TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The respondent government are represented by their agent, Mrs. Alma Hicka,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): assisted by Mr. Agim Hysi, Mr. Roden Hoxha,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): and Mrs. Evi Sadushaj, advisors.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The applicants are represented by Mr. Andrea Saccucci
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): of Studio Legale Sacucci Fares and Partners.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Some other applicants are also represented by Mrs. Giulia  Borgna of Studio Legale Sacucci Fares
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): and Partners and Mrs. Erinda Ballanca, who
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): is also one of the applicants.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Two other applicants are also present.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): The delegation of Latvian judges, the delegation of Norwegian judges, the delegation of Polish judges, and the delegation of Russian judges.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Having consulted the agent of the government and the representatives of the parties of the applicants, I have determined the order of address as follows.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Mrs. Hicka for the government will speak first,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): and then Mr. Saccucci and Mrs. Borgna for the applicants.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): I would explain that in addition to interpreting in the two official languages of the court, English and French, interpreting into Polish and into Russian has been authorized for the benefit of the group of judges from Russia and Poland, respectively.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): That interpreting is not arranged by the court, and no transcription of the oral translation will be included in the official record of the proceedings.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): I call Mrs. Hicka.
GR1 (Government): Thank you, Mr. President, honorable members of the court.
GR1 (Government): Before addressing the court detailed interest in the question asked, as a representative of the government in this procedure, I would like to summarize with two sentences the special situation of the applicant's treatment and the overall situation in which the authorities have operated in this area.
GR1 (Government): The government, for the facts, wished to point out that the matter under consideration belongs to a situation where initially the applicant property was considered as a construction without the regular permission issued by the authorities until the issuance of the decision of the administrative court dated 7 November 2013.
GR1 (Government): And subsequently, it was expropriated under the domestic legal framework, being presumed to be a legitimate construction.
GR1 (Government): At the site of the applicant property, a project of infrastructure of public interest will be built and with an environment impact too.
GR1 (Government): And this constitutes a cause for expropriation pursuant to the domestic law.
GR1 (Government): While regarding the general situation, it should be noted that finding itself in a massive illegal construction situation with over 400,000 illegal buildings for 2.8 million
GR1 (Government): of inhabitants, the government, constituted out of the June election of 2013, started to take a quick step to normalize it.
GR1 (Government): And through the acceleration of the legalization process, where construction fulfilled the conditions laid down by law, or demolishing illegal construction.
GR1 (Government): In three years, have been legalized around 100,000 buildings, mostly homes.
GR1 (Government): But on the other hand, illegal constructions which have blocked the competition of major infrastructure work have been demolished.
GR1 (Government): This was certainly a novelty in 25 years old situation, where illegal construction were tolerating this being the rule, not the exception.
GR1 (Government): In general terms, the relevant legislation provide that where a public interest project is to be constructed, and there are illegal construction, or construction overcoming the building condition, and therefore illegal, these are demolished to open the way for the implementation of the project based on public interest.
GR1 (Government): While legitimate ones, or ones to be presumed as legitimate, are expropriated.
GR1 (Government): The apical situation was not simple in appearance.
GR1 (Government): They were found to have a property registered in the immovable registration property office on the basis of a permit issued by the municipality of Lora, on a territory in which the competence was of the National Territorial Council.
GR1 (Government): The building stood in a substantial part of itself on the water, which is evident also from the property registration document as well.
GR1 (Government): Under this condition, the National Urbanistic Construction Inspectorate began to operate on a property which, in their assessment, according to the competence given by law, was an illegal construction.
GR1 (Government): The applicant appealed to the Lora Administrative Court of First Instance, which issued the interim decision of 7 November 2013.
GR1 (Government): The government retains that the interim decision, dated 7 November 2013, was fully implemented.
GR1 (Government): To be clear on this issue, we should not read only the enacting clause of the decision, but should look at the decision as a whole, interpreting it in good faith.
GR1 (Government): A court decision, the court decision is addressed to certain authorities and laid down the obligation which were implemented in good faith by the authorities.
GR1 (Government): The decision of the First Instance Administrative Court of Lora reads, acceptance of the request and taking provisional measures of assurance of the claim by suspending the performance of the administrative actions by any subject of the state administration that impede the applicant from the peaceful enjoyment of their property in the object situated in the place called Uiftod Vlar.
GR1 (Government): The government retains that the decision of 7 November 2013 was fully implemented.
GR1 (Government): This decision was addressed to both inspectorate and was fully implemented by them, a fact which was confirmed by the institution themselves in the written form and filed to the court.
