inter alia, tenants [who should vacate the housing unit as a result of its return to the former owner] living in dwellings belonging to former owners. 31. In decision no. 11 of 27 August 1993 the Constitutional Court held, inter alia, that no discrimination had resulted from the existence of two categories of tenants, as provided for under domestic laws. The decision, in so far as relevant, reads: “The [Constitutional] Court observes that [the Privatisation of State-Owned Housing Units Act] and [the Property Restitution and Compensation Act] govern the problems of the privatisation of State-owned housing units and of the restitution of properties to former owners or compensation for them. Under both laws, tenants of State-owned housing units have the right to take them into private ownership in compliance with the conditions prescribed by the law. In order to resolve their housing needs, tenants of dwellings that have been restored to former owners have been granted the right to receive loans from financial institutions, the interest payments on which ... are to be borne by the State, as expressly provided for in section 16 of the Act, or, alternatively, are to be accommodated as tenants in housing units to be constructed by the State under section 25 of the said Act. The different solutions to the housing problems that concern these categories of tenants do not arise from any type of discrimination between them, but are a result of the different statuses they enjoy: the first are tenants of State-owned housing units, the second are tenants of dwellings that have been restored to former owners.” 32. According to the Property Act the former owners of properties expropriated by the relevant regime and their legal heirs had the right to claim their ownership over the original properties. Upon ownership being determined they were entitled either to have allocated the original immovable property or to be awarded compensation in one of the forms provided for in law. Other relevant provisions of the Property Act are set out below. 33. The relevant provision of the Property Act 1993 provided: Section 14 “The relationship between tenants and former owners who become owners/landlords pursuant to this law shall be governed by [the Privatisation of State-Owned Housing Units Act]. If ... the former owner provides the tenant with housing within the same localgovernment area, consisting of a surface area in accordance with the housing norms in force, ... the tenant shall be obliged to vacate the dwelling. The State is obliged to resolve the housing needs of current tenants in accordance with the current housing norms, by giving priority to families with limited financial means. At their request former owners may be compensated in one of the forms determined by this law.” 34. In so far as relevant, the Property Act 2004, replacing the Property Act 1993, provided: Section 9 “1. Properties which are the property of former owners shall be vacated by tenant(s) within three years. The tenants shall continue to pay the rent set by the Council of Ministers for two years after the entry into force of this Act. The Council of Ministers shall be responsible for housing homeless tenants by providing a dwelling at a low rent, a low-interest loan or a dwelling whose rent is borne by the State.” 35. In its decision no. 26 of 2 November 2005, the Constitutional Court struck down section 9(1) of the Property Act 2004. It attached importance to the fact that the relevant provision had worsened the status of tenants compared to the provisions that had existed before the Property Act 2004 had entered into force. It found therefore that the amendment to the legislation had not respected the principle of legal certainty. It concluded that a limitation on tenants’ right to shelter could not be justified by the public interest in upholding former owners’ property rights. 36. Following the above-cited Constitutional Court decision, in 2006 the legislature amended section 9 of the 2004 Act to read as follows: Section 9 “1. Properties which are the property of former owners and which were leased to tenants by the State before the entry into force of [the State-Owned Housing Units Act], which are used for housing needs, shall be transferred to the possession of the former owner(s) when one of the following conditions is met: a. The housing needs of the tenants have been met in any other lawful way; b. The former owner provides the tenants with a dwelling that has a surface area no smaller than the dwelling they already use and which is in an approximately similar condition and within the same local-government area, until such time as the tenants’ housing needs are met in one of the other ways provided by this section. c. The tenants conclude a loan contract with a financial institution, in accordance with the first and second paragraphs of section 25 of [the Social Programmes for the Housing of Inhabitants of Urban Areas Act]; d. The tenants benefit from housing or a plot of land as provided for by section 25 (3) of [the Social Programmes for the Housing of Inhabitants of Urban Areas Act]” ... 