CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 8 septembre 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s76334B44 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF114237 { width:19.02pt; display:inline-block } .sCE4BAE11 { width:181.12pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s8DC73591 { width:184.78pt; display:inline-block } .s98A7B623 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sA7F3A2AB { width:120%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #949494; border-collapse:collapse } .s69C195DF { width:7.8%; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s72EDF482 { width:8.5%; 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 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s1CF4476B { width:15.32%; 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 } .s5042CAE6 { width:9.66%; 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 } .s38949A25 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:8pt } .sB57A143 { width:27.4%; 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 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s8869A95B { width:16.96%; 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 } .s6114A609 { width:14.34%; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAFB79CCF { width:7.8%; 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 } .sD80C7CA5 { width:8.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBBA9E57F { width:15.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD608B2D9 { width:9.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCDED0815 { width:27.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3BE2F8C5 { width:16.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF3094092 { width:14.34%; 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 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA2E08F25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s23FE5D7A { height:24.45pt } .sBB84500 { height:36.8pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s8B3656B0 { width:39.88pt; display:inline-block } .s3CBB41C5 { width:7.8%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s357485CE { width:8.5%; 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 } .sF38EC84A { width:15.32%; 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 } .s2DE7E45C { width:9.66%; 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 } .sCAC3619D { width:27.4%; 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 } .sCE3EEFCF { width:16.96%; 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 } .s589228A6 { width:14.34%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 13618/10 GJERGO and BABICENKO against Albania and 76 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 8   September 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Egidijus Kūris, President,   Ivana Jelić,   Darian Pavli, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy 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 regard to the information submitted by the Government on 4   Mach 2019 concerning the updated developments in respect of the overwhelming majority of applications, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A detailed list of the applicants, including their representatives and the date of introduction of each application, has been set out in the table appended to this decision (“the Appendix”). 2.     The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their then Agent, Ms. A. Hicka and, subsequently, by their Agent, Mr A.   Metani of the State Advocate’s Office. The circumstances of the case 3.     The present applications were lodged with the Court between 2010 and 2015 and concern the prolonged non-enforcement of final 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, cited above. 4.     Details of the final decisions and enforcement thereof, which have been updated in view of the information provided by the Government on 4   March 2019, have been summarily set out in the Appendix. Relevant domestic law and practice 5 .     Further to the implementation of the Manushaqe Puto and Others pilot judgment, on 5 December 2015 the Albanian 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. A detailed description of the 2015 Property Act, including the domestic courts’ case ‑ law and implementing secondary legislation, has been provided in the Court’s decision in the case Beshiri and Others   v. Albania ((dec.), no.   29026/06 and 11 other applications, §§ 30-109, 17 March 2020). 6 .     The distinguishing feature of the 2015 Property Act is that, for the purpose of enforcement, all final decisions, which had recognised the right to compensation without determining the amount of compensation, would be subject to a financial evaluation, which would be carried out by the Agency for Treatment of Property (the “ATP”), by reference to the cadastral category of the property at the time of expropriation. However, decisions which had determined the amount of compensation would be enforced in full, subject to indexation. 7.     