GR1 (Government): Neither the applicant opposed the implementation of the decision by all this institution, but they considered that the decision of the Council of Ministers for the expropriation as the one not implementing the court decision.
GR1 (Government): As it can be clearly seen, it is this interested institution which were determined by the applicant themselves and have been summoned to trial with a clear proposal that the decision was implemented by this institution, not the Council of Minister.
GR1 (Government): The decision was mainly related to the inspectorate's action of 3 November 2013, which were subsequently found illegal by the domestic courts.
GR1 (Government): It was the applicant who addressed the domestic court on this matter, but did not continue the trial and waive the rights ordered on the decision of 7 November 2013, while at the same time continuing the trial for the declaration of the inspectorate actions of 3 November 2013 as illegal and were awarded a decision in their favor.
GR1 (Government): Any irregularities of the administrative bodies related to the action of 3 November 2013 have been addressed by the domestic courts, so basically in the domestic level.
GR1 (Government): The very object of the lawsuit filed by the applicant as a result of the interim measure clearly refers as the respondent party, the inspectorates.
GR1 (Government): Concretely, in their object of the lawsuit, the applicant has sought the obligation of the administrative body, NUCI, and NUCI Vlor to stop the performance of the other administrative actions necessary to protect the rights of the plaintiff.
GR1 (Government): This procedure has been completed and found as a definitive solution with the decision of the domestic court, that of the Vlora Administrative Court of First Instance, which was the decision number 59 dated 28 January 2014, which among others held the finding as unlawful of the administrative actions committed by a respondent, meaning the inspectorate dated 3 November 2013.
GR1 (Government): The decision of the 28 January 2014 found the actions of the inspectorate dated 3 November 2013 illegal.
GR1 (Government): No compensation was sought by the applicant in the domestic court on this matter, neither in this procedure, not in any other parallel proceeding, despite the fact that the court decided in their favor in finding a violation.
GR1 (Government): The case was abandoned by the applicants.
GR1 (Government): Indemnification could also be provided under the law for the non-contractual liability of the state bodies, and also by the law that regulates the inspectorate's competence.
GR1 (Government): Both procedures have been proven successful at domestic level.
GR1 (Government): The court order dated 7 November 2013 has extended the effect according to its lawsuit until 27 November 2013, the date in which, according to the government interpretation, the applicant lose the right to ownership over the property because of the expropriation procedure.
GR1 (Government): Furthermore, after 28 January 2014, the effects have fallen due to the will of the applicants themselves, who abandoned the process.
GR1 (Government): The order dated 7 November 2013 requires that the applicant be allowed to enjoy their property in peace.
GR1 (Government): This order is neither binding nor prohibiting the expropriation, nor does it address the counsel of ministers.
GR1 (Government): Consequently, no parallelism can be made with the case of Okay and others versus Turkey.
GR1 (Government): In the Okay case, the authorities address specifically the court decision, and with the government decision decided not to implement it, while in the current case there is no analogy, except for the fact that we are dealing with a government decision.
GR1 (Government): The decision of the counsel of minister is the final administrative act defined in the Albanian expropriation legislation for expropriating.
GR1 (Government): This is related to the second set of procedure against the applicant.
GR1 (Government): Due to the findings of the administrative court and its order, the authorities could no longer deal with the applicant building as prima facie illegal construction until this issue was resolved by the court.
GR1 (Government): But on the other hand, there was still a public interest in the construction of infrastructure project.
GR1 (Government): Consequently, the construction was assumed as legal and procedure foreseen by law for the expropriation of legal construction for the public interest were initiated.
GR1 (Government): Every expropriation is performed according to certain procedure in the law, and this procedure determines at the end the issuance of the decision of the counsel of minister.
GR1 (Government): In the current case, this cannot be an exception from the general rule.
GR1 (Government): On the contrary, expropriation cannot be performed by any other act other than decision of the counsel of minister.
GR1 (Government): The law on expropriation for public interest recognized the applicant or any other entity the right to appeal to court for invalidation of the expropriation due to violation of the procedure.
GR1 (Government): There have been successful cases in domestic court.
GR1 (Government): Or to oppose the expropriation price, indeed, the local court have recognized the right of the subject even for de facto expropriation where the subject for different reason is not included in the decision of the counsel of minister for expropriation.
GR1 (Government): The overwhelming majority of the subject choose to oppose the expropriation price.
GR1 (Government): However, the right to claim compensation in court for de facto expropriation has been recognized regularly if it has not been remedied by the administrative authorities.
