CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 17 mars 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s490D418E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:1pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sC66F3853 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:12pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC3C29E73 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s37839E0D { margin-left:10.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s7416F55 { margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sF4D82F23 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5C5E66B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sB2ED4664 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s980E2CFD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6FC64B9D { width:2.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE4EB4F8C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s7483BB9D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:68.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.7pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s726BE6B4 { width:4.8pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEA32F4F3 { width:4.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD0682254 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s99B1BBA0 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA845E7F { margin-left:15.6pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2637CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s684237A1 { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sCFA4557D { width:5.62pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s62E02B8F { width:5.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .sD7BCAED3 { width:144.76pt; display:inline-block } .sF7DC134C { width:39.46pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 29026/06 Agim BESHIRI against Albania and 11 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17   March 2020 as a Chamber composed of:   Robert Spano, President,   Marko Bošnjak   Valeriu Griţco   Ivana Jelić   Arnfinn Bårdsen   Darian Pavli   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the pilot judgment delivered in the case of Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania , nos. 604/07 and 3 others, 31 July 2012, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their then Agents, Ms S. Mëneri of the then Office of Legal Representative, Ms. E. Hajro, Ms. L. Mandia and Ms. A. Hicka of the State Advocate’s Office, and subsequently by Mr A. Metani of the State Advocate’s Office. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE Background Introduction 2 .     Between 2006 and 2011 the Court delivered a number of judgments concerning the non-enforcement of final administrative or court decisions recognising those applicants’ entitlement to compensation in lieu of the restitution of property which had been confiscated or otherwise taken by the former communist regime. It found a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the authorities’ failure to enforce the final decisions (see   Beshiri and Others v. Albania , no. 7352/03, 22 August 2006; Ramadhi and Others v.   Albania , no.   38222/02, 13 November 2007; Driza v. Albania , no.   33771/02, ECHR 2007 ‑ V (extracts); Hamzaraj v. Albania (no.   1) , no.   45264/04, 3   February 2009; Nuri v. Albania , no.   12306/04, 3   February   2009; Vrioni and Others v. Albania and Italy , nos.   35720/04 and 42832/06, 29 September 2009; and Eltari v. Albania , no.   16530/06, 8   March   2011). 3.     In the Ramadhi and Driza judgments, the Court invited the respondent Government, under Article 46 of the Convention, to introduce a remedy which would secure genuinely effective redress for the Convention violations identified in those judgments. In the Hamzaraj (no. 1) and Nuri judgments, the Court found that the same situation persisted as in the case of Ramadhi and invited the respondent Government, under Article   46, to adopt general measures as indicated in the Ramadhi judgment. The Court made similar findings in subsequent judgments in the cases of Vrioni and Others , cited above, and Eltari , cited above. 4 .     In the judgment in the case of Vrioni and Others v. Albania (just satisfaction), nos.   35720/04 and 42832/06, 7   December 2010, the Court accepted to use the 2008 property valuation maps for the calculation of pecuniary damage under Article 41 of the Convention, stating as follows: “36. In calculating the amount of pecuniary damage, the Court considers that, given the particular circumstances of the Albanian context, it is desirable to depart from the method of calculation described in   Driza (cited above, § 137) according to which the amount of compensation should correspond to the value of the plot of land at the time of the domestic authorities’ decisions. The Court notes that at the relevant time the property valuation maps did not exist. It was precisely for the purpose of calculating the amount of financial compensation to be awarded and for avoiding any speculation that the Court indicated under Article 46 of the Convention that the respondent State should adopt such maps as a matter of urgency (see   Driza,   cited above, § 126). 