TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): While on 27 November 2013, the property was expropriated, was transferred, person to the law, to the Vlora municipality, which also requested the National Urbanistic Central Institute assistance in demolishing what was its property now.
GR1 (Government): The legitimate interest of the Vlora municipality for the demolishing of the building was the enforcement of the obligation under the expropriation law and the respective decision of the Council of Ministers.
GR1 (Government): The Vlora municipality could not keep in its possession a building which property was transferred to it with the sole objective of demolishing and realization of the infrastructure project.
GR1 (Government): The Vlora municipality was the subject requesting the expropriation under the law.
GR1 (Government): The government retains the explanation given in the first question regarding the enforcement of the court decision of 7 November 2013.
GR1 (Government): The applicant intentionally seek to confuse the court by claiming that the decision in question implied an obligation to restrain from demolishing of the building, while no such obligation has been determined by enacting clause of this decision.
GR1 (Government): In the domestic legislation, there are several laws and decisions of the Council of Ministers that are legal basis for the expropriation, which were seated in our submissions to the court.
GR1 (Government): And I'm not going to read them all, because I don't want to lose any time on sitting this decisions and laws.
GR1 (Government): But we reiterate that the authorities' actions have been in accordance with the expropriation law.
GR1 (Government): And however, the applicant had the opportunity under Article 26 of the law on the expropriation to declare this action invalid.
GR1 (Government): But they have opted not to exercise that right.
GR1 (Government): The applicant claimed that they were temporarily unable to act because of the expropriation decision of the Council of Ministers was issued on 27 November, but was published only on 3 December 2013.
GR1 (Government): Initially, we want to underline that the applicant's claim regarding their notification are contradictory.
GR1 (Government): They say they didn't know about expropriation decision.
GR1 (Government): Then they claim that on 29 November, Prime Minister publicly announced the infrastructure project of Lungomare.
GR1 (Government): And then they refer to the publishing of the decision of Council of Ministers on 3 December.
GR1 (Government): However, the applicant's actions alone prove that if they had filed a claim before the domestic court and their claim would have been grounded, they have at their disposal all the time needed for its review and for it to be successful.
GR1 (Government): Their first request for issuing the order of 7 November 2013 was filed in the administrative court only on 4 November, three days before, according to the applicant's own declaration.
GR1 (Government): As it is clear, the court needed only three days to review the petition and hold the decision in favor of the applicant, suspending the action of the authorities.
GR1 (Government): Those for the decision of 27 November, date of issuing of the decision by the Council of Ministers, or 29 November, the date of the public statement of Prime Minister, or in the worst case, 3 December, when the decision of the Council of Ministers was published, until 8 December, when the building was demolished, the applicant had the opportunity to address the court to issue a suspension order on basis of urgency.
GR1 (Government): The simple fact is that the applicant had never been interested in challenging the expropriation procedure, since they have been fully aware that there would be an infrastructure construction that would constitute a fully legitimate expropriation cause.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, their request to domestic court was only to the expropriation value.
GR1 (Government): The applicants were aware that even if the expropriation procedure were found to be irregular, the cause of the expropriation existed and could not disappear.
GR1 (Government): The applicants claimed that they have no chances, but their requirement for procedural irregularities would have been successful.
GR1 (Government): And we state that this is not true.
GR1 (Government): The truth is quite different.
GR1 (Government): Even if the procedure was declared irregular by the domestic court, the cause of the expropriation existed.
GR1 (Government): Nothing could limit the authorities from repeating the proceeding in a valid manner.
GR1 (Government): Those, the invalidity of the proceeding, would simply delay the expropriation in time.
GR1 (Government): But this expropriation would take place one day, while the proposal of the applicant, whether in the domestic court or in the proceeding before this court, is to obtain the value they think is right as a reward for their property.
GR1 (Government): For this reason, all these claims have never been raised to the domestic court, but are raised for the first time before this court to create a situation of alleged discrimination and irregularities in order to obtain the award as soon as possible.
GR1 (Government): The government clarified that the expropriation price determined by decision of the Council of Ministers has not been claimed or even withdrawn by the applicant.
GR1 (Government): Even the price was at their disposal before the issuing of the decision of the Council of Ministers.
GR1 (Government): The expropriation value was available to the applicant before the decision of the Council of Ministers issued and never had the applicant submitted a request for the withdrawal of the award, neither to present to the bank account number where the award would be transferred.
GR1 (Government): The procedure for the transfer of the fund are provided in the Ministry of Finance guideline number 7, dated 7 May 2007, and are intended to guarantee that the expropriation award is paid to the expropriation subject.
GR1 (Government): While the court proceedings are under examination before the Supreme Court, the Civil Procedure Code established as an enforceable decision the decision of the Court of Appeal if its enforcement is not suspended by the Supreme Court under the examination by this court.