4. Homeless persons who are tenants in dwellings which are the property of former owners and who have not concluded a loan contract in accordance with sub-paragraph (c) of the first paragraph of this section, or have not yet been provided with housing in accordance with subparagraphs (a), (c) and (d) of the first paragraph of this section, shall lose their right to possess the dwelling by 31 December 2008. They shall be offered social housing programmes, in accordance with section 4 of the Social Programmes for the Housing of Inhabitants of Urban Areas Act. The former owner is entitled to take lawful possession of the dwelling under his legal title. 5. The rent for dwellings occupied by homeless persons as provided for in paragraph 1 of this section is indexed according to INSTAT data on the basis of annual price and salary increases. Its aim is to cover the expenses of the owner for the maintenance and good administration of the dwelling ...” 37. In decision no. 11 of 4 April 2007 the Constitutional Court struck down section 9 of the Property Act 2006. It followed the same line of reasoning as in its decision no. 26/05. It recommended that the Council of Ministers introduce new legislative measures to fill the legal vacuum. 38. On 1 August 2012 the Government introduced the Normative Act for the vacation of former owners’ properties which were occupied by tenants. Only those tenants whose names had been transferred to the Bank to obtain a zero-interest loan for a period of thirty years to buy a flat would be evicted. The list of homeless tenants in line to obtain a loan would be drawn up by the NHA and submitted to the Bank by 5 September 2012. The deadline to voluntarily vacate the properties was set as 1 November 2012. 39. In the event of a failure to vacate a flat voluntarily within the prescribed time-limit, the NHA, upon written notification of the former owner, would issue an eviction order, which would be considered an executable decision within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure. The NHA would then ask the District Court to issue an enforcement writ for the vacation of the flat. Section 3 bars a stay of execution of the enforcement writ. 40. In addition to a zero-interest loan for a period of thirty years, section 4 of the Normative Act also provides for social rental housing provided by municipal councils and placement of old people who are unable to care for themselves or who do not have the means to pay for social rental housing in retirement homes. 41. On 10 September 2012 the Ombudsman issued a public opinion in relation to the Normative Act 2012. He gave the opinion that the legal vacuum resulting from the striking down of section 9 of the Property Act 2006 should have been filled by Parliament instead of by the Government, that there had been no detailed study as regards the status of homeless families, that the time-limits fixed by the Normative Act were extremely short, that no stay of execution was allowed and that no public interest justified a breach of the principle of legal certainty. In the end, he concluded that the Normative Act 2012 was incompatible with the Constitution. 42. On 13 September 2012 Parliament endorsed the Normative Act. According to the hearing record of the same day, the ruling majority members of parliament (“MPs”) stated that there were 3,157 families living as tenants in dwellings returned to former owners, of these 1,000 had applied for a loan at the Bank, out of whom 285 had already obtained a loan. The programme of granting a zero-interest loan, meaning that interest payments were to be borne by the State, had been in existence since 2009. 43. According to opposition MPs, the passing of the Normative Act was hasty and required specialised and broader discussions. They requested that the Ombudsman’s opinion be circulated to MPs. 44. On 20 August 2012 the Association lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court, challenging the constitutionality of the Normative Act 2012 and the Law of 13 September 2012 endorsing it. The Association submitted that the solutions provided for by the Normative Act 2012 were incompatible with the principle of legal certainty. They were detrimental to tenants by removing the State’s obligation to provide housing for this category. They were further discriminated against vis-à-vis those tenants who had obtained housing under the State Contribution to Homeless Families Act 1995. 45. The Association also averred that the situation should have been governed by an Act of Parliament instead of a Normative Act introduced by the Government. It further took issue with the lack of a possibility to challenge the stay of the enforcement and the fact that tenants had to voluntarily vacate the flats within a short time-limit, specifically by 1 November 2012. 