37. The Court notes with interest that the authorities have adopted property valuation maps in respect of the entire territory of Albania. The reference price, as stated by the Government, reflects the real market value and was interest-and inflation-indexed at the time of adoption of the maps. The Court will therefore base its findings for the calculation of pecuniary damage on the property valuation maps adopted in respect of the Tirana region in 2008.” The Manushaqe Puto and Others pilot judgment 5 .     As a result of the introduction of an increasing number of applications concerning prolonged non-enforcement of final decisions recognising those applicants’ right to compensation and the authorities’ failure to take general measures to enforce the final decisions, the Court decided to have recourse to the pilot judgment procedure and selected the case of Manushaqe Puto and Others , cited above, which concerned four applications, as representative of this problem.   In its pilot judgment of 31   July 2012 the Court found that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as well as of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the prolonged non ‑ enforcement of administrative decisions awarding compensation. The Court held, under Article 13 of the Convention, that there was no effective domestic remedy that allowed for adequate and sufficient redress. 6 .     Ruling under Article 41 of the Convention on just satisfaction, the Court, relying on the property valuation maps adopted by the Government in 2008 (see paragraph 4 above), awarded the applicants an aggregate amount of 2,992,400 Euros (“EUR”) in respect of pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and an aggregate amount of EUR 12,050 in respect of costs and expenses. 7.     Under Article 46 of the Convention, the Court proposed, on a purely indicative basis, a list of general measures that the respondent State should take, including, without limitation, the “compilation of a database” of administrative decisions, including any “modifications made by way of judicial review”, recognising property rights and awarding compensation; the creation of a “clear compensation scheme” which would “make use of alternative forms of compensation as provided for by law” and “require a reconsideration of the modalities for the payment of financial compensation”; transparent decision-making in, and publication of, the type and award of compensation as well as transparent “revision and update of valuation maps”; “the importance of setting realistic, statutory and binding time-limits in respect of every step of the process” and the allocation of “sufficient human and material resources”. 8 .     The Court decided to adjourn proceedings concerning all new applications lodged with it after the delivery of the pilot judgment in which the applicants raised arguable complaints relating solely to the prolonged non ‑ enforcement of final property decisions for the execution of which the State was responsible, for a period of 18 months after the date on which the pilot judgment became final, which was on 17 December 2012. 9 .     The Court, however, decided to continue the examination of applications lodged before the delivery of the pilot judgment, without prejudice to its power at any moment to declare inadmissible any such case or to strike it out of its list following a friendly settlement. Communication and adoption of subsequent judgments in respect of post-Manushaqe Puto and Others follow-up cases 10.     On 20 December 2013, consistent with the direction in the pilot judgment (see paragraph 9 above), the Court decided to give notice to the respondent Government of 64 follow-up cases which had been lodged prior to the delivery of the pilot judgment and were the subject of the Court’s well-established case-law. 11 .     On 8 April 2014, consistent with the direction in the pilot judgment (see paragraph 9 above), the Court adopted the first follow-up judgment in the case of Karagjozi and Others v. Albania ([Committee], no. 25408/06 and 9 others, 8 April 2014), in which it found a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the authorities’ prolonged non ‑ enforcement of final administrative decisions awarding the applicants compensation in one of the ways provided for by law in lieu of the restitution of properties. Ruling under Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, an aggregate amount of EUR   8,154,000 and, in respect of costs and expenses, an aggregate amount of EUR 9,000. The Court declined to consider the 2013 property valuation maps which had been provided by the Government for the calculation of the pecuniary damage, for the following reasons: “64. ... The Court notes that the [2013] property valuation maps were submitted as part of general information, beyond any time-limits, after the closure of the written procedure. The Government did not make any explicit submissions as regards the use of such maps in respect of each application. They failed to specify the location of each plot of land in the respective cadastre zones in accordance with the 2013 property valuation maps and the reference price to be applied in respect of each application. Furthermore, the Government did not indicate whether the reference price reflected the real market value and was ‘interest and inflation indexed’”. 