GJERGO AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

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 ConventionAs 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 BakırcıEgidijus Kūris
Deputy RegistrarPresident

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 2006 the applicants received financial compensation in respect of 200 sq. m.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.

Sokol PUTO

32

45721/12

Lodged on 13/06/2012

Grigor REXHO

20/12/2013

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 927 of 3 May 1996 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 5,271 sq. m, of which 3,509 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. The Commission directed the applicant to institute court proceedings in respect of 1,514 sq. m which had been unjustly restored to a third party.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.

Kosta GAZELI

33

47797/12

Lodged on 29/07/2012

Kostaq SAHATÇI[24]

Alberto LACA

Laura LACA

Antigoni HOXHA

Dhoksi SAHATCI

Klajdi SAHATCI

Aurora SAHATCI

20/12/2013

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 645 of 17 January 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 1,100 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law. In 2007 the applicants received financial compensation in respect of 200 sq. m.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.

Doris ANDONI

34

47807/12

Lodged on 27/07/2012

Emilia SAHATÇI, née KONDI

Luiza DHAMO, née KONDI

20/12/2013

Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 14 as well as Article 1 of Protocol

By decision no. 54 of 29 May 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 1,100 sq. m, of which 235 sq. m. were restored and the remaining 865 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. It also recognised the applicants’ right to first refusal of a building located on the area to be compensated.

The ATP has not carried out the financial evaluation of the land occupied by the building as the applicants have not waived their right to first refusal.

Doris ANDONI

35

47825/12

Lodged on 26/07/2012

Liri néeMYRTEZA

Rexhep MYRTEZA

Enver DIBRA

Ylli DIBRA

Adrian VOILLA

Edlena AHMETAJ née VOILLA

Xhoana MYSLIM (DIBRA)

Enton DIBRA

Fatime DIBRA

Kozma VOILLA [25]

20/12/2013

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 1 of 29 October 2001 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 61,000 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.

Artan HAJDARI

36

48173/12

Lodged on 12/07/2012

Klaudio LIGORI[26]

20/12/2013

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 601 of 1 December 1998 the Gjirokastra Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 3,836 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law, provided that the applicant did not exercise the right to first refusal of the object constructed thereupon (e cila ju kompensohet...ne rast mosprivatizimi, gje e cila mbeshtetet..per te drejten e parablerjes).

The ATP has not carried out the financial evaluation as the applicant has not waived his right to first refusal.

37

48401/12

Lodged on 26/07/2012

Hyrije DERHEMI née DUKA

Arsed BODINAKU

Liljana LIKU née MEZINI

Nazmi DERHEMI

Ardjan DERHEMI

Lirie DERHEMI

Besnike NDONI

Semiha LLUQI née DERHEMI

Qamile LLACI[27] née DERHEMI

Bedrije LICI

Iglimona KALAJA (DERHEMI)

Ridian DERHEMI

20/12/2013

Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 14 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 90 of 17 July 1997 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 4,500 sq. m, of which 839 sq. m were restored and the remaining 3,661 sq. m would be compensated. It further recognised the right to first refusal of objects constructed on the area to be compensated.

The ATP, following the carrying out of the financial evaluation of each decision, has decided that the applicants are deemed to have been compensated.

Suela MENERI

By decision no. 241 of 13 July 2000 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 3,000 sq. m, of which 1,865 sq. m were restored and 955 sq. m would be compensated. It further recognised the right to first refusal of objects constructed on the area to be compensated.

38

50791/12

Lodged on 25/07/2012

Jorgji STAVRI

Maksim SINEMATI

Gezim SINEMATI

20/12/2013

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 1602 of 25 September 1996 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 73,000 sq. m, of which 10,000 sq. m were compensated in kind (by decision no. 72 of 29 January 1997) and 6,300 sq. m (10% of the remaining 63,000 sq. m) would be compensated by way of State bonds.

The ATP has decided not to determine the financial evaluation of the decision owing to the lack of documents in the case file.

