CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 11 janvier 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sA32F7E3F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF28C8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s8565C3AF { margin:8pt 28.35pt 3pt 17pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s659CE682 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sF13A94BC { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 34pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3F015572 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 51pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sB6D33163 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s71CB6725 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sECCED0B9 { margin-top:32pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD86A583 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left } .s98FBE5B1 { width:3.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s85E2A1C4 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #949494; border-collapse:collapse } .s65D88E { height:69.85pt } .sD271F6F6 { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s3E08F9CA { border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC54D2024 { border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF42CB81 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85D71A24 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3DE46EBF { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD3B88E32 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA30831E3 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s28BDCFEA { width:6.53pt; display:inline-block } .s9E48017B { width:171.41pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s16E87392 { width:12.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sC61DCBE2 { width:34.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFA2E2D22 { width:12.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9A2C9F64 { width:20.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s63C0513B { width:20.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s38E5D7A { height:20.05pt } .sD7C56B40 { width:12.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA9525B0D { margin-left:33.01pt; text-align:center; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s43551537 { width:34.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1E956FF8 { width:12.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFF242B45 { width:20.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2241DACF { width:20.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s393A5D7A { height:22.25pt } .s74925A98 { margin-left:36pt; text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s2B41B0A7 { height:19.25pt }       FIRST SECTION                 CASE OF SHARXHI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA   (Application no. 10613/16)                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   11 January 2018     FINAL   28/05/2018   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.     Table of Contents PROCEDURE THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     Background to the case B.     Judicial proceedings concerning the interim measure and proceedings for its enforcement C.     Complaint to the Ombudsman D.     Proceedings concerning the merits of the case related to the seizure of the building E.     Administrative and judicial proceedings concerning the expropriation and demolition of the applicants’ building 1.     Administrative proceedings 2.     Judicial proceedings F.     Criminal proceedings against State officials G.     Other information submitted by the parties II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Constitution B.     Civil Code C.     Code of Civil Procedure D.     Administrative Disputes Act E.     Expropriation Act F.     Other Acts G.     Relevant domestic case-law THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 TAKEN ALONE AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Admissibility 1.     Whether the applicants have exhausted domestic remedies 2.     Whether the applicants lack “victim status” 3.     Conclusion B.     Merits 1.     Compliance with Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 2.     Compliance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention II.     ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 8 TAKEN ALONE AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Complaint concerning the seizure of the building 1.     Admissibility 2.     Merits B.     Complaint concerning the expropriation and demolition of the building III.     ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION TAKEN ALONE AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Complaint concerning the seizure of the building 1.     Admissibility 2.     Merits B.     Complaint concerning the expropriation and demolition of the property 1.     Admissibility 2.     Merits IV.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION A.     Complaints under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention B.     Complaints under Article 8 of the Convention C.     Alleged violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 and Article 8 of the Convention as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention V.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Damage 1.     