12 .     In the meantime, the Court has given subsequent judgments in the following follow-up cases. (i) Siliqi and Others v. Albania ([Committee] nos. 37295/05 and 42228/05, 10 March 2015). Ruling under Article 41 of the Convention, the Court, relying on the 2008 property valuation maps, awarded the applicants an aggregate amount of EUR   1,498,400 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and made no award in respect of costs and expenses. (ii) Metalla and Others v. Albania ([Committee] nos. 30264/08 and 3   others, 16   July 2015). Ruling under Article 41 of the Convention, the Court, relying on the 2008 property valuation maps, awarded the applicants an aggregate amount of EUR   121,700 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and an aggregate amount of EUR   3,000 in respect of costs and expenses. (iii) Luli v. Albania , ([Committee] no. 30601/08, 15 September 2015). Ruling under Article 41 of the Convention, the Court, relying on the 2008 property valuation maps, awarded the applicant EUR   27,000 for pecuniary damage in respect of his share of property. It further held that, in the absence of just satisfaction claims in respect of another plot of land, the respondent State should secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the national decision given in the applicant’s favour in respect of that plot of land. (iv) Sharra and Others v. Albania ([Committee], nos. 25038/08 and 11   others, 10   November 2015). Ruling under Article 41 of the Convention, the Court, relying on the 2008 property valuation maps, awarded the applicants an aggregate amount of EUR   5,262,550 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and an aggregate amount of EUR 5,650 in respect of costs and expenses. The Court declined to consider the 2014 property valuation maps which had been provided by the Government for the calculation of the pecuniary damage, for the following reasons (references omitted): “82. In the present case, the Court has to determine whether it should refer to the property valuation maps 2008 or those of 2014 for the calculation of pecuniary damage. Having examined the parties’ arguments, the Court makes the following observations. 83. The pilot judgment   Manushaqe Puto and Others , cited above, in relation to the authorities’ failure to pay compensation in lieu of the restoration of property was delivered by the Court on 31 July 2012. It became final on 17 December 2012. In its paragraph 121 and the operative provision no. 7 the Court decided not to adjourn the proceedings of cases that had been lodged prior to the delivery of that judgment, but to continue their examination after the judgment became final. In this connection, the present applications were lodged with the Court between 15 May 2008 and 19   December 2011. Notice of the applications was given to the Government on 25   January 2010 and 20 December 2013 (...). 84. The Court takes note of the Government’s arguments in favour of the application of the property valuation maps 2014 for the calculation of the pecuniary damage. It welcomes the fact that the property valuations are (supposed to be) updated every year on the basis of a methodology that was adopted by a Government decision in 2012. However, it is not persuaded by the Government’s proposals. 85. In the first place, the property valuation maps 2014 were adopted after the introduction of the present applications, which are being examined in line with the directions laid down in the pilot judgment. In the Court’s view, reference to the valuation maps 2014 would give rise to disparities in the treatment of applicants insofar as reliance on the reference price is concerned. 86. Secondly, the Court would refer to the reservations made during the parliamentary meeting of 7 May 2012 to the effect that the transactions registered with the IPRO did not generally and necessarily reflect the real market value as a result of tax evasion committed by the parties to a sales contract. Consequently, the Court considers that reliance on the sales prices of registered transactions would be in blatant discord with the well-established principle that compensation, in cases of unlawful expropriation, should correspond to the market value, it not being for this Court to indicate measures to curb and combat tax evasion. 