GR1 (Government): Those until a final decision on the matter is held by the domestic authorities.
GR1 (Government): We here want to reiterate that this court had decided in Julie Casin and other case law that the Supreme Court decision of the Albanian authorities is to be considered final for the exhausting of the domestic remedies and for the purpose of addressing this court.
GR1 (Government): The decision of the Supreme Court is given in camera, meaning the decision for the suspending of the enforcement procedure.
GR1 (Government): So this decision is given in camera under Article 479 of the Civil Procedure Code, which provides the Supreme Court suspend the execution of the decision when the immediate execution of the decision would have serious and irreparable consequences.
GR1 (Government): And these are the legal basis for the Supreme Court to have suspended the enforcement of the decision of the Court of Appeal.
GR1 (Government): In the execution of the decision for the provision of compensation for expropriation, there has never been any problem at the domestic level.
GR1 (Government): Decisions are executed as soon as they are issued.
GR1 (Government): In the present case, it is the applicant themselves who did not apply for the compensation granted by decision of the Council of Minister 26 November 2013 as amended by decision of Council of Minister 9 April 2014, which sets the amount of compensation and is the only enforceable decision at the domestic level for the time being.
GR1 (Government): The court's decision to challenge the amount of compensation determined by the decision of Council of Minister is not yet final.
GR1 (Government): In the event of a case of delay in execution, the applicants have the right to benefit from the default interest at the rate set by the law.
GR1 (Government): And regarding the other effective means they have at their disposal, we should mention the property rights claims, the claims for possession, the claims for protection under expropriation act, and protection under the law for the activity of inspectorates, which all provides not only for remedies, but also compensation.
GR1 (Government): In each case, each and every one of these legislation reward compensation to subject that the rights are violated, and these are proven to be effective in the domestic level.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (JudgeP): Thank you very much. I call now Mr. Saccucci. You have the floor.
AP2 (Applicant): the case under examination today raises grave concerns regarding respect for the fundamental standards of the European Convention and the overall effectiveness of judicial guarantees in Albania, both of which call for the most careful scrutiny by this court.
AP2 (Applicant): Indeed, the gist of the present application is about the respondent government's troubling lack of regard for the rule of law and the principle of separation of powers, which are the cornerstones of the European democracies and essential preconditions for the enjoyment of human rights, as repeatedly highlighted in this court's case law most recently by the Green Chambers in Baca versus Hungary of 2016.
AP2 (Applicant): The facts of this case and the applicant's multiple complaints should not be addressed in isolation.
AP2 (Applicant): They should rather be framed in the context of a growing governmental interference in the administration of justice, which seriously undermines the independence of the judiciary and puts at risk the legal safeguards of human rights at the domestic level, a situation that has been clamorously denounced by the then Albanian Minister of Justice Ili Maniani in a public interview released on the 31st of January 2017, in which he expressed serious concerns at the government's systematic attempts to influence judicial decisions.
AP2 (Applicant): Mr. President, with your permission,
AP2 (Applicant): I will first address question number one and question number three posed by the chamber concerning the applicant's complaint on the Article 6.1 with respect
AP2 (Applicant): to the authorities' failure to comply with the administrative court's interim injunction and on the Article 8 with respect to the destruction of their homes.
AP2 (Applicant): I will then briefly turn to question number two concerning the violation of Article 6, paragraph 2, and Article 8 with respect to the authorities' use of yellow crime scene tape to prevent access to the applicant's flats.
AP2 (Applicant): My distinguished colleague, Ms. Julia Bona,
AP2 (Applicant): will then deal with question number four concerning the violation of the applicant's property rights protected by Article 1 of Protocol 1, and she will also briefly address the issue of just satisfaction on Article 41.
AP2 (Applicant): The court is already familiar with the facts of the case, which have been set out in detail in our written submissions.
AP2 (Applicant): Before dealing with the substance of the applicant's complaints, I will therefore only spotlight the main events for ease of reference.
AP2 (Applicant): The Yon residence, complex in Yon, was built by Juvie Chargi and Jaffer Izoufi between 2010 and 2013 on the Vlora coastline on the basis of a valid builder permit issued by the municipality of Vlora on 17 August 2010, and in accordance with the conditions set forth therein and in the relevant domestic legislation.
AP2 (Applicant): The Yon residence was a beautiful seafront residence offering a wide range of facilities and direct access to the beach.
AP2 (Applicant): Many of its flats were sold to private individuals, including the applicants, who furnished their homes and moved in with their belongings.
AP2 (Applicant): Without any previous notice and without any formal administrative decision, on the 3rd of November 2013, officers of the National Urban Construction Inspectorate, supported by state police, seized the Yon residence on account of alleged irregularities and surrounded it with crime scene yellow tape, preventing the applicants from having access to their flats.
