CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 avril 2018

.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 16 April 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 8706/18 Fiqiri OSMANI against Albania lodged on 12 February 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE This application concerns the applicant’s complaint that his house and its surrounding wall were demolished by local authorities in order to broaden a secondary road connection with the highway Tiranë-Durrës. The applicant complains that the demolition of his house and the surrounding wall was a disproportionate interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicant further complains that the demolition of the house violated his right to respect for his home within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. Lastly, the applicant complains that his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention has been infringed on account of the Constitutional Court’s failure to examine the applicant’s claims in compliance with fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been deprived of his 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 constitute an excessive burden on the applicant (see mutatis mutandis , Barcza and Others v. Hungary , no. 50811/10, 11 October 2016; Petar Matas v. Croatia , no. 40581/12, 4 October 2016)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Demades v. Turkey , no. 16219/90, 31 July 2003)? In particular, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a breach of the applicants’ right to a fair trial provided by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Constitutional Court’s failure to examine the applicant’s complaints concerning the alleged violations of his fundamental rights by the local authorities and the lower courts? In particular has the Constitutional Court competence to examine individual complaints concerning the violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution following the constitutional changes of 22   July 2016?