87. Thirdly, and closely linked to the second reason, the Court is concerned that property prices in some cities, particularly in areas experiencing a relatively high development growth, such as the centre of Tirana, the capital city, have experienced a sharp decline. The Court is not in a position to speculate the reasons for such decrease, but it is not convinced that they objectively reflect the current market value and that they were “interest and inflation indexed” in order to cover for the damage occasioned by the unavailability of compensation during all these years (...).” (v) Rista and Others v. Albania ([Committee], nos. 5207/10 and 9   others, 17 March 2016). Ruling under Article 41 of the Convention, the Court, relying on the 2008 property valuation maps, awarded the applicants an aggregate amount of EUR   10,697,900 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and an aggregate amount of EUR 3,200 in respect of costs and expenses. (vi) Aliçka and Others v. Albania ([Committee], nos. 33148/11 and 5   others, 7 April 2016. Ruling under Article 41 of the Convention, the Court, relying on the 2008 property valuation maps, awarded the applicants an aggregate amount of EUR   799,600 in respect of pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and EUR   1,700 in respect of costs and expenses. (vii) Halimi and Others v. Albania ([Committee], nos. 33839/11, 7   April   2016. Ruling under Article 41 of the Convention, the Court, relying on the 2008 property valuation maps, awarded the applicants an aggregate amount of EUR   754,300 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   850 in respect of costs and expenses. (viii) Karagjozi and Others v. Albania ([Committee], nos. 32382/11, 7   April 2016. Ruling under Article 41 of the Convention, the Court, relying on the 2008 property valuation maps, awarded the applicants an aggregate amount of EUR   5,919,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   850 in respect of costs and expenses. 13.     Between 22 September 2014 and 22 April 2016, consistent with the direction in the pilot judgment (see paragraph 8 above), the Court decided to give notice to the respondent Government of 53 follow-up cases which were the subject of the Court’s well-established case-law. 14.     Further to the implementation of the Manushaqe Puto and Others pilot judgment, on 5 December 2015 Parliament adopted the Treatment of Property and Finalisation of the Property Compensation Process Act (the   “2015   Property Act”), which, following the publication in the Official Journal, came into effect on 24 February 2016 (the   “Effective Date”). The present applications 15.     The present applications were lodged with the Court between 2006 and 2014 and concern the prolonged non-enforcement of final administrative decisions which recognised the applicants’ right to compensation in one of the ways provided for by law in lieu of the restitution of their properties which had been confiscated or nationalised by the former communist regime. They raise issues similar to those examined by the Court in the Manushaqe Puto and Others pilot judgment. 16.     A detailed list of the applicants, including their nationalities, representatives and the date of introduction of each application has been set out in the table appended to this decision. A description of the relevant facts of each application is given below. 17.     Application no. 29026/06: On 13 February 1996 the Durrës Property Restitution and Compensation Commission (“the   Commission”) issued two decisions recognising the applicants’ inherited property rights to two plots of land measuring 1,272 sq. m and 3,000 sq. m. As the plots of land were occupied, it decided that the applicants would be entitled to compensation in kind ( kompensohen në natyrë ). A third decision issued on the same date recognised the applicants’   title to a plot of land measuring 843 sq. m. and the buildings constructed thereon. The buildings were either occupied or leased to households or had been sold to other households by the local authorities. There is no mention of any right to compensation in the third decision. 18 .     Application no. 3165/08: On 17 November 1995 the Korça Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to a plot of land measuring 450 sq. m. Since the plot of land was occupied by a block of flats, it decided that the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law ( të kompensohen me njërën nga mënyrat e parashikuara në...ligj ). On 22 December 2007 the Agency for Restitution and Compensation of Properties (the “Agency”), which had replaced the Commission in 2006, dismissed the applicants’ request for financial compensation owing to the lack of funds. 19.     Application no. 56956/10: On 12 December 1995 the Bilisht Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to a plot of land measuring 13,315.25 sq. m. Since the plot of land was occupied, the applicants would be compensated by State bonds ( kompensohen me obligacione ). On 16   November 2009 the Agency dismissed the applicants’ request for financial compensation as it had not been made in accordance with the statutory requirements, namely it did not contain all supporting documents. 20.     Application no. 29127/11: On 20   November 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to a plot of land measuring 5,000 sq. m, of which 524 sq. m were restored. It decided that the applicants would be compensated for the remaining 4,360 sq. m in one of the ways provided for by law ( të kompensohen me një nga mënyrat e këtij [ligji]) , and recognised the applicants’ right to first refusal ( e drejta e parablerjes ) of two buildings, measuring 2,600 sq. m and 1,760   sq.   m, in the event of privatisation. 21.     