AP2 (Applicant): No explanation was given, let alone an official decision in support of the authorities' actions.
AP2 (Applicant): On the 4th of November 2013, the applicants filed a complaint together with their request for urgent relief before the Administrative Court of Vlora, and on 7th November, the Court of Vlora issued an interim decision ordering the administrative authorities to refrain from any further action against the Yon residence, let alone its demolition, and to secure the applicants' right to peacefully enjoy their properties.
AP2 (Applicant): This decision was appealed by the inspectorate, and a hearing was scheduled for 23rd December 2013.
AP2 (Applicant): In the meantime, however, the Council of Ministers adopted decision number 1015 on the 27th of November, ordering the expropriation of the Yon residence.
AP2 (Applicant): The expropriation decision was not officially served on the applicants, but it was made public only on the 3rd of December by the press officer of the Minister of Interior, who announced that demolition of the building was going to commence the following day.
AP2 (Applicant): And so it was.
AP2 (Applicant): Between the 4th and the 14th of December, the entire residence was torn down with the extensive use of explosives, and a video of the demolition is available in the case file.
AP2 (Applicant): On the 26th of December 2013, then, the applicants challenged the expropriation decision before the Administrative Court of Law Act, which issued its judgment on the merits on the 6th of March 2014, finding that the expropriation was unlawful and that the applicants were entitled to compensation.
AP2 (Applicant): However, by decision number 210 of 9 April 2014, the Council of Ministers unilaterally cut down by more than 2 third the amount of compensation awarded by the Court of Law Act, which was already much lower than the actual market value of the building, as my colleague will further explain later.
AP2 (Applicant): The first instance judgment was later confirmed by the Court of Appeal on the 22nd of September 2014, and further challenged before the Supreme Court by both the state advocate and the applicants.
AP2 (Applicant): The Supreme Court is yet to deliver its ruling, and notwithstanding the gravity of the situation and the repeated requests by the applicants, does not seem willing to move the case forward.
AP2 (Applicant): As of today, the applicants have not received any compensation for the not only unlawful, but also morally repugnant destruction of their rightfully owned properties, including movable assets and personal belongings.
AP2 (Applicant): Moreover, they have no reasonable expectation of ever obtaining any form of financial redress, as the government has clearly shown no will to comply with the judgment of the administrative courts, and has not even paid the ludicrous amount awarded in its own decision of 2014.
AP2 (Applicant): Mr. President, the case at hand is one of the most
AP2 (Applicant): astonishing examples of the recent practice of the Albanian authorities to demolish homes and businesses without legal process, or recourse for owners to receive adequate compensation, as reported in, for instance, the US State Department's Human Rights Report released in March 2017.
AP2 (Applicant): Now, coming to question number one, the responding government has not provided any meaningful response to this question, or any plausible justification for the domestic authorities' flattened disregard of the injunction order issued by the administrative court in 2013.
AP2 (Applicant): It is respectfully submitted that the respondents' contention that such decision was taken in violation of the law and was fictitious, as set out in paragraph 50 of their first round of observations, is so utterly preposterous that needs no authority to be refuted.
AP2 (Applicant): The same goes for the respondents' contradictory argument that the interim injunction did not, in fact, concern the demolition of the young residents, but only the conduct of the authorities prior to the decision of expropriation.
AP2 (Applicant): First, by prohibiting any further action by any state administration against the young residents that could hinder the applicants' right to peaceful enjoyment of their properties, the administrative court's injunction clearly required that the building should not be demolished.
AP2 (Applicant): Second, it should be noted that there is no public evidence of any demolition order ever being adopted by the municipality of Laura or served on the applicants who learned about the demolition when the demolition was about to start, and only through the press.
AP2 (Applicant): Third, the expropriation decision was in itself plainly unlawful, as established by the administrative courts in subsequent proceedings, and it was overtly aimed at circumventing the judicial injunction.
AP2 (Applicant): Fourth, the Albanian authorities have in any event failed to comply with the injunction, as the applicants were not allowed unrestricted access to their properties following the seizure and the public announcement of demolition.
AP2 (Applicant): Fact of the matter is that the Albanian government arrogates to itself the power to disregard or obliterate any enforceable judicial decision that it considers wrong or simply undesirable, or even more troubling, to exert pressure on judges with the aim of securing the intended judicial outcome, as stated by the former Minister of Justice.
AP2 (Applicant): Mr. President, members of the court, this state of affairs
AP2 (Applicant): is clearly reconcilable with the rule of law and the separation of powers, both of which lie at the very heart of the convention.
AP2 (Applicant): As this court has repeatedly pointed out, in a democratic society governed by such principles, it is not open to the executive branch to call into question a binding judicial decision or to prevent its execution.
AP2 (Applicant): To hold the contrary would render illusory the right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6.1.
