Facts

The authors are of Roma origin and were living in Elbasan, Albania. They were unemployed, and had lived with their families in impromtu housing built without permission by the authorities since the early 1990s. Their residence had been de facto tolerated as if authorities did not recognize the premises was inhabited despite the authors filing for legalization of their dwellings.

On 2 July 2014 the Council of Ministers decided that one of the main roads in Elbasan should be extended as part of access improvements to a nearby stadium. As part of this process, the authorities served the authors of notices to vacate their properties as demolition was necessary to complete the access upgrade.

The authors argued that no remedy was available for them to challenge the eviction notices, and contend that the State had violated articles 7, 17, 23, 26 and 27 read alone, and in conjunction with article 2(3) of the Covenant.

Admissibility

The Committee determined that the matter was not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement as required by Article 5 of the Optional Protocol.

They noted however that while a complainant does not have to exhaust domestic rememdies where they have no chance success, they must exercise the maximum due diligence where there is any available doubt ( V.S. v. New Zealand (CCPR/C/115/D/2072/2011), para. 6.3; Zsolt Vargay v. Canada (CCPR/C/96/D/1639/2007), para. 7.3; and García Perea and García Perea v. Spain, (CCPR/C/95/D/1511/2006), para. 6.2; and B.Z. et al. V. Albania (CCPR/C/121/D/2837/2016), para. 6.4).

In this case, because the author failed to lodge a domestic claim regarding the seizure of property, the Committee considered the communication inadmissible under Article 5(2)(b) of the Optional Protocol.