Application no. 8904/12: On 30   June 2009 the Tirana Agency recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to a number of plots of land, measuring in total 410,184 sq.   m, of which 13,300 sq. m were restored. It further recognised their right to compensation in respect of the remaining 396,884   sq. m ( t’i njihet e drejta e kompensimit për pronën me sipërfaqe 396,884 m 2 ). 22.     Application no. 6311/12 : On 23 October 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to a plot of land measuring 1,071 sq. m. As the plot was occupied by buildings, it decided that the applicant would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law ( të kompensojë trashëgimtarët...për truallin e zënë...me një nga mënyrat që përcakton...ligji ). In 2005 the applicant received financial compensation for 200 sq. m. 23.     Application no. 5915/14: On 19 June 2007 the Agency recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to a plot of land measuring 240,000   sq. m. It decided that the applicants would be compensated for 183,500 sq. m in one of the ways provided for by law ( të   kompensojë...për pronën...me një nga format e parashikuara në...ligj ), since 56,500 sq. m had been restored to them by way of a final court decision in 1996. 24.     Application no. 53846/14: On 4 July 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to a plot of land measuring 65,000 sq. m. As the plot was occupied, it decided that the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law ( të   kompensohet... me një nga mënyrat e përcaktuara në [ligj] ). It also recognised the applicants’ right to first refusal of a number of buildings located on the plot of land in the event of their privatisation. 25.     Application no. 57152/14: The parties agreed that on 29 June 1994, as supplemented and clarified by two subsequent decisions given on 14   October 1994 and 21 October 1999, the Tirana Commission had recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to a plot of land measuring 1,011 sq. m, of which 224 sq. m were restored. It decided that the applicants would be compensated for the remaining 787 sq. m in one of the ways provided for by law ( të kompensohet...me një nga mënyrat e përcaktuara në [ligj] ). 26.     Application no. 67059/14: On 23   September 1996 the Elbasan Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to a plot of land measuring 330 sq. m. As the plot was occupied, it decided that the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law ( në bazë të ligjit...të kompensohen për sipëfaqen prej 330 m 2 ) . 27.     Application no. 72755/14: On 12 July 1999 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to a plot of land measuring 113,000, of which 10,000 sq. m were restored. It decided that the applicants would be compensated for the remaining 103,000 sq. m in one of the ways provided for by law ( i kompensohet me një nga mënyrat që parashikon ky [ligj] ). 28.     Application no. 537/15: On 22 September 1995 the Kavaja Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to a plot of land measuring 28,000 sq. m. It decided that the applicants would be compensated for 20,800 sq. m either by compensation in kind or by State obligations or in any other way provided for by law. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE Domestic law and practice at the time of the adoption of the Manushaqe Puto and Others pilot judgment 29.     A summary of the relevant parts of the Property Acts enacted between 1993 and 2012 has been given in the Manushaqe Puto and Others pilot judgment, §§ 24-50. Domestic law and practice subsequent to the delivery of the Manushaqe Puto and Others pilot judgment The 2015 Property Act 30.     The 2015 Property Act repealed the 2004 Property Act. (a)    Parliamentary Commission report 31.     Prior to its adoption, the draft law was examined by the standing Parliamentary Commission for Legal Affairs, Public Administration and Human Rights (the “Parliamentary Commission”), which issued a report on the examination of the draft law, as accessed on Parliament’s official website [1] . The Parliamentary Commission considered that the draft law was in compliance with the Constitution. It approved the draft law and voted in favour of submitting it to Parliament’s scrutiny at a parliamentary session. 32.     The report noted that, in implementation of the Manushaqe Puto and Others pilot judgment, the authorities (i) had established an electronic register of decisions, given from 1993 to 2014, which had either restored property in natura or recognised former owners’ right to compensation, (ii)   had assessed the financial bill for the State, and (iii) had developed a domestic remedy which would provide a final resolution of the process of property restitution and compensation within a reasonable time. 33.     The report referred to the statistical data provided by the Government, according to which: (i) between 1993 and 2013 around 53,000   decisions had been given, which had recognised property rights in respect of 186,823 hectares, out of which 74,420 hectares had been restored and 73,400 hectares would be subject to compensation; (ii) between 2005   and 2014 only 15.9 hectares had been subject to the payment of financial compensation and 900 decisions had been subject to the payment of partial compensation at a value of 4.1 billion Albanian leks (“ALL”) (approximately EUR 32,826,200 – at an average annual rate of around EUR   3,6   million); and (iii) 10,131 claims for recognition of property rights were pending for examination in respect of 148,210 hectares. 