46. In their additional submissions of 23 October 2012 the Association stated that the Normative Act 2012 did not provide effective solutions on the following grounds: local-government units did not possess the necessary funds and means to provide social housing; the Bank did not possess sufficient funds to provide loans to every homeless family; the majority of the applicants, owing to their age, insufficient earnings, previous criminal records and the lack of collateral, would never become eligible for a loan. 47. In their written submissions of 23 October 2012 to the Constitutional Court, the Ministry of Public Works and Transportation submitted that since 2008 the Government had been implementing a financing scheme of zerointerest loans to homeless families living in housing belonging to former owners. The statistics showed that out of 3,157 registered homeless families, 999 of them had applied for zero-interest loans, out of which only 285 had concluded contracts for disbursement with the Bank. Even though loans had been approved in respect of the remaining homeless families, they had delayed signing the paperwork for their disbursements. Having regard to the delays by homeless families in applying for zero-interest loans and in subsequently signing the paperwork for their disbursement, the Government had introduced the Normative Act as a matter of urgency. The Normative Act had remedied the former owners’ property-rights issues in accordance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and avoided making the State liable to payment of high reparation claims. In their view, there had been no breach of the principle of legal certainty, since the problem of homeless families had been the subject of discussions for the previous twenty years. Moreover, the Normative Act provided for social rental housing provided by local-government units or for accommodation at retirement homes for old people who did not meet the requirements to obtain a loan. 48. On 31 October 2012 the Constitutional Court informed the Association that it had unanimously dismissed its constitutional complaint. The reasoned decision became available on 6 February 2013 (decision no. 1/13). 49. The Constitutional Court found that the Association had legal standing having regard to its statute, act of incorporation, the nature of its activity and the nature of the Normative Act which it had challenged. It found that there was a connection between the aim for which the Association had been established and the constitutional issue brought for examination before the Constitutional Court. 50. In respect of the merits of the case the Constitutional Court found that, pursuant to Article 101 of the Constitution, there was a necessity and urgency to introduce the Normative Act 2012. This was dictated by the fact that former owners had been waiting for twenty years to have title to the dwellings returned to them. It had also been conditioned by the implementation of the Strasbourg Court’s pilot judgment in the case of Manushaqe Puto and Others (cited above) as regards the enforcement of final decisions recognising former owners’ right of restitution of their properties or compensation in lieu. It further referenced the Strasbourg Court’s findings in the cases of Beshiri and Others v. Albania (no. 7352/03, 22 August 20060), Driza (cited above) and Ramadhi and Others (cited above) and noted the systemic failures of the domestic system to respect former owners’ right of peaceful enjoyment of possessions. It therefore considered that the Normative Act had struck the right balance between the tenants’ rights and the former owners’ right of property. 51. As to the proportionality test, the Constitutional Court held that the Normative Act provided for a thirty-year loan at 0% interest, as the payments would be borne by the State. The interest to be paid would exceed the principal to be taken as a loan by a tenant. Furthermore, the Normative Act laid down other positive obligations for the State, such as the provision of social housing to such tenants by local-government units, priority to be given to social rental housing, as well as placement of old people who were not capable of taking care of themselves or had no one else to attend to them in retirement homes. In the court’s view, this showed that the State had made sufficient provision for vulnerable groups. Housing these individuals was a shared task between the State and the individuals themselves. The proposed measures could not be said to be arbitrary, unfair or based on an unreasonable assessment. Neither could they be considered to be more stringent; on the contrary, they were more favourable. The obligation for tenants to vacate the dwellings was necessary and the interference was justified by the public interest. 52. The Constitutional Court rejected the Association’s complaint that the courts could not stay the enforcement on the grounds that its powers of constitutional review did not extend to issues concerning the interpretation, implementation and harmonisation of domestic laws. 53. On 23 December 2013 the Ministry of Urban Development (Ministria e Zhvillimit Urban) issued an order (“the Ministry’s order”) pursuant to which the NHA, before the submission of the request to the District Court for the issuing of the enforcement writ, had to check whether the tenants had obtained a loan and/or housing in accordance with domestic law. It was also decided that such a request could not be submitted during the winter period. It further provided several safeguards in the event of a family including elderly people, children, disabled persons, or if the housing conditions were outside of normal lifestyle standards. In such a case the family was provided with social rental housing or a housing bonus. The NHA, in implementing section 4 of the Normative Act 2012, had to urgently request that the municipal councils make social rental housing available. It appears that following this order, the NHA suspended the enforcement proceedings in respect of eighteen tenant families. 