Artan HAJDARI

39

53998/12

Lodged on 16/08/2012

Ajet SHEMBITRAKU

22/04/2016

Articles 6 § 1 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No.1

By decision no. 1920 of 22 October 2003 the Korça District Court, having amended the Commission decisions no. 49 of 10 December 1993 (“the first decision”) and no. 163 of 22 April 1994 (“the second decision”), recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 2,126 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law. It further recognised the right to first refusal of objects constructed thereupon.

The Government submitted that the ATP had carried out the financial evaluation of the first decision. However, the area in respect of which the right to first refusal had been recognised was not subjected to a financial evaluation, the applicant not having waived that right. As to the second decision, the ATP has decided that the applicants are deemed to have been compensated.

Anesti SHEMBITRAKU

40

54729/12

Lodged on 08/05/2012

Petraq NISHE

Irini SHKURTI née NISHE

Ilia ÇILI

Margarita TOLA née ÇILI

Sotir ÇILI

22/09/2014

Articles 6 § 1 as well as Article 1 of Protocol

No. 1

By decision no. 2772 of 19 November 1997 the Tirana Court of Appeal, having amended the Devoll District Court decision no. 851 of 18 September 1996, recognised the applicants’ inherited rights to 510 sq. m, of which 50 sq. m were restored and the remaining 460 sq. m would be compensated in kind and by way of State bonds.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.

Spiro DODBIBA

41

65797/12

Lodged on 21/09/2012

Sherjar VAQARI

Gazmend BAKIU

Ida PENI[28]

31/01/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 83 of 5 June 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited rights to 70,000 sq. m of which 10,000 sq. m were restored and the remaining 60,000 sq. m would be compensated by way of State bonds.

The ATP has decided not to determine the financial evaluation of the decision owing to the lack of documents in the case file

Sokol PUTO

By decision no. 1014 of 24 March 2003 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited rights to 193,000 sq. m which would be compensated by way of State bonds in the amount of ALL 3,067,200 (EUR 24,432).

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.

42

74866/12

Lodged on 31/10/2012

Fatmir MAJUNI

12/03/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By a decision of 29 August 1995 the Durrës District Court, amending the Commission decision no. 683 of 17 November 1994, recognised the applicant’s inherited property right to 500 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.

Redi PETUSHI

43

74867/12

Lodged on 01/10/2012

Dhimitraq EQIMIJATRU

Kleri CIKA[29]

Gabriel EQIMIJATRU

Petri EQIMIJATRU

31/01/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 148 decision of 27 July 2006 (“the second decision”) the Korça Commission recognised the applicants’ property rights to 7,292 sq. m, of which 6,750 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. The applicants had been restored 11,728 sq. m by the Korça Court of Appeal decision no. 141 of 21 May 1999 which had amended the Commission decision no. 1292 of 22 December 1995 (“the first decision”).

The Government, considering that the area to be compensated by way of the second decision was part of the property recognised by way of the first decision, submitted that the ATP has carried out the financial evaluation.

Petrika DEMIRI

44

4692/13

Lodged on 17/09/2012

Zamira MARKU, née DAJA

25/03/2015

Articles 6 § 1 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No.1

By decision no. 113 of 12 June 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 441 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision, in respect of which the applicant’s application for enforcement is pending.

Xhevdet SHETA

45

64182/13

Lodged on 03/10/2013

Dashamir LUGA[30]

Sanije HYSKAJ

Hysen TEPELENA

Gezim LUGA

Hajrie NALLBANI

Hysen LUGA

Jusuf FANI

Prandvera KALACI[31] née LUGA

 Dilaver TEPELENA

31/01/2015

Articles 6 § 1 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No.1

By decision no. 1083 of 31 October 1995 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 43,000 sq. m, of which 10,000 were restored and the remaining 33,000 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has decided not to determine the financial evaluation of the decision owing to the lack of documents in the case file.

Ledio MILKANI

46

26412/14

Lodged on 06/08/2014

Ymer GEGA

25/04/2016

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 128/1 of 25 July 1996 the Gjirokastra Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 39,000 sq. m, of which 20,000 sq. m were restored and 510 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. Also, it recognised the applicant’s right to first refusal of buildings occupying 5,590 sq. m, of which 3,025 sq. m were transferred to the ownership of the electricity distribution company subsequent to the privatisation of the national electricity company.