34.     The Parliamentary Commission endorsed the new compensation scheme proposed in the draft law. It considered that, having regard to the statistical data provided by the authorities and the rate of paying compensation, it would take 4,588 years to pay compensation in relation to the aggregate area of 73,400 hectares in respect of which the domestic decisions had recognised the claimants’ right to compensation 35.     As part of its consideration of the draft law, the Parliamentary Commission had launched a public consultation on the draft law and had solicited opinions from various international and domestic institutions as well as interest groups and associations. (b)    Government’s explanatory report 36.     The explanatory report to the 2015 Property Act ( relacion shpjegues për ligjin ), which was submitted by the Government on 8 April 2016, stated that the compensation formulae provided for in prior legislation had not been effective. The new compensation methodology introduced by the 2015   Property Act aimed at resolving the award of just satisfaction to former owners who had had property expropriated during the communist regime, and at ensuring equality of all former owners whose right to compensation had been recognised by awarding just satisfaction in view of the socio-economic situation of the State. 37.     According to the report, only 2.5% of the process of restitution and compensation for properties had been completed. Since 1993 the authorities had given a total of 53,115 decisions restoring 74,420 hectares in natura and recognising the right to compensation in respect of 73,359 hectares. Between 2005 and 2014 financial compensation had been awarded in respect of 15.9 hectares. The report states that 10,131 property claims were pending for examination before the Agency. The Agency’s archives revealed that 26,357 unenforced decisions had recognised the right to compensation. 38 .     Drawing on property valuation maps that were in force at the material time, the authorities had estimated that the financial bill for the award of compensation in respect of 26,000 decisions would amount to ALL 814 billion (EUR 6,517,200,000). Having regard to the allocation of annual budgetary resources by the State in the amount of ALL 300 million (EUR 2,435,840), the compensation process would be completed after 2,713   years. In these circumstances, the authorities had devised a new compensation scheme, which, in their view, would constitute just satisfaction on the basis of this Court’s case-law. One of the objectives of the 2015 Property Act would be to determine the financial amount in respect of prior decisions recognising the right to compensation without specifying the amount of compensation (“decisions without quantum”). Contrary to the compensation process that had taken place in the past, which had been fraught with issues concerning, for example, the amounts of compensation paid and the priority order for the payment of such compensation, the compensation formula, as proposed by the 2015 Property Act, would endeavour to treat all former owners equally. Foreseeability, clarity and transparency in decision-making would feature as some of the objectives of the Act. Publication of decisions would increase transparency and instil public confidence. 39.     The explanatory report maintained that the authorities had never established a final compensation scheme which would give rise to legitimate expectations as regards the award of a particular (financial) amount. The prior scheme, which had been introduced and implemented by the authorities, was provisional and it had been found to be ineffective by the Strasbourg Court. The Government considered that the proposed compensation scheme would not constitute an interference with former owners’ property rights. It would preserve former owners’ equal treatment and the Government would undertake to discharge their obligation within a reasonable time in relation to any damage. (c)    Overview of the 2015 Property Act (i)   Purpose and scope of application 40.     According to sections 1 and 2, the purpose of the 2015 Property Act is to: (i)   finalise the examination of property claims concerning properties which had been expropriated, nationalised or confiscated since 29   November 1944 under domestic statutes or implementing legal acts/decisions, criminal court decisions or expropriated by any other unfair means by the communist regime, (ii) regulate and award just satisfaction by way of compensation, (iii) set up a Compensation Fund out of which compensation would be paid to former owners, (iv) enforce final decisions which had recognised the right to compensation, and (v) finalise the process of compensation, within the deadlines laid down in the Act, through the Compensation Fund. 41.     Some properties would be outside the scope of application of the 2015 Property Act provisions, such as properties which (i) had been acquired as a result of the application of the Agrarian Reform Act, as amended, (ii) had been expropriated against the payment of just satisfaction, and (iii) had been donated to the State on the strength of official documents. 