GR1 (Government): The applicants choose not to challenge the procedure, but only the price.
GR1 (Government): Consequently, the applicant have accepted the expropriation procedure as a legitimate one.
GR1 (Government): Any allegation or illegality of the proceeding is not directed at the domestic authorities.
GR1 (Government): And consequently, the domestic remedies has not been exhausted.
GR1 (Government): The applicants suggested that there are no effective domestic remedies mixing the claimed rights.
GR1 (Government): Regarding the regularity of the proceedings, the court interim decision of 7 November 2014 and the decision of 28 January 2014 are the clearest indication that the courts cannot be considered ineffective as long they have decided in the favor of the applicants.
GR1 (Government): The government has submitted evidence by the authority that such allegations were seriously dealt with, both in civil and criminal law, despite the fact that it is impossible to provide detailed data due to the manner in which the statistics are kept.
GR1 (Government): For each claim filed by the applicant, the court has expressed himself and five in their interest.
GR1 (Government): In no case, as far as this procedure is concerned, the applicant has sought any form of compensation for damages that may have been caused by the alleged unlawful activity of the administrative bodies.
GR1 (Government): Regarding similar cases in which the authorities have strictly enforced domestic court orders for the suspension of the administrative activities on the construction site until the conclusion of the review of the merit of the lawsuit fined by the party, NUCI refers to these decisions being addressed very seriously.
GR1 (Government): The administrative body has referred only to only one case in which the state employees are suspected of being found to be in violation of the security measures provided by the domestic court.
GR1 (Government): In this case, criminal proceeding has started for the criminal offense of abuse of power.
GR1 (Government): This case is still pending under consideration between the domestic courts.
GR1 (Government): The prosecutor has also referred that such allegations are investigated very seriously and diligently.
GR1 (Government): Those domestic legislation authorities treat with the utmost seriousness the situation of violation of court orders going as far as the act contrary to these orders constituting even a criminal offense.
GR1 (Government): Regarding the applicant's claims for the yellow crime scene tape, the issuing of the criminal proceeding against state officials for abuse of power, considering the regularity of the restitution process in respect of the applicant's property, and the declaration of the Deputy Minister of Transport regarding the construction, the applicant are suggesting that the surrounding of the building with the yellow tape, the commencement of the criminal proceeding related to the regularity of the process of the property restitution, and the statement of the Deputy Minister of Transport and Infrastructure on the building hence infringed their rights under Article 6, Paragraph 2, and Article 8 of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): It does not become clear from their claims if they refer to the right of reputation as part of the right to private life and the presumption of innocence under Article 6, Paragraph 2, or tie this with the right of residence and are suggesting that the court extends the right to reputation to the building itself.
GR1 (Government): The government states that the right to reputation cannot extend to the right to respect of a residence, and that the applicant had not shown any case law of the court in this regard, that there is in itself a right of reputation for the presumption of a construction as a legitimate, and that this right is protected by the Convention.
GR1 (Government): In addition, the authorities' action on the building cannot be related and extended if they infringe the applicant's private life and that the presumption of innocence under Article 6, Paragraph 2 implies in itself a presumption of legitimate property.
GR1 (Government): The practice of the court so far has considered the violation of the presumption of innocence under Article 6, 2, also a violation of the right of reputation under Article 6.
GR1 (Government): But this is primarily related to a subject, to a person, to a subject of law, and also related to a criminal case or criminal investigations.
GR1 (Government): In the present case, the government stated that there have been no inquiries, investigation, or criminal charges against the applicant.
GR1 (Government): The criminal case against the state civil servants, despite the fact that is related to the process of the restitution of the applicant property, does not provide them with the status of the victim, more so that the applicant are not the initial beneficiaries of this process.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, there is a lack of casual link.
GR1 (Government): Consequently, the government position is that the Article 6, Paragraph 2 is not applicable, and Article 8 is not applicable in this situation.
GR1 (Government): As for the question of exhausting of domestic remedies, it is the government opinion that they have not been fully exhausted because, in the government view, the action of the authorities toward the building property of the applicant should be considered related to the expropriation process.
GR1 (Government): Consequently, even the domestic remedies which are necessary to be exhausted are in the defense of their property right, but do not constitute the expropriation process.
GR1 (Government): But which also deal with the elements in defense of Article 8 of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, with regard to the applicant's complaint due to the use of yellow colored tape to prevent their entry into their residence, it should first be noted that after the judgment of 7 November, 2013, the applicant themselves admitted that they were allowed to enter in the apartment.