The ATP decided not to determine the financial evaluation of the decision owing to the lack of documents in the case file.

Avni SHEHU

47

30096/14

Lodged on 09/06/2014

Kujtim SPAHIU

Lumnan SPAHIU

Sanije BILALAJ née SPAHIU

Manushaqe MENA née SPAHIU

Bukurije GJOKA née SPAHIU

Sose KASTRATI née SPAHIU

Nuhi SPAHIU

Rahit SPAHIU

Fllanza CENGU née SPAHIU

31/01/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 38 of 20 February 1998 the Kukës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 92,649 sq. m, of which 76,000 sq. m would be compensated by way of State bonds in the amount of ALL 2,239,542.3 (EUR 17,845).

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.

Ardian SPAHIU

48

39836/14

Lodged on 08/08/2014

Ylvije PINARI

31/01/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 211 of 7 July 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 1,658 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision, in respect of which the applicant’s application for enforcement is pending owing to the lack of documents in the case file.

Xhevdet SHETA

49

44461/14

Lodged on 26/07/2014

Liri KABA

31/01/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 66 of 28 December 1994 the Vlora Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 7,200 sq. m, of which 5,000 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has not carried out the financial evaluation of the decision within the three-year time-limit laid down by the 2015 Property Act.

Agim TORO

50

48714/14

Lodged on 24/06/2014

Abdulla KASMI

31/01/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 1 of 20 April 2007 the Durrës Agency recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 160,000 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.

Adi BROVINA

51

55175/14

Lodged on 18/07/2014

Ali ARBANA[32]

31/01/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 81 of 24 June 2002 the Tirana Commission, supplementing the Commission decisions no. 367 of 25 April 1994 and no. 526 of 22 April 1996, recognised the applicant’s inherited property right to 8,207 sq. m, of which 7,999 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. In 2013 the applicant received financial compensation in respect of 500 sq. m.

The ATP has not carried out the financial evaluation of the decision owing to the lack of documents in the case file.

Xhevdet SHETA

52

57161/14

Lodged on 31/10/2014

Ferit LLAGAMI

Nusret LLAGAMI

Razije MANEHASA

Nezahet HOXHA

Bukurije GJONAJ

Emine THEMELI

Liliana LLAGAMI

Altin LLAGAMI

Letfije LLAGAMI

Indrin LLAGAMI

Andri LLAGAMI

31/01//2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 120 of 27 August 2002 the Tirana Commission, amending its decisions no. 586 of 29 July 1994 and no. 317 of 16 September 2000, recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 48,753 sq. m, of which 29,768.5 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.

Xhevdet SHETA

53

57229/14

Lodged on 24/07/2014

Egon GJADRI[33]

Lejla MUÇA

28/01/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 18 of 27 December 2005 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 80,000 sq. m, of which 3,786 were restored and the remaining 76,214 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of each decision.

Viktor GUMI

By decision no. 19 of 27 December 2005 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 75,000 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.

By decision no. 20 of 27 December 2005 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 60,000 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.

54

58130/14

Lodged on 18/08/2014

Ismet VORPSI

Seit VORPSI

Myzejen EREBARA

28/01/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 1701 of 23 November 1996 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 17,000 sq. m, of which 632.5 had been restored by way of Commission decision no. 1501 of 11 July 1996, and 10,067.5 sq. m would be compensated in kind or by way of State bonds.

The ATP has not carried out the financial evaluation of the decision owing to the lack of documents in the case file.

Viktor GUMI

55

63020/14

Lodged on 24/07/2014

Egon GJADRI[34]

28/01/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 21 of 17 January 2006 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 203,924 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.

Viktor GUMI

56

66622/14

Lodged on 04/12/2014

Ismete SHEHI

Ermira SHEHI

Endrit SHEHI

Eliana SHEHI

Arkan SHEHI

28/01/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

This application was lodged subsequent to the communication of application no. 37381/10, the details of which have been given in row 3 above, by additional heirs.

Please see the details given in respect of application no. 37381/10.