42.     The 2015 Property Act uses the term “expropriated subject” to refer to former owners and their legal heirs. For the sake of maintaining consistency with its prior case-law, the Court will continue using the term “former owner” to refer to “expropriated subject”. (ii)   Establishment of a new authority 43 .     The 2015 Property Act has established the Agency for Treatment of Property (“the ATP”), which would be responsible for the application and implementation of the Act and replaced the (former) Agency which had been established in 2006 (see paragraph 18 above). The ATP is accountable to the Minister of Justice and coordinates its work with various State institutions. Its organisation and operation is governed by a Council of Ministers’ decision (see paragraph 78 below). The 2015 Property Act contains sunset provisions regarding the operation of the Agency (see   paragraphs 44 and 50 below). (iii)   Examination of new and pending property claims 44 .     In accordance with the scope of application of the 2015 Property Act, the ATP was to examine property claims which had been lodged with and had not been examined by the (former) Agency, as well as accept and decide on new property claims lodged with it for a period of up to ninety days from the Effective Date. Under section 27, the ninety-day time-limit could not be extended under any circumstances by a court or administrative decision. The process for examining pending property claims was to be completed within three years from the Effective Date, that is by 23   February   2019. If the ATP failed to examine properly submitted claims for the recognition of property rights within the three-year time-limit, a former owner would have the right to lodge a civil action with the court of first instance (of general jurisdiction), in accordance with section 34. 45.     The ATP could recognise a former owner’s property rights and the right to compensation in accordance with section 20. Under section 29, a   decision of the ATP recognising (or not) property rights and the right to compensation could be appealed against, within thirty   days of its notification, to the competent court of appeal. If the ATP’s decision became final, it would be registered with the Immovable Property Registration Office (“IPRO”) in accordance with section 30. 46 .     Former owners were required to pay a processing fee in order to bear the administrative costs of their claims, in accordance with section   28   § 5. (iv)   Determination of financial evaluation 47.     All final decisions recognising property rights and the right to compensation, including decisions in respect of applications which were pending for consideration before national courts and this Court, would be subject to a financial evaluation to be carried out by the ATP pursuant to sections 6 and 7 of the 2015 Property Act, which read as follows (in the original version): “ Section 6 - Evaluation Methodology 1. For the purpose of enforcement, all final decisions concerning the restitution and compensation of property shall be subject to a financial evaluation by the Agency for Treatment of Property, as follows: (a) a property, in respect of which the right to compensation has been recognised ( prona e njohur për kompensim ), shall be subject to a financial evaluation on the basis of the cadastral category ( zëri kadastral ) at the time of expropriation; (b) a property which has been restored shall be subject to a financial evaluation which will be determined by obtaining the difference between its value on the basis of the actual cadastral category and its value on the basis of the cadastral category at the time of expropriation. 2. Final decisions which have recognized only the right to compensation shall be subject to a financial evaluation on the basis of the property’s cadastral category at the time of expropriation, in accordance with paragraph 1(a) above. 3. If a [former owner] has obtained both the restoration and compensation [of the property], the amount obtained under paragraph 1(b) shall be deducted from the amount obtained under paragraph 1(a). 4. [If the cadastral category cannot be determined] The evaluation of final decisions recognizing the right to compensation shall be carried out by reference to the original cadastral category of the property which is located closest to the property [that will be] subject to compensation, and on the basis of the property valuation maps in effect at the time of the entry into force of this Act. If, close to the property [that will be] subject to compensation, there are a number of cadastral categories which are the same as that of the origin of the property and have the same distance but different values, the financial evaluation shall be carried out by reference to the cadastral category having the highest value. 