GR1 (Government): Further to this, the domestic court, in their decision of 21 January, 2040, declared that the expectorate section of 3 November, 2013 as unlawful.
GR1 (Government): No compensation was claimed, although it could have been claimed in this procedure or even within a period of three years from the finding of violation.
GR1 (Government): Thus, in any cases, if the reputation of the applicant has been violated, this right as part of the violation of the honor and dignity of the person can be remite through the compensation of damages in domestic level.
GR1 (Government): If the right to reputation or any other pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages are alleged to have been caused by the public authorities, such a lawsuit might be addressed to the domestic courts using the legal means for the compensation of the moral damages under the civil code, under the law on the liability of the damages of the public administration bodies, and under the law on the construction expectorate that also provides compensation.
GR1 (Government): We would like to recall at this point that those allegations addressed to the domestic courts regarding the yellow band have been recognized, but no compensation have been claimed.
GR1 (Government): The criminal case initiated by the applicant has been abandoned by them after the decision of the prosecutor not to initiate proceeding.
GR1 (Government): The applicant agreed with the decision, not challenging it under Article 329 of the criminal procedure code, although they had the right to do that.
GR1 (Government): Regarding the alleged interference with the applicant's right to respect for their home within the meaning of Article 8, and if that interference was in accordance with the law, the government is of the opinion that the issue of respect for the right of residence under Article 8.1 of the Convention
GR1 (Government): should be closely related to the examination of the case under Article 1, Protocol 1.
GR1 (Government): The government reaffirms its position that the applicant's building was expropriated by decision of the Council of Ministers dated 27 of November 2013, person to the law, with the aim of building an infrastructure project those in the public interest.
GR1 (Government): Consequently, the government does not deem it necessary for the matter to be examined by the court under Article 8.
GR1 (Government): Even if the court is to review it under this article, the applicant deprivation for their apartment was conducted on the basis of well-defined legal framework.
GR1 (Government): Consequently, the intervention has been defined in the law and has been necessary in democratic society while maintaining the balance between the right of the applicants and the broad public interest.
GR1 (Government): The government emphasized that the applicant's apartment were mainly summer homes, and the applicant did not carry too much burden related to the public interest in interfering with their rights.
GR1 (Government): The authorities do not have any information that any of the applicants have suffered any sort of housing problems.
GR1 (Government): In the domestic legislation, the right to housing is protected in the same manner as the right to property by the criminal and civil law, and the applicants have not raised any such claim under domestic law.
GR1 (Government): They have only objected to the expropriation value, despite having available a whole range of remedies.
GR1 (Government): Consequently, the applicants have not exhausted domestic remedies available to them for the claims that they are addressing today to this court.
GR1 (Government): Regarding their claims under Article 1, Protocol 1, while acknowledging that there has been an interference with the applicant's property right over the expropriation procedure, the government retains its position that there has been no interference in the applicant's right to peaceful enjoyment of property as a result of his demolition.
GR1 (Government): The demolition property, the property demolished, was no longer owned by the applicant, who, as a consequence of the administrative act, the decision of the Council of Ministers dated 27 November 2013, lost any right over that property.
GR1 (Government): The property was expropriated under the law 8561, dated 22 of December 1999, on expropriation and temporary use of the private property for public interest.
GR1 (Government): And the applicants did not contest this fact, the expropriation, but only the expropriation value.
GR1 (Government): The cause of the expropriation is provided in Article 8 of the law, letter C, it's an Albanian letter of the law.
GR1 (Government): Article 26 of the law provides for the invalidity of the expropriation in case of, but for the invalidity of the expropriation procedure in case of expropriation.
GR1 (Government): And the compensation of the damages and also the procedure for regulation of the restitution of the property right if the expropriation is found invalid by the domestic court under this article.
GR1 (Government): The applicant claim for the first time before this court that the expropriation was not legitimate or in the public interest, inter alia, because the government project was not clear.
GR1 (Government): And according to them, the government initially declared the interference in the interest of the environment and subsequently carried out a requalification of the area.
GR1 (Government): In fact, these two claims are not trustful.
GR1 (Government): There have been, as the law requires, a project for the infrastructure intervention, which included also requalification of the area and intervention in the environment, mainly due to the problems of flooding in the area.
GR1 (Government): However, beyond the delays and difficulties in the implementation of the project is now apparent and almost completed and so effective.
GR1 (Government): For the most part of the project, it has come into use today.
GR1 (Government): The government retraits that the legitimate interest in expropriating the applicant was the realization of the infrastructure project.