Subsequent to the delivery of the Court’s decision in the case of Beshiri and Others (dec.), cited above, from 15 May to 8 June 2020 the administrative bench of the Supreme Court has delivered a number of decisions concerning applications for the stay of enforcement of domestic courts’ decisions given in cases relating to the financial evaluation carried out by the ATP, namely decisions no.   210 of 15 May 2020, no. 122/462 of 1   June 2020, nos. 45/327 and 56/348 of 8 June 2020. The Supreme Court Administrative Bench has held that an application for the stay of enforcement of decisions given by the Administrative Court of Appeal would be granted on the condition that, amongst others, the impugned decisions were final. In those cases, insofar as the Administrative Court of Appeal had examined actions against the ATP decisions on financial evaluation as a first-instance court and given that an appeal against the Administrative Court of Appeal decisions had been lodged with the Supreme Court and was pending before it, the application for the stay of enforcement was rejected on the ground that the Administrative Court of Appeal decisions had not become final. The Administrative Court of Appeal decisions   had annulled the financial evaluation carried out by the ATP and enjoined the ATP either to determine a fresh financial evaluation or to award the payment of a specific sum of money as financial compensation. COMPLAINTS 8 .     The applicants complained that there had been a breach of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention, on account of the authorities’ non-enforcement of final decisions which had recognised their right to receive compensation in lieu of the restitution of properties. 9.     Some applicants also complained that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the retroactive application of the 2015 Property Act. 10 .     The applicant in application no. 11321/11 (see row no. 10 of the Appendix) further complained that there had been a breach of his right of access to court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the authorities alleged failure to examine his claim for the recognition of property rights. 11 .     Lastly, the applicants in application no. 47807/12 and 48401/12 (see   rows nos. 34 and 37 of the Appendix) complained that there had been a breach of Article 14 of the Convention as they had not been restored the land in respect of which the right to first refusal of buildings had been recognised. THE LAW 12.     The Court notes that the applicants complained under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention, which, insofar as relevant, read as follows: Article 6 – Right to a fair trial “1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Protection of property “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” Preliminary issue 13.     On 27 July 2020 the applicants represented by Mr Sokol Puto, save for the applicants in application no. 67286/14, made a request for adjournment of the examination of their applications, pending the authorities’ implementation of the Beshiri and Others decision. 14.     Having examined the reasons put forward by the applicants, the Court decides to reject the request for adjournment in view of the findings made in the decision in the case of Beshiri and Others (dec.). It would be inappropriate to adopt a different approach in these cases than the one which the Court has already adopted in the Beshiri and Others decision. Joinder of the applications 15.     The Court, having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court. The complaint under Article 13 of the Convention as well as the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention As regards decision no. 251 of 21 August 2008 in application no.   78958/11 16 .     As regards decision no. 251 of 21 August 2008 given in respect of application no. 78958/11 (see row no. 18 of the Appendix), the Court takes note of the applicants’ wish to withdraw their complaints. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that the applicants do not intend to pursue their complaints in respect of that decision, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, and it finds no reasons of general interest concerning respect for human rights, within the meaning of the final sentence of Article 37 § 1, which would require the continued examination of those complaints. It follows that, in so far as the complaints concerning decision no. 251 of 21 August 2008 are concerned, that part of the application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases. As regards the remainder of the applications 17.     At the outset, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the parties’ arguments about the legal standing of some applicants or their heirs, the applicants’ shares of inherited properties or of their right to compensation or any factual discrepancies in respect of domestic decisions, as the applications are in any event inadmissible for the following reasons. 18.     The Court notes that in 2012 it adopted a pilot judgment concerning these issues (see Manushaqe Puto and Others , cited above), in which it 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 final decisions awarding compensation, and a breach of Article 13 of the Convention owing to the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this regard. 19.     Further to the implementation of this pilot judgment, the 2015   Property Act, which introduced a new compensation remedy, was enacted (see paragraphs 5 and 6 above). 20.     The Court has recently found that the remedy introduced by the 2015 Property Act is effective, within the meaning of Article   35 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention (see Beshiri and Others   (dec.), cited above, §   215). The Court sees no reason to depart from that finding in the context of the present case and considers that the applicants’ complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (see paragraph 8 above) is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (see   Beshiri and Others (dec.), cited above, § 221). 21.     