5. If the ATP recognises a [former owner’s] property rights and orders compensation in kind within the [former owner’s] property, the property shall be subject to a financial evaluation in accordance with paragraph 1. If, following the financial evaluation, it results that [the former owner] has obtained a property the value of which is higher than the value of the property at the time of expropriation, the [former owner] shall be awarded compensation in kind equivalent to the value of the financial evaluation and the remainder of the property shall be transferred to the Land Fund by decision of the ATP. 6. The value of shares, bonds, financial compensation or any other form of compensation, including the value of any property obtained in application of the legal provisions for the distribution of agricultural land, that a [former owner] or his/her heirs have previously received, shall be deducted from the amount determined as compensation. 7. Unenforced decisions which have determined a compensation amount shall be indexed for the period from the date on which the amount was determined until its payment, in accordance with the official inflation and interest rate on the basis of the average annual rate published by the Bank of Albania at the time of the entry into force of this Act. Section 7 1. All final decisions recognising the right to compensation, and all decisions that will be taken until the finalisation of the [compensation] process under this Act, shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 2. Final decisions recognising the right to compensation shall be subject to a financial evaluation of the property in accordance with Section 6 of this Act, as follows: (a) if the value of the property which has been [already] restored to [the former owner] through a final decision is higher than the value of the [property] recognised for compensation purposes, the [former owner] shall be deemed to have been compensated; (b) if the value of the property in respect of which compensation will be awarded is higher than the value of the property which has been [already] restored, the [former owner] shall be paid the difference, in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (c) if the final decision has not ordered restoration of the property, the financial evaluation of the property in respect of which the right to compensation has been recognised shall be based on the cadastral category of the property at the time of expropriation in accordance with section 6 § 3 of this Act; (d) if the final decision has not determined [the right to] compensation, the decision and the relevant documents shall be archived in accordance with the statutory archiving requirements.” 48.     Financial evaluation of decisions was to be carried out in chronological order, starting with the earliest decisions. The ATP was, within six months from the Effective Date, to publish a register of all decisions recognising the right to compensation as provided for in section   16. The register would be published on the ATP’s website, the Official Notices Bulletin ( Buletini i Njoftimeve Zyrtare ) and the media. Missing documents could be supplemented within six   months from the date of publication of the register. 49.     If the missing documents were not provided within the six-month time-limit and it was objectively impossible for the ATP to evaluate the property on the basis of the documentation in its possession, final decisions recognising the right to compensation would be subject to financial evaluation on the basis of the lowest price laid down on the property valuation map in respect of the same category of property and of the same administrative unit. 50 .     The ATP was to carry out, within three years from the Effective Date, that is by 23 February 2019, the financial evaluation of all final decisions recognising the right to compensation, in accordance with section 15 § 1. On the expiry of the three-year time-limit, former owners would be entitled to lodge an action with the Administrative Court of First Instance, seeking the financial evaluation of final decisions recognising property rights and the right to compensation, in accordance with section 15 § 2, provided that the ATP had failed to do so. 51.     Under section 19, the ATP’s decision concerning the financial evaluation could be appealed against, within thirty   days of its notification, to the Administrative Court of Appeal. 52.     Persons whose property was occupied by the construction of unauthorised buildings, which are the subject of the process of legalisation pursuant to the Legalisation Act, would be entitled to seek compensation under this Act in accordance with its section 21. 53.     If domestic decisions had recognised a right to first refusal ( e drejta e parablerjes ) in relation to State-owned objects which could be subject to privatisation, it was open to a former owner to waive the exercise of such right in exchange for compensation (which amount would be evaluated by the ATP), within one year from the publication of the register of decisions recognising the right to compensation. This time-limit could not be extended. (v)   Forms and payment of compensation 54.     The main forms of compensation under the 2015 Property Act are compensation in kind and financial compensation, as laid down in section 8, which reads as follows: “ Section 8 – Forms of compensation and valuat