54. On an unspecified date F.B. and Sh.B., tenants, instituted judicial proceedings under Articles 609, 610 and 611 of the CCP, challenging the NHA’s eviction order, the District Court’s enforcement writ and the ensuing bailiff’s actions carried out following the introduction of the Normative Act 2012. In that case F.B. and Sh.B. and the former owners had concluded a lease agreement on the basis of a final court decision which had obliged the tenants to pay a rent, as set out by the Council of Ministers in favour of the former owners. 55. F.B. and Sh.B. claimed before the domestic courts that they were not obliged to vacate the dwelling as the lease agreement was valid and still in force. Furthermore, the eviction order had been issued by the NHA, which had no jurisdiction to decide on the civil dispute at issue. Subsequently, the bailiff actions had been invalid too. Also the enforcement writ as issued by the District Court was invalid as the NHA had not been the creditor. Only former owners should have asked the district court to issue an enforcement writ. The tenants further claimed that the Normative Act 2012 did not protect in a proportionate manner the right of tenants to respect for their homes. They were further unable to receive a 0% loan due to their lack of financial means (they were unemployed and did not own any immovable property) and age. They also submitted that the bailiff actions carried out were in breach of Article 8 of the Convention as they had not been proportional in that they had not strike a balance between the former owners’ and the tenants’ interests. They finally asked the District Court to stay the enforcement proceedings and to send the case for trial before the Constitutional Court on account of the unconstitutionality of the Normative Act 2012. 56. On 12 April 2013 the Tirana District Court rejected the action reasoning that upon the entry into force of the Normative Act 2012 the lease agreement concluded between the tenants and the former owner no longer had any legal binding effect. Subsequently, the eviction had been lawful and the tenants were obliged to vacate the dwelling in favour of the former owners. The District Court also noted that the tenants had submitted supporting documents to substantiate their claim that they did not own any immovable property or any other financial mean and they were indeed receiving a retirement and disability pension. However, it reasoned that these were not grounds to challenge an executable decision under Article 609 of the CCP. 57. The District Court rejected the appellants’ claim against the enforcement writ on the ground that the NHA was eligible under the Normative Act 2012 to ask a district court the issuance of an enforcement writ. 58. The District Court also rejected the action under Article 610 of the CCP against the bailiff’s actions on the ground that the execution had already taken place, namely the dwelling had already been vacated in favour of the former owner. Furthermore, it reasoned that since the tenants had challenged the bailiff actions on the ground that the executable decision was invalid, as long as that decision was valid, so were the bailiff actions. 59. As regards the tenants’ application to send the case for trial before the Constitutional Court, the District Court dismissed it as manifestly illfounded in that the Constitutional Court had already examined the constitutionality of that Act in its decision no. 1/13. 60. As regards the stay of the enforcement proceedings the District Court in the first hearing had already rejected the request by way of an interlocutory decision on the grounds that in the meantime the tenants had already been evicted. Moreover, the tenants had not provided any evidence to prove the existence of irreparable harm. In its decision of 12 April 2013 on the merits of the case the District Court reasoned that Article 611 of the CCP as regards the stay of enforcement proceedings had prevalence over section 3 of the Normative Act 2012, which barred any stay of enforcement. 61. The District Court’s decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 7 October 2014. However, the Court of Appeal noted that the District Court’s assessment concerning the stay of enforcement had been erroneous since the Normative Act 2012, as lex specialis, had prevalence over the provisions of the CCP. The tenants did not lodge an appeal with the Supreme Court on the grounds that the building had in the meantime been demolished. 62. On two other occasions other tenants had instituted judicial proceedings under Articles 609-612 of the CCP challenging the NHA’s eviction order, the District Court’s enforcement writ and the ensuing bailiff’s actions. The tenants’ representative had lodged complaints with the Ombudsman about the unreasonable length of the judicial proceedings. However, one of the cases was discontinued on the ground that the tenants had not been present at the court hearing without any reason whatsoever. On the other case the tenants had not provided the district court with an adequate address. It appears that both decisions had become final.