Spiro DODBIBA

57

68195/14

Lodged on 10/10/2014

Engjellushe ÇEÇA née LULI

Haxhire LULI

Selim LULI

Petrit LULI

Vjollca SAUKU née LULI

Flora TOCI née LULI

Arben LULI

28/01/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 2406 of 8 November 2013 the Tirana Court of Appeal, while upholding the Commission decision no. 916 of 26 April 1996, recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 8,087 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of each decision, against which an appeal lodged by one of the applicants is pending before the Administrative Court of Appeal.

Xhevdet SHETA

By decision no. 918 of 26 April 1996 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 6,512.5 sq. m which 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.

By decision no. 90 of 15 December 1999 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 4,061 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.

58

72752/14

Lodged on 17/11/2014

Shazivar KARAOSMANI

Anita ALICKA

Shegushe KOSOVA

28/01/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 47 of 21 January 2008 the Fier Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 617,400 sq. m, of which 360,150 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.

Sokol PUTO

59

72770/14

Lodged 17/11/2014

Bulent TELA

Anita ALICKA

Shegushe KOSOVA

Edmond TELA

Agron TELA

Nesfije SELENICA

Lavdije KALASA

Teuta FORA

Nebi SEFA

Hajali YPI

Xhaneta PRODANI

Suhela LIBOHOVA

Gjerak KARAISKAJ

Felatun KARAISKAJ

Shazivar KALRAOSMANI

25/03/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 2997 of 30 June 2004 the Tirana District Court, amending the Commission decision no. 359 of 19 September 1995, recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to a plot of land measuring 1,110 sq. m. In 2009 the applicants received financial compensation in respect of 200 sq. m.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision. However, it found that some parts of the applicants’ land overlapped with those recognised in favour of a third party. Thus, the ATP has proceeded in accordance with section 18 of the 2015 Property Act in respect of the overlapping land.

Sokol PUTO

By decision no. 207 of 1 June 2009 the Elbasan Agency recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 154,488 sq. m, of which 19,479 sq. m were restored and the remaining 135,009 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.

60

72779/14

Lodged on 17/11/2014

Ali KOSOVA

Astrit PERMETI

Arjan PERMETI

Aida PODGORICA

Sokol KOSOVA

Shqipe KOSOVA

Ermira HYDI

28/01/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 347 of 10 March 1994 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 5,000 sq. m, of which 1,000 sq. m were restored and the remaining 4,000 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.

Sokol PUTO

By decision no. 1652/1 of 29 October 1996 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 3,458 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.

By decision no. 1652/3 of 29 October 1996 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 2,476 sq. m, of which 223 sq. m were restored and the remaining 2,253 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law.

By decision no. 170 of 23 June 2009 the Durrës Agency, having supplemented the Commission decision no. 1696/1 of 23 November 1996, recognised the applicants’ inherited property title to a plot measuring 5,000 sq. m, of which 3,177.2 sq. m were restored and the remaining 1,822.8 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law.

By decision no. 596 of 7 December 2000 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 1,600 sq. m, of which 72 sq. m were restored and the remaining 1,528 would be compensated in accordance with the law.

By decision no. 734 of 5 June 2003 the Durrës Property Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 352 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.

61

74962/14

Lodged on 18/11/2014

Sara MYSHKETA

Agron MYSHKETA

Suzana MYSHKETA

Hasan MYSHKETA

Kujtim MYSHKETA

Aishe SHEHU

Teuta GJEZI (MYSHKETA)

Lejla KODRA (MYSHKETA)

Verusha KURANI (MYSHKETA)

Emine PETRELA (MYSHKETA)

28/01/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 849 of 27 April 1995 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ right to compensation in respect of 4,999.5 sq. m.

The parties have not submitted any information concerning the carrying out of the financial evaluation of either decision.

Sokol PUTO

By decision no. 1539 of 6 August 1996, the Durrës Commission recognized the applicants’ right to compensation in respect of 1,684.5 sq. m.

62

74968/14

Lodged on 18/11/2014

Sara MYSHKETA

Agron MYSHKETA

Suzana MYSHKETA

Hasan MYSHKETA

Kujtim MYSHKETA

28/01/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 70 of 14 April 2006 the Durrës Commission, having supplemented its decision no. 933 of 4 July 1995, recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 2,825 sq. m, of which 142 sq. m were restored and 2,593 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. It also recognised their right to first refusal of a building occupying 90 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. The applicants have appealed against the ATP decision and the proceedings would appear to be pending before the Supreme Court.