AP2 (Applicant): Furthermore, starting from the grand chamber's judgment in Mikalef v. Marta, 2009, the court
AP2 (Applicant): admitted that Article 6 requirements also apply to interim legal protection.
AP2 (Applicant): Accordingly, the court has found in several cases that the state's organ failure to comply with an interim measure issued by a domestic court amounted to violation of Article 6.1.
AP2 (Applicant): And I refer in particular to Okyay and others versus Turkey and to Cuba versus Germany of 2011.
AP2 (Applicant): In the case at hand, the Albanian authorities' deliberate defiance of the interim injunction and the monstrous demolition of the young residents in just a matter of days have unquestionably curtailed the essence of the applicant's right to access to a court by irreversibly frustrating their claims in the main proceedings.
AP2 (Applicant): In the case of Okay, the court found a breach of Article 6 because of the Council of Ministers' failure to comply with an interim injunction.
AP2 (Applicant): Our Mr. President will respectfully submit
AP2 (Applicant): that there is no reason for the court to depart from this conclusion in the present case.
AP2 (Applicant): As in Okay, the Albanian authorities' conduct was manifestly unlawful under domestic law, and it was tantamount to circumventing the judicial decision, a situation, and I quote from Okay, that adversely affects the principle of a law-based state founded on the rule of law and the principle of legal certainty.
AP2 (Applicant): Respondent government's interference with the applicant's right of access has even continued in the subsequent judicial proceedings concerning the expropriation, when the Council of Ministers decided to cut down by two-thirds the amount of compensation awarded by the administrative court with the unconcealed intention of circumventing the latter's decision and frustrating again the applicant's quest for fair justice.
AP2 (Applicant): I now turn to question number three concerning the violation of the right to a home.
AP2 (Applicant): In this respect, I first underline that according to the criteria set out by this court's case law, especially in De Madres v. Turkey,
AP2 (Applicant): there is no doubt that the young resident falls under the protection of Article 8.
AP2 (Applicant): Likewise, there is no doubt that the Albanian authorities' seizure of the building and its subsequent demolition do amount to an interference with the applicant's right to a home.
AP2 (Applicant): The question then to be answered is therefore whether the interference was lawful, whether it pursued a legitimate aim, and ultimately whether it was proportionate to the aim pursued according to the requirements laid down in Article 8.
AP2 (Applicant): Now, my distinguished colleague will deal with these issues in great detail when addressing the complaint under Article 1, Protocol 1, and indeed the settled case law of this court has found that the unlawful and arbitrary demolition of a property in violation of Article 1, P1, automatically entails, and I quote, a breach of Article 8 by reason of the denial of the right of the applicant to respect for his home.
AP2 (Applicant): And I refer in particular to Colonna v. Cyprus of 2007.
AP2 (Applicant): We respectfully submit that the responding government has manifestly failed to provide any convincing argument to justify the interference with the applicant's right to a home.
AP2 (Applicant): First, it should be reiterated that both the seizure and the demolition of the young residents were carried out in this regard of all domestic provisions governing expropriation by means of a non-transparent, arbitrary and discriminatory process.
AP2 (Applicant): The unlawfulness of the authorities' actions against the young residents has already been firmly established by the Administrative Court of Vlora in its judgment of 28 January 2014, as confirmed by the Court of Appeal on 6 May 2016.
AP2 (Applicant): Moreover, the demolition was executed in the absence of any formal decision by the Municipality of Vlora following the adoption of an expropriation order by the Council of Ministers, which was itself flawed by multiple substantive and procedural violations of the law, and even without any prior notification to the applicants, thereby depriving them of the most essential procedural safeguards and of any effective judicial protection against arbitrariness.
AP2 (Applicant): As the Court concluded in Kalikova v. Azerbaijan of 2015,
AP2 (Applicant): the impugned interference was not based on the Court's decision or any other legal precept, and was thus not compatible with the rule of law in a democratic society.
AP2 (Applicant): Secondly, I wish to point out that the interference in question, and particularly the demolition of the property, did not pursue any legitimate objective in the public interest.
AP2 (Applicant): The government's allegations on this point are contradictory and completely unsubstantiated, as my colleague Julia Bornyan will elucidate later.
AP2 (Applicant): Let me just stress that the alleged purpose of requalification of the Vlora waterfront was clearly not a pressing social need that could justify the hasty demolition of the young residents.
AP2 (Applicant): Thirdly, the demolition of the applicant's home was not proportionate to the alleged aim pursued.
AP2 (Applicant): Now, leaving aside the issue of compensation, which will be addressed on Article 1b1, the facts of the case indisputably demonstrate that there was no compelling reason for which such an extreme measure and irreversible measure had to be carried out with such a husk, and in spite of the interim injunction issued by the Administrative Court, without even affording the applicants any real opportunity to participate in the decision-making process and to enjoy effective judicial protection of their Article 8 rights.