Pecuniary damage 2.     Non-pecuniary damage B.     Costs and expenses C.     Default interest APPENDIX In the case of Sharxhi and Others v. Albania, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, President,   Kristina Pardalos,   Ledi Bianku,   Aleš Pejchal,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Tim Eicke, judges, and Abel Campos, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 23 May and 5 December 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 10613/16) 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 eighteen Albanian nationals and one Italian national, on 19 February 2016. The applicants’ details are set out in the appended table. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr A. Saccucci, a lawyer practising in Rome. The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. Hicka of the State Advocate’s Office. 3.     The applicants alleged that, as a result of the authorities’ disregard of an administrative court injunction, there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. They also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and under Article 8 of the Convention of an interference with their right to respect for their homes. They further complained under Article 13 of the Convention of a lack of an effective domestic remedy for the above complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention. 4.     On 19 April 2016 the application was communicated to the Government. The Italian Government did not make use of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36   §   1 of the Convention). 5.     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 23 May 2017 (Rule 59 § 3). There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Albanian Government Ms   A. Hicka , Ministry of Justice, Agent , Mr   A. Hysi, Ministry of Justice, Adviser , Mr   R. Hoxha , Ministry of Justice, Adviser , Ms   E. Sadushaj , Ministry of Justice, Adviser ; (b)     for the applicants Mr   A. Saccucci , Counsel , Ms   G. borgna , Counsel , Ms   E. Ballanca , Adviser .   The Court heard addresses by Ms Hicka, Mr Saccucci and Ms Borgna and replies to questions from the Court. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     Background to the case 6.     On 11 November 2009 two of the applicants, Xhuvi Sharxhi (“the   first applicant”) and Xhafer Isufi (“the second applicant”), purchased a plot of land measuring 1,663 square metres from several individuals whose property was recognised and returned in 1995 by a decision of the Commission on Property Restitution and Compensation. The land is situated on the coastline of the city of Vlora in the so-called area of Uji i Ftohtë - Tuneli. 7.     On an unspecified date the first and second applicants entered into an agreement with a company for the construction of a five-storey residential and service building, with a penthouse floor and an underground floor containing shops (hereinafter “the Jon Residence” or “the building”) on the above-mentioned plot of land. 8.     On 17 August 2010 the Vlora Municipal Council for Territorial Planning (Këshilli i Rregullimit të Territorit të Bashkisë Vlorë – “the CTP” ) issued a building permit to the company and the first and second applicants. The remaining applicants entered into purchase agreements in respect of the flats to be constructed on the plot of land. The first and second applicants, by virtue of their ownership of the plot of land, were to be owners of some of the flats and shops in the Jon Residence. On 27   December 2012 the building was registered with the Immovable Property Registration Office (“the IPRO”). 9.     Upon completion of the construction works in September 2012, it appears that the majority of the flats and shops were furnished, the owners moved into their respective flats, and a pool bar/pizzeria was opened. The adjacent stretch of beach was opened for public use. 10.     It appears from a letter from the Ombudsman dated 13   November   2013 (see paragraph 24 below) that on 30 October 2013 the National Construction and Urban Planning Inspectorate ( Inspektoriati Ndërtimor dhe Urbanistik Kombëtar – “the NUCI”) requested support from the Vlora district police for the demolition of illegal constructions along the Vlora coastline, to be carried out the same day. Further demolition work was to continue the next day on other parts of the Vlora coastline. 11.     On 3 November 2013, without prior notice, officials of the NUCI and the Vlora Construction and Urban Planning Inspectorate ( Inspektoriati Ndërtimor dhe Urbanistik Vlorë – “the MUCI”), supported by the State Police, surrounded the Jon Residence and cordoned it off with yellow police tape marked “Crime scene – no entry” ( Skenë krimi, nuk lejohet kalimi ). According to the evidence submitted by the applicants, which were widely published in the media, the residents of the building were told that the authorities were seizing the building. They were prevented from entering their flats and retrieving their valuables. The applicants only learned of the situation through the media or by telephone from the building’s security guards. They were told that the authorities were examining the legality of the building permit and other relevant documents. It appears from the documents submitted that the building was guarded by armed police officers, who were positioned in such a way as to prevent the residents of the building (including some of the applicants) from entering. Furthermore, when one of the residents asked one of the State employees to provide identification or another official document to justify the authorities’ interference with their property rights, the State employee declared that they were not obliged to give any information because they were an official body. 12.     