RARANI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION IN RELATION TO THE RIGHT TO A REASONED JUDGMENT JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS – 14 OCTOBER 2025

Facts:
The applicants’ ancestors owned a dwelling and a parcel of land that was subsequently expropriated during the communist regime. The Property
Restitution and Compensation Commission returned part of the land to the family. However, the request for the remaining portion of the property
was rejected due to its overlap with another parcel. The case was brought before the courts, with the District Court and later the Court of Appeal
ruling in favor of the applicants. However, in 2017, the High Court overturned these rulings, concluding that the applicants had already received the
property to which they were entitled. The applicants lodged an appeal with the High Court, alleging that the court had made a fundamentally
different assessment of the facts compared to the lower courts, and that this assessment was not based on the evidence presented by the parties. They
contended that the proceedings before the High Court had been unfair, resulting in a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on
Human Rights.
The European Court of Human Rights declared the case admissible, noting that the applicants’ complaint concerned a right protected by the
Convention and that they were directly affected by the outcome of the judicial proceedings, which involved potential violations of their property
rights and the right to a fair trial.
Reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights:
The ECHR observes that in the present case, the District Court and the Court of Appeal arrived at identical conclusions regarding the applicants’
ancestors’ property rights over the disputed parcel, based on an expert report and other evidence. The High Court, acting as a court of law in
Albania, challenged the conclusions of the expert report. However, the applicants were unable to present any counterarguments to this challenge.
The facts presented in the High Court’s judgment appear to differ from those established by the lower courts and contradict the evidence presented in
the case. Notably, the High Court did not refer to any evidence to support its conclusions and did not explain why it dismissed the conclusions of the
expert report, which had been prepared by a court-appointed expert and endorsed by both of the lower courts. Additionally, the High Court did not
provide any explanation as to why it deemed the expert’s findings irrelevant or inaccurate, nor did it explain the basis upon which it reached a
contrary conclusion.
According to the ECHR, the reasoning of the High Court cannot be merely characterized as a different interpretation of the evidence. Instead, it
constitutes an arbitrary reversal of the factual findings made by the lower courts without providing an adequate explanation. Furthermore, the High
Court’s findings were based on facts for which no evidence had been submitted by either party during the proceedings.
The Court concluded that the High Court had failed to provide a properly reasoned judgment, thereby denying the applicants their right to a fair trial
as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Consequently, the Court found a violation of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention, as the
applicants were not afforded a reasoned judgment by the High Court.