CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 septembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 23 September 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 55784/21 Avni KOBOÇI against Albania lodged on 4 November 2021 communicated on 4 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the demolition of the applicant’s property, despite it being registered at the Land Registry and the fact that the Tirana Construction Police accepted the applicant’s appeal to the effect that his property would not be demolished, but only the three floors of the same building, owned by other persons. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the Supreme Court failed to provide any reasons as to why his claim for compensation was dismissed whereas the other owner of the same building was granted compensation for demolishing his part of the same building. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the Supreme Court give sufficient reasons for its decision, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see   Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no.   12686/03, § 37, 20 March 2009; Ştefănică and Others v.   Romania , no.   38155/02, §§ 37-38, 2 November 2010; Atanasovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   36815/03, § 36, 14 January 2010; and Mullai and Others v. Albania , no. 9074/07, § 86, 23 March 2010)? In particular, did it adequately reply to the applicant’s complaint that his case had had a different outcome from that of the other owner of the same building, who was compensated for demolishing his part of the property?       2.Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to property contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 because of the lack of compensation for the demolition of his property (see Sharxhi and Others v. Albania , no.   10613/16, §§ 165-67, 11 January 2018)?