On an unspecified date the NUCI prepared an information report concerning the inspection they had carried out at the Jon Residence on 3   November 2013. According to the report, neither had the members of the CTP, the employees of the Vlora Urban Planning Department nor the inspectors of the MUCI had at no stage carried out the necessary building and planning inspections of the site. With their continuous actions and omissions they had allowed irregularities and unlawfulness throughout the whole period from the very moment the relevant permits had been approved in clear breach of the law, as well as throughout the construction and project implementation process. 13.     On 20 November 2013, according to the evidence submitted by the applicants, the then Deputy Minister of Transport and Infrastructure, in an television interview for national TV Top Channel given in relation to the Jon Residence, stated: “...The State is entitled to have the land back in its previous state. The demolition of the building is an indisputable consequence. The land should be cleared. If this means that the building should be demolished, then demolition should take place. The demolition is not a purpose per se . It is the result of a series of unlawful acts, a series of flagrant violations of Albanian law...The Immovable Property Registration Office has been involved in this illegality ( futet në këtë valle të paligjshmërisë ); then there is Vlora Municipal Council, which – in contravention of the urban plan and in respect of land which does not exist – issued a building permit. The Immovable Property Registration Office has registered a building that has zero – nil – value ( ndërtim me vlerë zero, nul ). There is a 3,000-square-metre construction on a plot of land that only measures 600 square metres ... it’s like a stage set for a show put on by corrupt authorities. We have reached this point in flagrant violation of the law ... Everyone could have been a victim as a result of this series of illegalities. Those that have bought flats in this building are victims. These people cannot be treated the same as those who have flagrantly violated the law. The Government should approve a fund for the full compensation of the people who have bought flats in this building ...” 14.     On 28 November 2013, according to the evidence submitted by the applicants, the Prime Minister publicly declared that the Government intended to realise a project for the construction of Lungomare, a seaside promenade in Vlora, with a view to completion by the summer of 2015. He also declared that the Government would put out a tender for the design of the project. 15.     The Jon Residence was demolished with explosives between 4   December 2013 and 8   December 2013. B.     Judicial proceedings concerning the interim measure and proceedings for its enforcement 16.     On 4 November 2013 eleven residents, including nine of the applicants (E. Durolli, A. Deromemaj, V. Kacorri, P. Rakipaj, G. Calliku, V. Calliku, B. Rakipaj, Xh. Sharxhi and E. Ballanca) lodged a claim with the Vlora Administrative District Court (“the District Court”) against the NUCI and MUCI, requesting an “acknowledgment of the unlawfulness of the administrative actions carried out on 3 November 2013, which had resulted in a violation of their property rights, and the obligation of administrative authorities, the NUCI and MUCI to refrain from taking any further administrative action, necessary for the protection of the applicants’ property rights” (konstatimi i paligjshmërisë së veprimit administrativ të kryer nga pala e paditur i datës 3 Nëntor 2013, që kanë sjellë cënimin e të drejtave të pronësisë së paditësave; detyrimi i organit administrativ INUK dhe INUV Vlorë për të ndaluar kryerjen e një veprimi tjetër administrativ, të nevojshëm për mbrojtjen e të drejtave të paditësave). 17.     It appears from the District Court’s decision dated 7   November 2013 (see paragraph 19 below) that during the proceedings the applicants argued that the actions taken by the NUCI and MUCI had been arbitrary because the construction had been lawful and in accordance with urban planning regulations. They claimed that police officers and representatives of the MUCI and NUCI had refused to allow them to enter the building by surrounding the building with crime scene tape. The cordoning off of the building had been done with a view to its demolition because the authorities had already proceeded in the same manner with other buildings, a fact which made it ever more apparent that there was a risk of adverse consequences for the applicants. The actions taken, namely the surrounding of the building with a view to its demolition without conducting a detailed analysis of whether the documentation was unlawful, and without the situation being examined by a court, had resulted in an extreme interference with the applicants’ property rights. 