Sokol PUTO

By decision no. 441 of 9 March 1999 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 4,250.78 sq. m, of which 661 sq. m were restored and the remaining 3,589.78 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.

63

510/15

Lodged on 16/12/2014

Ilirian CANI

Enrieta VOZGA née CANI

Nadire BACELLI née CANI

Emin SHIJAKU

Myzejen MURTHI[35] née CANI

Haxhi CANI

Arben CANI

Albana THODHORI née CANI

Merita TOSKA

12/03/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no.1218 of 27 November 1996 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 130,000 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.

Xhevdet SHETA

64

551/15

Lodged on 06/01/2015

Petro AXHA

Jolanda AXHA

Vlash HEBA

Aurel HEBA

28/01/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 471 of 12 April 1996 the Kavaja Property Commission recognised the applicants’ right to compensation in respect of 1,148 sq. m.

The ATP has not carried out the financial evaluation of the decision within the three-year time-limit laid down by the 2015 Property Act.

Sokol PUTO

65

3082/15

Lodged on 30/01/2013

Dhimitraq EQIMIJATRU

Kleri CIKA[36]

Gabriel EQIMI JATRU

Petri EQIMI JATRU

12/03/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 691/1 of 9 October 2002 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property right to 58,000 sq. m, of which 15,800 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has decided not to determine the financial evaluation of the decision owing to the lack of documents in the case file.

Petrika DEMIRI

66

6543/15

Lodged on 28/01/2015

Aferdita KOXHAJ

Genc KOXHAJ

Andrea KOXHAJ

12/03/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 1410 of 28 May 1996 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 379 sq. m which would be compensated in kind.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.

Dorant EKMEKÇIU

By decision no. 1712 of 28 November 1996 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 51 sq. m which would be compensated in kind.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision. However, it found that some parts of the applicants’ land overlapped with those recognised in favour of a third party. Thus, the ATP has proceeded in accordance with section 18 of the 2015 Property Act in respect of the overlapping land.

67

6613/15

Lodged on 28/01/2015

Aferdita KOXHAJ

12/03/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 861 of 18 November 1994 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 762.56 sq. m, of which 448.3 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. It also recognised her right to first refusal of some buildings.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of each decision.

Dorant EKMEKÇIU

By decision no. 283 of 10 October 1995, the Tirana Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 1,239 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.

By decision no. 449 of 19 February 1996, the Tirana Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 396.5 sq. m, of which 18 sq. m were restored and the remaining 378.5 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law.

By decision no. 188 of 31 July 1996, the Kavaja Commission recognised, amongst others, the applicant’s inherited property rights to 5,000 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.

68

10728/15

Lodge on 23/02/2015

Elton LELO

Gigi (Haxhire) LELO

Helda ROCK (LELO)

12/03/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 49 of 10 August 2007 the Vlora Agency recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 14,400 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision, and it found that some parts of the applicants’ land overlapped with those recognised in favour of a third party. Thus, the ATP proceeded in accordance with section 18 of the 2015 Property Act.

Sokol PUTO

69

11214/15

Lodged on

20/02/2015

Ndricim DIBRA

Vjollca MESI

Amir DIBRA

25/03/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 807 of 13 February 1995 the Shkodra Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 10,210 sq. m, of which 5,805 sq. m were restored and the remaining 4,405 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.

Avni SHEHU

70

12394/15

Lodged on 06/03/2015

Asllan PICARI

Xhumaje HAJDARI née PICARI

Xhemal PICARI

Fatime ALIU née PICARI

25/03/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 153 of 28 May 2009 the Tirana Agency, supplementing the Commission decision no. 35 of 30 March 1994, recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 41,000 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.

Besim PEKA

71

21648/15

Lodged on 28/04/2015

Shpresa KERCANI

Nuri KERCANI

Luljeta KERCANI

25/04/2016

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 1255 of 20 March 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 631.5 sq. m, of which 234 sq. m were restored and the remaining 397.5 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.

