CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 avril 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 19 April 2016   FIRST SECTION Application no. 10613/16 Xhuvi SHARXHI and others against Albania lodged on 19 February 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the demolition of the applicants’ flats, including their personal belongings, despite an administrative court’s injunction order dated 7 November 2013 ( marrja e masës provizore të sigurimit të kërkesë-padisë ) ordering the authorities to refrain from any actions preventing the applicants from the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. In a subsequent decision of 28   January 2014 the administrative court found that the authorities’ actions were unlawful. The applicants further allege a breach of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention on account of the authorities using a yellow crime scene tape preventing the applicants’ access to their flats. The proceedings challenging the amount of compensation awarded by the Government are pending before the Supreme Court, which, on 15   January 2015, decided to stay the enforcement of the lower court’s decision awarding the applicants compensation in the sum of 1,580,712,322 Albanian leks (approximately 11,639,800 euros). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of the applicants’ rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the authorities’ disregard of the administrative court’s injunction order dated 7 November 2013 (see, for example, Okyay and Others v. Turkey , no. 36220/97, ECHR 2005 ‑ VII)? 2.     Was the applicants’ presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case on account of the authorities’ using a yellow crime scene tape to prevent the applicants’ access to their flats? 3.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Demades v. Turkey , no. 16219/90, 31 July 2003)? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2? 4.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1? Have the applicants been deprived of their possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V? 5.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention as well as under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? 6.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?