18.     During those proceedings the applicants further requested the District Court to issue an interim order for the necessary measures to stay the implementation of the above-mentioned administrative action and for the removal of the obstacles which had made the seizure of the building possible and had made it impossible for them to use their properties, as well as a stay of all administrative decisions already issued or which were in the process of being issued related to the demolition of a lawful construction. 19.     On 7 November 2013 the District Court, under Articles 202 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) and Articles 28, 29 and 30 of the Administrative Disputes Act (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below), in its operative provisions ordered: “the issuance of an interim order staying the administrative actions of any public authority that can interfere with the peaceful enjoyment by the applicants of their respective properties...the interim order is to remain in place until a decision is given on the merits, provided that the applicants themselves institute proceedings on the merits within ten days of the interim order to challenge the administrative actions or any administrative decision that will be adopted in respect of their properties”. The decision, in so far as relevant, is reasoned as follows: “...it is proved that the applicants – owners of the flats in the Jon Residence  have not been allowed to enter their respective properties, thus impeding them in the exercise of their property rights to a property which they have acquired legally in accordance with domestic law...the court considers that the request for the interim order should be accepted because the applicants submitted evidence which proves...that in the event that a civil claim on the merits is allowed, the execution of that decision would be difficult or impossible, thus creating a situation where the legal interest or subjective right recognised by a final judicial decision remains ineffective ... in the present case the interim order requested by the applicants represents their right to access the court with the purpose of prohibiting any further action by the administrative authority...in this way protecting their fundamental constitutional and legal rights until the examination of the merits of their claims...the court considers that the NUCI and MUCI have not documented their administrative decision in the form required by law...under administrative law this [undocumented administrative action] is also considered an administrative decision...this does not affect the actual consequences of the execution of the decision, consequences which may bring about irreparable damage to the legal interest and subjective rights of the applicants...The District Court considers that it is the duty of the administrative authority to issue an administrative decision in the written form required by law, in this way there is compliance with the principle of good governance of the public administration authorities as well as effective compliance with the rights of the party against which the administrative decision has been issued, so that that party is able to institute judicial proceedings and always in respect of the principle of the right to a fair trial...the principle of proportionality during the administrative procedure followed by the authorities in the present case is similar to the constitutional principles of proportionality examined above, which essentially aim to strike a balance between the purpose to be achieved through the administrative act and the means to be used, without disregarding fundamental freedoms and rights and the achievement of legal public interests...” 20.     On an unspecified date the applicants’ representative submitted a request to the NUCI, informing it of the interim order of 7   November   2013. He stressed the fact that under Article 210 of the CCP an interim order was an executable decision, even in the event of an appeal against it. He urged the authorities to take the necessary measures for the immediate enforcement of the interim order. It appears that no reply was given. 21.     On 11 November 2013 the NUCI lodged an appeal against the interim order of 7 November 2013. 22.     On 20 January 2014 the Administrative Court of Appeal terminated the proceedings concerning the interim measure on the grounds that the subject matter of the proceedings had ceased to exist, as the Jon Residence had already been demolished in December 2013 (see paragraph 15 above). The decision, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “...it was already ...a well-known public fact that the Jon Residence had been demolished, in relation to which the District Court had decided to stay the administrative actions of any State authority with the aim of the peaceful enjoyment of the property by the applicants until the final solution of the dispute ... The outcome which the interim order was trying to stay, has now occurred...” C.     Complaint to the Ombudsman 23.     It appears that on an unspecified date one of the applicants complained to the Ombudsman ( Avokati i Popullit ) about the authorities’ interference with her entering her flat and other residents entering their flats (see also paragraph 24 below). She complained that the authorities had arbitrarily cordoned off the building using yellow police “crime scene” tape. 24.     On 13 November 2013, in reply to the applicant’s complaints and to other residents’ complaints appearing in the media, the Ombudsman sent an official letter to the chief of Vlora police station (Komisariati i Policisë) , the head of Vlora district police (Policia e Qarkut) , and for information to the Director General of the State Police (Policia e Shtetit) , recommending that they take all appropriate measures to stop the unlawful actions that had resulted in a violation of the Jon Residence residents’ property rights. The Ombudsman stated that the NUCI had seized the building without any formal act. The cordoning off of the building preventing the applicants from enjoying their properties was unlawful and had consequently resulted in a violation of their legal interests. Moreover, the use of yellow police “crime scene” tape was not appropriate since the events in the present case did not involve a crime scene. He further suggested that it was necessary to examine the case and undertake organisational measures aimed at ensuring that such actions were not repeated in the future. D.     Proceedings concerning the merits of the case related to the seizure of the building 25.     On an unspecified date, but within ten days from the interim order, eleven residents, including nine of the applicants (E. Durolli, A.   Deromemaj, V. Kacorri, P. Rakipaj, G. Calliku, V. Calliku, B. Rakipaj, Xh. Sharxhi and E. Ballanca), lodged a claim on the merits with the District Court. It appears from the District Court’s decision of 28 January 2014 (see   paragraph 26 below) that the object of the claim was the same as that lodged on 4 November 2013 (see paragraph 16 above). 26.     On 28 January 2014 the District Court declared that the actions carried out by the MUCI and NUCI on 3   November 2013 had been arbitrary and in flagrant breach of the Albanian Constitution and the law. The decision in so far as relevant reads as follows: “...[the] MUCI and [the] NUCI abusively and without any administrative decision to justify their illegal actions took arbitrary action with the aim of demolishing a property which had been acquired in accordance with the law. The NUCI had no legal reason to take this administrative action, and therefore its actions were totally illegal...the administrative action for the demolition of the construction as duly authorised by the competent authorities without first analysing in detail the illegality of the actions and without an assessment of the situation by an independent court of law, was within the limits of extreme illegality...The authorities unilaterally and without a full and comprehensive administrative investigation surrounded the building... The authorities with their arbitrary actions gravely violated the principle of legal certainty, according to which no one should suffer an interference with their rights obtained by law and has the expectation that no State authority will take any administrative decision or action by which the rights obtained by law could later be violated as a consequence of the State authorities’ actions...” The District Court accordingly allowed the claim. The applicants, however, withdrew their request for the authorities to be prohibited from taking any further action, which had become devoid of purpose, since the Jon Residence had in the meantime been demolished by the authorities. The District Court therefore discontinued the examination of this part of the claim. 27.     On 6 May 2016, following an appeal by the authorities, the Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision of 28   January 2014. It appears from the decision that the applicants argued that the MUCI and NUCI had abusively and without any administrative decision to justify their illegal actions taken arbitrary action with a view to demolishing a lawful property. The Administrative Court of Appeal reasoned that the cordoning off of the building and prevention of the applicants from entering it had been arbitrary, not in accordance with the law and in breach of their property rights. It further noted that the NUCI were obliged to compensate the applicants for their illegal actions under the Non-Contractual Liability of the State Act (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below) and Article 608 of the Civil Code. Only after the actions taken by the authorities were declared unlawful were the applicants entitled to bring a claim for damages under section 14 of the Inspection of Buildings Act (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below). However, it did not decide this issue as it had not been part of the claim. It appears that the proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court. E.     Administrative and judicial proceedings concerning the expropriation and demolition of the applicants’ building 1.     Administrative proceedings 28.     On 8 October 2013 the National Council for Territorial Planning (Këshilli Kombëtar për Rregullimin e Territorit – “the NCTP”) adopted a decision on emergency measures to be undertaken for the protection and rehabilitation of the environment in some areas of national importance, as well as a procedure for the preparation of an integrated sectoral plan concerning stretches of coastline. The decision stated that stretches of coastline were areas of national importance where measures of an emergency nature were to be undertaken with a view to protecting and rehabilitating the territory and environment. Furthermore, it was decided that the granting of new development building permits for individual buildings on stretches of coastline and in other areas of national importance would be suspended pending the preparation of the integrated sectoral plan. 29.     On 27 November 2013 the Council of Ministers issued a decision, which came into effect immediately, ordering the expropriation in the public interest of immovable private properties affected by the environmental rehabilitation of Uji i Ftohtë – Tuneli, a protected stretch of coastline in the Vlora Municipality. The expropriation was made in favour of Vlora Municipality within thirty days of the decision. The total compensation awarded was   462,919,230 Albanian Leks (ALL) (approximately 3,456,600 euros (EUR)) in respect of the construction measuring 8,121.39   square metres in total, to be divided among the owners. The decision was taken under the Expropriation Act and on the basis of two decisions of the NCTP – the above-mentioned decision of 8   October 2013 (see paragraph 28 above) and an earlier decision of 23 June 2004 on the approval of the Vlora city centre plan. According to the decision, after the expropriation the legal owners of the property would be compensated (by the authorities) on presentation of their property title documents. The deadline for the termination of the expropriation procedure was set for 28   December 2013. 30.     The decision was published in the Official Gazette on 3   December   2013. It appears that the applicants only learned of the decision that day, when the press spokesman for the Minister of Home Affairs announced that the Jon Residence was to be demolished – a process that was to start the following day (4   December 2013). 31.     On 2 December 2013 the mayor of Vlora requested the assistance of the NUCI with the demolition of the Jon Residence in accordance with the decision of 27 November 2013. On the same day the NUCI requested the assistance of Vlora police station with the demolition, which was planned to start at 8 a.m. the next morning.     The entire building was demolished between 4 December 2013 and 8   December 2013 (see also paragraph 15 above). 32.     On 29 January 2014 the IPRO, in response to a letter sent by one of the applicants asking for a copy of her certificate of ownership, said that since the building had been demolished, it was unable to issue a certificate of ownership in respect of a property that no longer existed. 33.     On 9 April 2014 the Council of Ministers issued another decision, “On some amendments to the Council of Ministers’ decision of 27   November 2013”, amending its previous decision of 27 November 2013 to the effect that it awarded the applicants a total of ALL 441,168,600 in compensation in respect of a plot of land measuring 7,739.80 square metres. The deadline for the termination of the expropriation procedure was set for 30 April 2014. No appeal was lodged against this decision. 34.     On 12 April 2017 the Budget Management Department of the Ministry of Finance addressed a letter to the Government Agent, stating that the Ministry of Finance had approved a fund of ALL   362,919   and ALL   100,000 (approximately EUR 3,460 in total) for the implementation of the Council of Ministers’ decision of 27   November 2013. No payment has been made to the applicants. 2.     Judicial proceedings (a)     Proceedings in the District Court 35.     On 26 December 2013 twenty-one residents, including all the applicants, lodged a claim with the District Court against the Council of Ministers’ decision of 27   November 2013, challenging the value of the compensation awarded and the calculation of the exact surface area of the property which had been expropriated, on the basis that the decision had been issued as a result of an expropriation procedure in flagrant breach of the law. They also requested that the Council of Ministers be ordered to change the amount of compensation (to ALL 57,000 per square metre) and compensate each owner based upon the exact size of their property, corresponding to an amount of fair compensation in accordance with the law and calculated by an expert appointed by the court, also taking into consideration the possibility of development of the property. In their claim the applicants maintained that the expropriation had been unlawful and that a “ de facto expropriation” (shpronësim de facto) had taken place. They also maintained that the actions of 3 November 2013 of the NUCI and MUCI had been abusive and had been taken without any administrative decision to justify their illegal actions with the aim of demolishing a lawful property. They further submitted that, even though the authorities had issued an interim order and the Ombudsman had also acknowledged the illegality of the authorities’ actions and had recommended that similar actions in the future should not be repeated without awaiting a decision of the District Court, they had nevertheless adopted the Council of Ministers’ decision of 27   November   2013. 36.     On 6 March 2014 the District Court allowed the applicants’ claim. It reasoned that the expropriation had been unlawful in that the Council of Ministers’ decision of 27   November 2013 had been adopted in gross procedural violations and breaches of the Expropriation Act (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below) and various by-laws. 37.     As regards the facts of the case, the District Court mentioned that the actions taken on 3 November 2013 consisting of the cordoning off of the building with a view to its demolition had been arbitrary and taken in breach of domestic law, as it had held in its decision of 28 January 2014 (see   paragraph 26 above). It also reiterated the fact that the Ombudsman had recommended that necessary measures be taken so that similar arbitrary actions would not be repeated in the future. It nevertheless noted that the authorities had adopted the Council of Ministers’ decision of 27   November   2013 without awaiting the decision on the merits of the case. 38.     As regards the legal arguments as to whether the interference had been lawful, the District Court reasoned that the authorities had not complied with the whole expropriation procedure as set out in sections 9 to 16 and 20 to 21 of the Expropriation Act. The competent ministry had not informed the owners of the property or the construction company of the expropriation, therefore they and any other third parties had been deprived of the opportunity to challenge it. According to their claims submitted before the district court, the applicants had only learned of the expropriation decision through the media, while the building was being demolished. Even afterwards, the applicants had never been informed, despite it being a legal requirement. This would have given them reasonable time to leave the building and take their belongings to other places. The authorities had continued with the demolition of the property without having all the information as to who the residents were. From the documents in the case file it was evident that the relevant ministry had only asked the Vlora Municipality for information about the residents of the Jon Residence a month after the building had been demolished and more than forty-five   days after the decision on the expropriation had been issued. It further held that the expropriation had been disguised as a formal expropriation taken in compliance with the legal provisions in force, but that in reality the seriousness of the violations had been such as to make it a “ de facto expropriation” (shpronësim de facto) . The Council of Ministers’ decision to expropriate the property had been a formal act, the sole purpose of which had been to disguise the actual nature of the expropriation. Furthermore, as a result of the immediate demolition of the building, without the authorities respecting the deadlines set in the law, the applicants had been prevented from being returned to their previous situation, even though the Council of Ministers’ decision had been null and void. The District Court reasoned that the non-compliance with domestic law concerning the expropriation procedure had aggravated the applicants’ situation and, therefore, the violation of the property rights had been so serious that it was unacceptable in a State governed by the rule of law. It reasoned that, according to the Court’s case-law (reference was made to Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy judgment (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00, §§   94-95, 22 December 2009), in cases of unlawful expropriation the domestic courts had a strict obligation to award higher compensation than in cases of lawful expropriation. Moreover, as regards the existence of any legitimate aim in the public interest, the District Court noted that there had been no infrastructure or ecological (environmental) regulatory plan approved by law, not even a plan for the development of the protected area. The District Court noted that the decisions of the NCPT of 8   October   2013 and 23 June 2004 had not provided for the demolition of any legal building or its expropriation, or the invalidity of any authorisation that had already been granted and of any construction already built. On the basis of the above considerations, the District Court decided to amend the Council of Ministers’ decision of 27   November 2013 concerning the exact total surface area of the expropriated property, as well as the total amount of compensation and the amounts to be paid to each applicant. More concretely, the District Court increased the total compensation to be awarded to the applicants to ALL   1,580,712,321, on the basis of a court-ordered experts’ report. The District Court found that the authorities had blatantly violated the procedure set out in the Constitution and domestic law concerning the determination of the compensation to be paid in expropriation cases. Therefore, the calculation by the Council of Ministers in its decision of 27 November 2013 had not been made in accordance with the law. It accepted the report on the grounds that the valuation of the property had been based on the open market value following contemporary valuation methods for immovable properties such as the direct comparison and the state of the development of the property and taking also into consideration the location of the property, the development of the property, its actual development on the basis of legal documents as well as analysing the values of sales and rents of similar properties. The experts had also tried to analyse increases or decreases in the market prices of sales or purchases of similar properties. Under the expert report, the price per square metre was EUR   1,155   (ALL   161,700) in respect of the flats and EUR 2,000 (ALL   280,000) in respect of the business premises. The price was calculated using the average market value during the period between 2013 and January 2014 based on a Council of Ministers’ decision “on the valuation methods for immovable properties in Albania” which stated that such calculations are made in accordance with international valuation standards. 39.     The District Court also recalculated the surface area of the expropriated property, stating that it actually measured 8,396 square metres. Furthermore, it included all the owners of the Jon Residence in the list of parties to be compensated, as some of the applicants had been excluded from the list under the Council of Ministers’ decision of 27   November 2013. Lastly, the court ruled that the compensation was to be paid by the Council of Ministers and the Vlora Municipality in three tranches over a period of eighteen months from the moment the court’s decision became final. Both the Council of Ministers and the Vlora Municipality were obliged to pay jointly the judicial costs and expenses including the experts’ fee, the court fees for lodging the claim (ALL   11,409,852) and the lawyers’ fee for the representation of G. Calliku, V. Calliku, M. Mecaj, A. Deromemaj, E.   Durolli, M. Hanxhari, P. Rakipaj, B. Rakipaj, K. Kapedani (applicants in the proceedings before the Court), J.   Ismailaj and S. Ismailaj (not applicants before the Court), which amounted to EUR 12,000 (ALL 1,680,000) in total. (b)     Proceedings in the Court of Appeal 40.     On an unspecified date thereafter the applicants lodged an appeal against the part of the District Court’s decision of 6 March 2014 concerning the amount of compensation and the manner in which it was to be paid. They argued that the expert report did not reflect the market value of the property, which was much higher than the value indicated, and that the valuation standards for expropriated properties had not been complied with. More concretely, the experts had not complied with the criteria and standards provided for by The European Group of Valuers’ Associations (TEGOVA) and the valuation standards based on the financial and legal interests of the applicants. The property had had a higher value at the time of its expropriation. The experts had not specified the value of the specific components of the relevant calculation formula or the market value for every flat in order to reflect the market value of the building. Nor had they taken into consideration all the official data in the purchase agreements for the flats. They also complained of factual and calculation errors in the expert report and requested that another be produced. An appeal was also lodged by the Attorney General’s Office. 41.     On 23 September 2014 the Administrative Court of Appeal upheld in part the District Court’s decision of 6 March 2014. It reiterated the facts of the case as noted by the District Court and upheld the amount of compensation awarded, the size of the construction land and the list of owners concerned. It decided that the applicants should be compensated individually based on the size of their property. The total amount of compensation (ALL   1,580,712,321) was to be divided as follows: ALL   161,700 (EUR 1,155) per square metre in respect of the flats, which measured 6,564.79 square metres in total, and ALL   280,000 (EUR 2,000) per square metre in respect of the business premises, which measured 1,831.63 square metres in total. It decided that the value calculated in the expert report represented the real value and just compensation in accordance with the Constitution, the European Convention, the Expropriation Act and other by-laws. It ruled that the compensation was to be paid by the Council of Ministers in one lump sum. The Council of Ministers was also obliged to pay the legal costs and expenses. (c)     Proceedings in the Supreme Court 42.     Both the applicants and the Attorney General’s Office lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court against the lower courts’ judgments. The applicants requested a higher amount of compensation for their expropriated property. The Council of Ministers, however, requested that the execution of the decision be stayed. 43.     On 15 January 2015 the Supreme Court, on the basis of Article 479 of the CCP allowed the request of the Council of Ministers and the proceedings were stayed. The decision contained no reasoning. The case is still pending before the Supreme Court. There is no information in the case file on what grounds the Council of Ministers appealed against the lower courts’ decisions and requested a stay of execution. F.     Criminal proceedings against State officials 44.     It appears from the Ombudsman’s letter of 13   November 2013 (see   paragraph 24 above) that on 18 February 2011 the NUCI lodged a criminal complaint with the Vlora District Prosecutor against the head of the Vlora Urban Planning Department, alleging irr