Sokol PUTO

By decision no. 493 of 20 November 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 59,500 sq. m, of which 30,000 sq. m were restored and the remaining 29,500 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP, following the carrying out of the financial evaluation of both decisions, has decided that the applicants are deemed to have been compensated.

By decision no. 494 of 20 November 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 64,500 sq. m, of which 10,000 sq. m were restored and 29,500 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. It further recognised their right to first refusal of objects occupying 25,000 sq. m.

72

21704/15

Lodged on 27/04/2015

Hamid MENERI

Tahir MENERI[37]

Pranvera RECI

Aferdita SARACI

Luljana LLAGAMI[38]

Reshat MENERI

Luan MENERI

Suzana TAFAJ

Dhurata RECI

Ilir MENERI

Betina XHEPA

25/04/2016

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

According to the applicants, by decision no. 158 of 23 June 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised their inherited property rights to 713.5 sq. m, of which 266.1 sq. m were restored and the remaining 447.4 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. It further recognised their right to first refusal of some buildings located on the area to be compensated.

The decision has been subject to the financial evaluation, save for the area in respect of which the right to first refusal had been recognised as the applicants have not waived it in accordance with the Property Act.

Suela MENERI

By decision no. 761 of 28 February 1996 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited title to 59 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. 643 of 30 July 1996 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited title to 400 sq. m, of which 60 sq. m were restored and the remaining 340 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law. It further recognised their right to first refusal of some buildings located on the area to be compensated.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.

73

8789/15

Lodged on 10/02/2015

Mas-Har KAPIDANI

Isuf KAPIDANI

Meleqe DAJA née KAPIDANI

12/03/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By three separate decisions nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 20 April 2007 the Durrës Agency recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 239,000 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision.

Xhevdet SHETA

74

70211/13

Lodged on 01/11/2013

Xhemil GJERGJI

Minerva KOTHERJA

Ferzilet SARJA

Zedlir BYLYKBASHI

Armand BYLYKBASHI

Myzejen CAKU

Ermira GARUNJA

31/01/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 373/2 of 27 July 1994 the Elbasan Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 2,490 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision. An appeal against the ATP decision, lodged by one of the applicants, would appear to be pending before the Administrative Court of Appeal.

Endri KOTHERJA

75

71730/14

Lodged on 05/11/2014

Hysni KOTHERJA

Artan KURTI

Silvana DRACINI

Mirela DRACINI

Minerva KOTHERJA

Hyqmet KOTHERJA[39]

Burbuqe KOTHERJA

28/01/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 523/2 of 23 September 1996 the Elbasan Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to 330 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision. An appeal against the ATP decision, lodged by one of the applicants, would appear to be pending before the Supreme Court.

Endri KOTHERJA

76

9152/15

Lodged on 12/02/2015

Halil KADRIA

12/03/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 15 of 24 December 1996 the Kukës Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 7,211 sq. m which would be compensated in accordance with the law.

The ATP has carried out the financial evaluation of the decision, and the applicant’ appeal against the ATP decision would appear to be pending before the Administrative Court of Appeal.

Xhevdet SHETA

77

67286/14

Lodged on 07/10/2014

Ikbal HYKA

Fatbardha ZHEGU (HYKA)

Lindita TOLA (HYKA)

Amir HYKA

Genti HYKA

28/01/2015

Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

By decision no. 259 of 23 November 1995, the Tirana Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights to 2,009 sq. m, of which 1,439 sq. m were restored and the remaining 570 sq. m would be compensated in accordance with the law.

As a result of the financial evaluation of the decision, the Government have submitted that the applicants have received financial and in-kind compensation, as a result of which the decision has been enforced in full. The applicants have not submitted any updated information in reply.

Sokol PUTO

[1] As substituted by his heirs: Bedar LLAGAMI and Etleva LLAGAMI

[2] As substituted by his heirs: Fatbardha LLAGAMI, Diana DHAMO and Aferdita SHEHU

[3] As substituted by her heirs: Qamil PANARITI, Suzana HAVERI

[4]As substituted by her heir: Sokol FORTUZI

[5] The Agency for Restitution and Compensation of Properties (the “Agency”) had replaced the Commission in 2006.