Having regard to its findings in the Beshiri and Others decision, cited above, §§ 224-29, the same conclusion is valid in respect of the applicants’ complaints that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the retroactive application of the 2015 Property Act (see paragraph 7 above). The Court considers that this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 22.     As regards the applicants’ remaining complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see paragraph 8 above), the Court observes that, depending on the actual stage of the proceedings in respect of each application, the following situations can be distinguished. 23.     In the first place, the Court finds that, notwithstanding the applications’ date of introduction, the applicants in applications found in rows 1-29 and 31-73 of the Appendix, save for specific individual decisions given in respect of a limited number of applications which have been examined separately in paragraph 24 below, were or are required under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention to avail themselves of the new domestic remedies introduced by virtue of the 2015   Property Act in compliance with the relevant domestic rules. It transpires from the information provided by the Government on 4 March 2019 that the ATP has carried out ex officio the financial evaluation in respect of almost each domestic decision, as described in the column pertaining to the enforcement details. The applicants have either failed to exhaust domestic remedies or failed to inform the Court of any action they might have taken in this regard. This equally applies to those cases in which the ATP has not carried out a financial evaluation, due to the lack of required documentation or on account of other reasons, in respect of which the applicants were similarly required to follow the relevant domestic procedures. The Court finds no exceptional circumstances capable of exempting the applicants from the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies (see Beshiri and Others (dec.) cited above, §§ 216-18). It follows that these complaints must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.   Notwithstanding the above conclusion, the Court recalls the stipulations made in paragraph 222 of the decision in the case of Beshiri and Others (dec.), cited above, concerning the conditions which the authorities ought to satisfy in order for the remedy to continue to remain effective. 24 .     Secondly, as regards decision no. 2406 of 8 November 2013 given in respect of application no. 68195/14 (see row no. 57 of the Appendix), decision no. 70 of 14 April 2006 given in respect of application no.   74968/14 (see row no. 62 of the Appendix) and applications nos.   70211/13, 70730/014 and 9152/15 (see rows nos. 74-76 of the Appendix), the Court observes that the domestic proceedings concerning the determination of the compensation amount are pending before the national courts. It considers therefore that it would be premature for it to deal with these complaints, which must be rejected under Article 35   §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention (see Beshiri and Others (dec.) cited above, § 219). The subsequent Supreme Court’s case-law further reconfirms that, where an appeal has been filed with the highest court, the lower courts’ decisions would become final and enforceable upon the delivery of a decision by the Supreme Court (see paragraph 7 above). 25 .     Thirdly, the Court, having regard to the full payment of the compensation award upon the applicants’ request, as stated in the Government’s submission of 4 March 2019, considers that the applicants in application no. 67286/14 (see row no.   77 of the Appendix) can no longer claim to be a ‘victim’ of breaches of their rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Beshiri and Others (dec.) cited above, §   220). It follows that this application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention for the purposes of Article   35 § 1 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. 26 .     Lastly, the Court notes that the domestic proceedings concerning the initial recognition of the applicants’ inherited property rights in application no.   30942/12 are still pending (see row no. 30 of the Appendix). No final decision having been taken, it cannot be said that the applicants have “existing possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The belief that, in the future, the authorities may issue a decision recognising the applicants’ inherited property rights cannot be regarded as a form of “legitimate expectation” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court recalls that there is a difference between a mere hope of restitution, however understandable that hope may be, and a legitimate expectation, which must be of a more concrete nature than a mere hope and be based on a legal provision or a legal act such as a judicial decision (see   Kopecký v. Slovakia   [GC] , no.   44912/98, § 49, ECHR 2004 ‑ IX; and   Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic   (dec.), no.   39794/98, § 73, ECHR 2002 ‑ VII).   The Court accordingly concludes that, for the time being, the applicants have not shown that they had a claim which was sufficiently established to be enforceable, and they therefore cannot argue that they had a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It follows that this   complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. Other alleged violations of the Convention 27. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as the complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about an alleged breach of the applicant’s right of access to court and Article 14 of the Convention (see   paragraphs 10 and 11 above) do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the part of application no. 78958/11 concerning decision no. 251 of 21 August 2008 out of its list of cases; Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 1 October 2020.   Hasan Bakırcı   Egidijus Kūris   Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application no.   and   Date of introduction Applicant’s full name   Date of communication / Articles Description of final domestic decisions Enforcement details Representative’s name 1 13618/10   Lodged on 08/03/2010 Mihallaq GJERGO Athina GJERGO Jorgjie GJIKOPULLI née GJERGO Elvira BABICENKO née GJERGO 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decisions nos. 34 and 35 of 10 July 2007 the Vlora Property Restitution and Compensation Commission (“Commission”) recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 25,200   sq.   m which would be compensated in accordance with the law. The Agency for Treatment of Property (“ATP”) has carried out the financial evaluation of each decision. Artan Hajdari   2 36482/10   Lodged on 20/05/2010 Donard STRAZIMIRI Indrit STRAZIMIRI Bedrie FLORINI, née Fortuzi Bledar FLORINI Alma HYKA, née Fortuzi Fisnik PREZA Dhurata KARAJANI, née Fortuzi Fatbardha AGUSHI, née Fortuzi Aferdita HUSHA, née Fortuzi Fatri LLAGAMI [1] Bujar LLAGAMI [2] Vera PANARITI [3] Miranda NOSI Dashuri LLAGAMI Denis LLAGAMI Helidon LLAGAMI Mysin PILKU Lira KASHARAJ Nimet PILKU Niada SHIMA Floran PILKU Hamijet ZOGOLLI Gojar DISHNICA Rebeka VERDHA, née DISHNICA Bardhyl ZOGOLLI Nazime ZOGOLLI Adrian ZOGOLLI Hasan ZOGOLLI Mybara ZOGOLLI Erjon ZOGOLLI Helga ZOGOLLI Luan FORTUZI Arben FORTUZI Avni FORTUZI Miranda FORTUZI Eva SHEHAJ, née FORTUZI Zana FORTUZI Fisnik FORTUZI Astrit FORTUZI Liri FORTUZI Enri LAKU Ilir LAKU Ariana LAKU Artan FORTUZI Sokol FORTUZI Ballkez FORTUZI [4] Sokol FORTUZI 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 419 of 9   November 2000 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 41,618 sq. m, of which 6,055 sq. m. were restored and the remaining 35,563 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. It also recognised the applicants’ right to first refusal of some buildings in the event of privatisation. The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.       The ATP has not carried out the financial evaluation of the plot occupied by the buildings, as the applicants have not waived the right to first refusal.   Artan HAJDARI   3 37381/10   Lodged on 21/10/2010 Gezim SHEHI Makbule CENE Lirie MECA Shpresa HYSAJ Bardha SHEHI Myhyrije SHEHI Adrian SHEHI Haki SHEHI 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 1055 of 24 June 2003, the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 34,000 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law. The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.   Spiro DODBIBA   4 41859/10   Lodged on 23/10/2010 Eqerem RISILIA 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 116 of 19 November 1996 the Vlora Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 11,400 sq. m, of which 10,000 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. The parties have not provided any information relating to the carrying out of the financial evaluation of the decision. Spiro DODBIBA   By decision no. 14 of 14 March 2000 the Vlora Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 20,000   sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law. The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.   5 48830/10   Lodged on 19/07/2010 Agim TORO Ervehe CERIBASHI Lindita KAPAJ-TORO   26/05/2015   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 321 of 16 May the Gjirokastra Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 17,062   sq.   m, of which 10,000 sq. m were restored and the remaining 7,062 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. The Government submitted that the Gjirokastra District Court decision no. 937 of 29 May 2008 had decided to annul the applicant’s property rights to 1,260   sq. m as they overlapped with a third party’s property rights.     The ATP, following the carrying out of the financial evaluation of the decision, has decided that the applicants are deemed to have been compensated. The Government further submitted that, further to an appeal lodged by the applicants against the ATP decision, the Administrative Court of Appeal decision no. 187 of 14 November 2018l had decided to return the appeal to the applicants for rectification. To date, the applicants have not provided any relevant, updated information in reply. Spiro DODBIBA   Article 6 § 1 (access to court)   By decision no. 174 of 5 May 2009 the Supreme Court declared the applicants’ civil action against a Commission decision, which had recognised the property rights of a third party, outside the jurisdiction of ordinary courts on account of the applicant’s failure to lodge an administrative complaint with the then Central Agency for the Restitution and Compensation of Properties [5] (“Central Agency”), the director of which had the power to review the Commission decision. On 6 September 2009, following the applicants’ subsequent complaint of 16 July 2009, the director of the Central Agency informed them that the request had been submitted out of time following the expiry of the statutory time-limit for making an appeal. On 13 July 2010, following the applicant’s fresh complaint of 11 February 2010, the director of the Central Agency informed them that, in view of the Constitutional Court decision no. 27 of 26 May 2010 which had declared unconstitutional his powers to review the Commission decision, their complaint could not be subject to the administrative review. There is no information available that, following the director’s letter of 13 July 2010, the applicants pursued the matter before the domestic courts. 6 56958/10   Lodged on 27/09/2010 Klerenti DUME Bedri FESKO Zana DUME Ilir DUME Agim DUME Vladimir DUME Ermira DUME Nuri DUME Vjollca DUME Svjetllana DUME Besa DUME Fatbardha DUME Teuta MATUA Gramoz MBORJA Donika MBORJA, née DAJLANI 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 169 of 1   February 1996 the Erseka Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 3,561 sq. m, of which 1,529 sq. m were restored and 1,057 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. It also recognised the applicants’ right to first refusal of a building.   The ATP, following the carrying out of the financial evaluation of the decision, has decided that the applicants are deemed to have been compensated.       Artan HAJDARI   7 60264/10   Lodged on 27/09/2010 Agron SKENDERI Bashkim KACA 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 67 of 21 October 1999 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 7,000 sq. m, of which 1,164 sq. m. were restored and 5,281 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. No compensation appears to have been made in respect of 555 sq. m which were occupied by unlawfully constructed buildings, whose occupiers were directed to pay rent to the applicants. The Commission also recognised the applicants’ right to first refusal of a building occupying 2,736 sq. m. The ATP, following the carrying out of the financial evaluation of the decision, has decided that the applicants are deemed to have been compensated. Gentiana TIRANA     8 4899/11   Lodged on 24/12/2010 Fadil OMARI Liri MACI 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 394 of 23   September 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 162 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law. The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.   Artan HAJDARI   9 4901/11   Lodged on 24/12/2010 Elvana SAMARXHIJA née CEPUNJA 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 255 of 3   October 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 416.5 sq. m, of which 30 sq. m. were restored and the remaining 386.5 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.   Artan HAJDARI   10 11321/11   Lodged on 15/11/2010                   Refat PUTO [6] 25/04/2016   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 195 of 8 January 1996 the Saranda Property Commission acknowledged that the applicant’s father used to own a share, namely one eighth, of a pasture measuring 1,000,000 sq. m found in Lëkurës (“the first pasture”) and of another pasture measuring 3,500,000 sq. m located in Bërdenesh (“the second pasture”). As the first pasture and only 225,000 sq. m out of the second pasture were found to be intra muros , the Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited share to both pastures measuring an aggregate of 152,000 sq. m, of which 4,642 sq. m were restored, 1,098 sq. m having already been restored by way of two prior decisions given in 1994 and 1995, and the remaining 146,260 sq. m would be compensated in kind and by way of State bonds. Furthermore, the applicant’s right to first refusal of a building measuring 960 sq. m was recognised (also see application no. 13258/11 below). The ATP, following the carrying out of the financial evaluation of the decisions, has decided that the applicants are deemed to have been compensated. Sokol PUTO   Article 6 § 1 (access to court)   Drawing on the materials in the case file, it transpires that in March 1997 the applicant lodged an application with the then Commission to have the remaining land of the second pasture restored to him. As a result, by decision no. 257 of 10 July 2008 the Vlora Property Agency recognised the applicant’s inherited title to an additional 121,200 sq. m which belonged to the second pasture, of which 119,350 sq. m. were restored and the remaining 1,850 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. The applicant appealed to the Central Agency in Tirana. In the meantime, on 25 February 2010 the Central Agency informed the applicant that, following the dissolution of local offices, the application he had lodged in 1997 would be examined by the Central Agency.   In 2013 the Central Agency declared the applicant’s appeal against decision no. 257/2008 outside of jurisdiction in view of a Constitutional Court decision which had repealed the powers of its director to review decisions given by local Agency offices. Subsequent to the entry into force of the 2015 Property Act, it does not appear that the applicant has lodged a new claim with the ATP or with the domestic courts for the recognition of inherited property rights of the remaining land of the second pasture. 11 11489/11   Lodged on 16/02/2011 Gurije DVORANI née STAROVA [7] Shpetim DVORANI Svjetllana DUME Besa DUME Fatbardha DUME Valter MBORJA Pranvera BEJLERI née MBORJA Diana QYTETI née MBORJA 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 1024 of 30 June 2009 the Korça Agency recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 11,000   sq. m. which would be compensated in accordance with the law. The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.   Artan HAJDARI   12 13258/11   Lodged on 29/12/2010         Zamir MYFTIU Adile KONDI, nee PUTO Arben PUTO Bleriana MYFTIU BEATTY 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 196 of 8 January 1996 the Saranda Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 152,000 sq. m, of which 7,942 sq. m. were restored, 1,098 sq. m having already been restored by way of two prior decisions given in 1994 and 1995, and the remaining 142,960   sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the applicants’ right to first refusal of a building occupying 960 sq. m was recognised. The ATP has not carried out the financial evaluation of the decision owing to the lack of documents in the case file. Sokol PUTO   13 28124/11   Lodged on 05/02/2011 Naim FRASHERI Feride KOMNINO Lejda FRASHERI Enrik BREGASI Brunilda CASTELLUCHIO 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 75 of 27 June 2002 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 1,100   sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law. The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision. Artan HAJDARI   Manuel KOMNINO Mirko Walbach 14 28137/11   Lodged on 05/02/2011 Shefqet TIGANI Feim TIGANI Drita BOSHNJAKU (TIGANI) Muhamed TIGANI Sylejman TIGANI Fatlum DOMNIKU Burim DOMNIKU Laura DRANQOLLI née DOMNIKU Lendita RADONI née DOMNIKU Bekim DOMNIKU ArditaDOBROSHI née DOMNIKU Gjemajlije MULHAXHA née DOMNIKU Besnik DOMNIKU Besim TIGANI Hajrije TIGANI Gentiana TIGANI Aulona TIGANI Granit TIGANI Lorik TIGANI Ibrahim TIGANI Atifete TIGANI Arjeta (TIGANI)   HOTI Armend TIGANI Antigona KABASHI née TIGANI Agron TIGANI Servete TIGANI Nurco MURATOVIQ Ahmet MURATOVIQ Fikreta MURATOVIQ Mersija MURATOVIQ Femi TIGANI Demir TIGANI Magdalena TIGANI [8] Millka TIGANI Bujar TIGANI Suzana TIGANI Merita TIGANI Sabahat GORANI Nasire GORANI Nevzat GORANI [9] Arbnor GORANI Alush TIGANI Jakute TIGANI [10] 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 80 of 30 May 1995 the Vlora Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 40,000   sq. m, of which 2,664 sq. m were restored and 20,000   sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law.   The ATP has not carried out the financial evaluation of the decision owing to the lack of documents in the case file. Artan HAJDARI   15 29139/11   Lodged on 01/04/2011       Ardian MACI Maksim LESKO Hatlije LLAGAMI [11] Skender BYLYKU Gezim MACI [12] Mahmudije GOLIA [13] 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 1018 of 24 March 2003 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 46,000 sq. m and to 130 olive trees, the total value of which was determined to be ALL 675,200 (EUR   5,367). The applicants would be compensated by way of State bonds. The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision. Elton GONGO   16 33144/11   Lodged on 10/05/2011       Preng TOSKU [14]     20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 111 of 27 December 1998 the Mat Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 96,823 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law. The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision. Xhevdet SHETA   17 46474/11   Lodged on 18/07/2011 Ljuljzim JAJAGA Sadulla KERLUKU 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 412 of 7 November 2000 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 11,816 sq. m, of which 10,118   sq.   m. were restored or compensated and 635 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. The ATP, following the carrying out of the financial evaluation of the decision, has decided that the applicants are deemed to have been compensated. Elton GONGO   18 78958/11   Lodged on 12/12/2011 Mirvet PETRELA Albi PETRELA Genci PETRELA Miranda PETRELA née BAKIRI 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 205 of 5 August 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 1,278.4 sq. m, of which 1,036 sq.   m were restored and 232 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. It also recognised the applicants’ right to first refusal of a building occupying 144 sq. m found on the area to be compensated. The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision in respect of 88 sq. m. However, it has not determined the financial evaluation for the remaining 144   sq.   m, the applicants not having waived their right to first refusal. Aida PRIFTI     By decision no. 78 of 14 April 2008 the Tirana Agency recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 21.2   sq.   m which would be compensated in accordance with the law. The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision. By decision no. 251 of 21 August 2008 the Tirana Agency recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 28,000   sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law. It transpires that this decision has subsequently been quashed while the proceedings were ongoing. On 28 September 2016 the applicants expressed their wish to withdraw their complaints concerning this decision. 19 6312/12   Lodged on 26/01/2012 Sabri JELLA [15] Zana JELLA Ema JELLA Hasan JELLA [16] Eleen JELLA (YELLA) Bernice JELLA (YELLA) Mary (JELLA) MC DERMOTT 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 249 of 1 September 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 99 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law. The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision. Sokol PUTO   20 9217/12   Lodged on 26/01/2012 Sabri JELLA [17] Zana JELLA Ema JELLA Hasan JELLA [18] Hysni JELLA Eleen JELLA Bernice JELLA Mary (YELLA) MC DERMOTT 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 200 of 6 June 1997 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 15,500   sq. m, of which 3,160 sq. m. were restored and the remaining 12,340 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision. Sokol PUTO   21 9218/12   Lodged on 26/01/2012 Sabri JELLA [19] Zana JELLA Ema JELLA 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 82 of 1 December 1999 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 303 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law. The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision. Sokol PUTO   22 11629/12   Lodge on 26/01/2012 Zana JELLA Sabri JELLA [20] Ema JELLA Hasan JELLA [21] Eleen JELLA Bernice JELLA Hysni JELLA (KARAPICI) Mary (YELLA) MC DERMOTT 22/09/2014   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 516 of 9 April 1996 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ right to compensation in respect of two plots of lands measuring 177.5 sq. m and 238.6   sq. m. The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision. Sokol PUTO   23 21447/12   Lodged on 28/03/2012   Dhimitraq EQIMIJATRU Kleri CIKA [22] Gabriel EQIMIJATRU Petri EQIMIJATRU 22/09/2014   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 633 of 22 April 2002 the Durrës District Court, having amended the Commission decision no. 1424 of 1 June 1996, recognised the applicants’ right to compensation in respect of 5,000 sq. m. The ATP has not carried out the financial evaluation of the decision owing to the lack of documents in the case file. Petrika DEMIRI   24 21527/12   Lodge on 12/03/2012 Julian BENUSI Valeria BENUSI Anton BENUSI 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 140 of 20 July 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 1,217.35 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law. It further recognised the applicants’ right to first refusal of buildings constructed thereupon. The ATP has not carried out the financial evaluation of the land occupied by the buildings as the applicants have not waived their right to first refusal. Sokol PUTO   25 21529/12   Lodged on 12/03/2012       Valeria VRIONI Gherardo LA FRANCESKA Oliver VRIONI Dario LA FRANCESKA 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 This application, which is a follow-up to this Court’s judgment in the case of Vrioni and Others v. Albania ((just satisfaction), nos. 35720/04 and 42832/06, 7 December 2010) in which the Court awarded compensation in respect of a plot measuring 1,456 sq. m, relates to the authorities’ failure to pay the applicants compensation in respect of the remaining 181 sq. m. The authorities further recognised the applicants’ right to first refusal of some buildings constructed thereupon. The ATP has not carried out the financial evaluation of the land occupied by the buildings as the applicants have not waived their right to first refusal. Sokol PUTO   26 21532/12   Lodged on 12/03/2012 Oliver VRIONI 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 230 of 31 March 2006 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 837 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law. The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision. Sokol PUTO 27 21599/12   Lodged on 12/03/2012       Oliver VRIONI Valeria VRIONI Gherardo LA FRANCESCA Dario LA FRANCESKA Nevin GODO VRIONI Age VRIONI Alan VRIONI 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 448 of 10 May 1996 the Berat Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 12,915 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law. The ATP has not carried out the financial evaluation of the decision owing to the lack of documents in the case file. Sokol PUTO   28 21675/12   Lodged on 18/12/2012 Orhan POJANI 25/03/2015   Articles 6 § 1 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 960 of 1 April 1996 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 1,100 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law. In 2006 the applicant received financial compensation in respect of 200 sq. m. The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision. Spiro DODBIBA   By decision no. 323 of 30 June 2006 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 409.04   sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.   29 30941/12   Lodged on 28/12/2012 Lavdije KALASA (POJANI)   25/03/2015   Articles 6 § 1 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 265 of 5 May 1994 the Korça Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 1,587   sq. m which would be compensated by way of State bonds. In 2009 the applicant received financial compensation in respect of 200 sq. m. The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.   Spiro DODBIBA   30 30942/12   Lodged on 26/04/2012 Mit’Hat GEGA Jari DEMISHAGA Ibrahim DEMISHAGA Qazim DEMISHAGA Pellumb DEMISHAGA Ermila DEMISHAGA Bedri ELEZAJ [23] Fatbardha DERVISHI Pranvera REXHO Vjosa LUTO Edmond GEGA 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 992 of 2 June 2009 the Korça Agency recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 333.3 hectares which would be compensated in accordance with the law.     It transpires from the parties’ observations that the decision was subsequently quashed. The proceedings would appear to be pending before the Supreme Court. Mit’Hat GEGA   31 33619/12   Lodged on 15/05/2012 Andon MELO Reno MELO 20/12/2013   Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 By decision no. 357 of 19 September 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 800 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law. In 2