[6] As substituted by his heirs:   Ermira ALLABASHI ARAPI, Roza ALLABASHI, Ledia HOBDARI and Bersant HOBDARI

[7]As substituted by her heir : Lejla (AGO) BELLI

[8] As substituted by her heirs: Femi TIGANI and Demir TIGANI

[9] Nevzat Gorani has died after the application was filed to the Court but the applicants could not provide an inheritance certificate in time for the JS claims, but reserve the right to provide the certificate and send it immediately to the Court.

[10] As substituted by her heirs: Valbona BAQAJ, Vjollca REXHEPI and Flutura SOKOLI.

[11]  As substituted by her heirs: Shpetim LLAGAMI, Eshref  LLAGAMI, Blend LLAGAMI, Ismail LLAGAMI, Apostolia LLAGAMI, Marcio   LLAGAMI and Ana LLAGAMI

[12]  As substituted by his heirs:  Adem MACI and Ondina KARABECI

[13]  As substituted by her heirs: Hajten META, Fatmir GOLIA, Edmond GOLIA and Alben GOLIA

[14]  As substituted by his heirs Viktor TOSKU, Bardhe TOSKU, Kol TOSKU and Rexhina TOSKU On 28 August 2014 Mr Zef Tosku, Mr Edmir Merlika, Ms Eva Tosku, Mr Vili Tosku, Ms Angela Saal, Ms Kristina Tosku and Ms Gjele Tosku expressed their wish to join the application on account of them being heirs to the same plot of land.

[15] As substituted by his heirs:   Halit JELLA, Gazmend JELLA, Adela JELLA and Hans JELLA

[16] Deceased  

[17]  As substituted by his heirs:   Halit JELLA, Gazmend JELLA, Adela JELLA and Hans JELLA

[18]  Deceased  

[19]  As substituted by his heirs:   Halit JELLA, Gazmend JELLA, Adela JELLA and Hans JELLA

[20]  As substituted by his heirs:   Halit JELLA, Gazmend JELLA, Adela JELLA and Hans JELLA

[21]  Deceased  

[22]  As substituted by his heirs: Nikolla CIKA, Leornard CIKA and Robert CIKA  

[23] As substituted by his heirs: Flutura ELEZAJ, Dorian ELEZAJ and  Ina ELEZAJ.

[24] As substituted by his heirs: Etleva SAHATCI, Emilia SAHATCI and Doris ANDONI, née SAHATCI

[25] As substituted by his heirs: Adrian VOILLA and Edlena  AHMETAJ (VOILLA).

[26] On 15 August 2014 the applicant requested that his brother join the proceedings pending before the Court

[27]  As substituted by her heirs:   Ilir LLACI, Kosta LLACI, Nexhmi LLACI and Ruzhdi LLACI

[28] As substituted by her heirs : Fation PENI and Musa PENI

[29]  As substituted by his heirs:   Nikolla CIKA, Leornard CIKA and Robert CIKA  

[30]  As substituted by his heirs:   Mehriban LUGA, Edlira LUGA and Gentian LUGA

[31]  As substituted by her hers:   Mirvana KADIU, Arben KALACI, Lauresha KAPIDANI and Arnela LILA

[32]  As substituted by his heirs:   Lirije ARBANA, Evis BAJO and Valbona DAJZMAILI

[33]  As substituted by his heirs:   Ikbale GJADRI and Ervin GJADRI

[34]  As substituted by his heirs:   Ikbale GJADRI and Ervin GJADRI

[35]  As substituted by her heirs: Ismail MURTHI and Fatlinda STRUGA 

[36]  As substituted by his heirs:   Nikolla CIKA, Leornard CIKA and Robert CIKA  

[37]  As substituted by his heirs:   Anila AGARAJ MENERI and Eneida JANKU MENERI

[38]  As substituted by his heirs:   Bledar LLAGAMI and Etleva BELIU

[39]  As substituted by his heirs:   Elida KOTHERJA, Dored KOTHERJA and Elvis KOTHERJA

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy