Communicated on 25 April 2016

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 11321/11 Refat PUTO against Albania and 3 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, whose personal details are set out in the appended table, are Albanian nationals.

A. The circumstances of the cases

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

1. Application no. 11321/11

(a) Proceedings concerning plots of pasture land measuring 152,000 sq. m in total

On 8 January 1996 the Saranda Commission on Restitution and Compensation of Properties (Komisioni i Kthimit dhe Kompensimit të Pronave , hereafter “the Commission”) recognised the applicant ’ s and some other heirs ’ inherited title to some plots of land measuring 152,000 sq. m in total (of which 4,642 sq. m were returned). The plots of land were situated in Lëkurs and Berdenesh in Saranda. The Commission decided that the applicant and the other heirs would be compensated in kind in respect of a plot of land measuring 3,300 sq. m., and in State bonds in respect of a plot of land measuring 142,960 sq. m. Lastly, it recognised the applicant ’ s and other heirs ’ right of first refusal in respect of a building which was a holiday camp ( kampi i pushimit , hereafter “the building”), constructed on a plot measuring 960 sq. m.

On 29 September 2008, following a general call by the Ministry of Economy (“the Ministry”) for the privatisation of State-owned buildings, the applicant, relying on his right of first refusal in respect of the building, asked the Ministry to enforce that right. He also submitted a copy of the Commission decision and other supporting documents.

On 2 December 2008 the Saranda Immovable Property Registration Office (Zyra Vendore e Regjistrimit të Pasurive të Paluajtshme Sarandë , hereafter “the local IPRO”) informed the Ministry that the building had been registered in the land register since 2001 in the names of B., who owned 60% of it, and a trade union, which owned 40%. It appeared that B. had become a shareholder by way of a contract between himself and the trade union. The trade union had also leased its part of the property to B. for a period of 20 years.

On 10 April 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Central Immovable Property Registration Office (“the Central IPRO”) regarding the improper registration of the building in the names of B. and the trade union. On 31 July 2009 the Central IPRO instructed the local office to examine that complaint and take a decision in accordance with a Council of Ministers ’ instruction on the striking out of immovable property registrations entered contrary to the law. To date, no decision appears to have been taken by the local office.

On 5 May 2010 the applicant complained to the Ministry about the arbitrary sale of the building to B. On 16 May 2011 the Ministry stated that, owing to an Act enacted in 1998 (see Relevant domestic law below), trade union properties could not be transferred to other parties until 31 December 2020.

To date, the Commission decision in respect of the applicant ’ s right to compensation and right of first refusal remains unenforced.

(b) Proceedings concerning a plot of pasture land measuring 121,200 sq. m

On 10 July 2008 the Vlora Commission recognised the applicant ’ s inherited title to a plot of pasture land in Berdenesh, Saranda measuring 121,200 sq. m, of which 119,350 sq. m. were returned in kind. It also recognised the applicant ’ s right to compensation in respect of the remaining 1,850 sq. m of pasture land.

On 7 August 2008 the applicant challenged the decision of 10 July 2008 before the Agency on the Restitution and Compensation of Properties (Agjensia e Kthimit dhe Kompensimit të Pronave , hereafter “the Agency”), which had replaced the Vlora Commission. On 16 November 2010 the applicant also requested a review of that decision.

On 14 September 2011 the Agency stayed the administrative proceedings, pending the outcome of proceedings about the constitutionality of some provisions of the Property Act before the Constitutional Court.

On 21 January 2013 the Agency declared the appeal outside its administrative jurisdiction (deklarimin e mungesës së juridiksionit administrativ dhe kompetencës së Agjencisë për shqyrtimin e kërkesës ankimore). There is no information as to whether any legal proceedings have been instituted.

To date, the Vlora Commission decision in respect of the applicant ’ s right to compensation remains unenforced.

(c) Proceedings concerning agriculture land

On 15 March 1997 the applicant lodged an application with the Commission for the recognition of his property rights in respect of agricultural land located in the villages of Cukë, Memuraq, and Dermish in Saranda and Delvina. On 29 October 2003, 15 June 2007 and 16 February 2010 he asked the authorities to examine his application.

To date, the authorities have not taken any decision in respect of the application made by the applicant.

(d) Proceedings concerning a plot of pasture land situated in Lekurs

On an unspecified date in 2005, after the entry into force of the 2004 Property Act, the applicant lodged an application with the Commission in respect of a plot of pasture land situated in Lëkurs, Saranda, which had not been the subject of the Commission decision of 8 January 1996. Between 2006 and 2013, he repeatedly asked the authorities to examine his application.

To date, the authorities have not taken any decision in respect of the application made by the applicant.

2. Application no. 26412/14

On 25 July 1996 the Gjirokastra Commission recognised the applicant ’ s and other heirs ’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 39,000 sq. m, of which 20,000 sq. m were returned. In respect of a plot of land measuring 510 sq. m, it decided that the applicant and the other heirs would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law. Lastly, it recognised their right of first refusal in respect of buildings constructed on a plot of land measuring 5,590 sq. m, of which 3,025 sq. m belonged to a S tate ‑ owned electricity distribution company, OSSH ( Operatori i Sistemit të Shpërndarjes ). The distribution company was subsequently privatised by an investor (CEZ Shpërndarja sh.a) , who bought 76% of the share capital.

On 15 March 2013, following a final court decision, the applicant and other heirs ’ right of first refusal in respect of a plot of land measuring 3,025 sq. m was registered in the land register.

On 7 March and 17 May 2011 the applicant asked the investor to pay a monthly rent to occupy a plot of 2,900 sq. m, which was part of the plot of 3,025 sq. m. Alternatively, he sought that the investor purchase the land.

On 20 June 2011 the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Energy (“the Ministry”) informed the applicant that the buildings constructed on that plot of land formed part of the capital of the distribution company, whose main shares had been privatised. It also informed him that, under the Privatisation of Companies Act, a former owner was entitled to take part in privatisation proceedings relating to the distribution company ’ s remaining State-owned shares. Former owners were enti tled to acquire shares in State ‑ owned companies, the value of the shares to be equivalent to the value of the plots of land recognised by the Commission decisions.

On 7 July 2011 the Ministry informed the investor that, since the buildings constructed on the plot of land were an integral part of the capital of the distribution company, which subsequently had been privatised, the applicant and the other heirs would be offered shares when the remaining State-owned shares were privatised.

On 3 February 2013 the applicant, in accordance with a Council of Ministers ’ decision of 17 December 2008 and the OSSH Privatisation Act, asked the Government to award him compensation in exchange for his right of first refusal.

On 3 March 2014 the Ministry informed the applicant that the right of first refusal could not be enforced, on account of the investor ’ s placement under temporary administration. The right to acquire shares could be enforced once the Ministry regained control of the investor.

To date, the applicant ’ s right of first refusal has not been enforced, nor has he received any compensation under the 2004 Property Act.

3. Application no. 21648/15

(a) Proceedings concerning a plot of land measuring 631.5 sq. m

On 20 March 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants ’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 631.5 sq. m, of which 234 sq. m were returned. It decided that the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law in respect of a plot of land measuring 397.5 sq. m. Lastly , it recognised their right of first refusal in respect of columns (kolona) constructed on a plot of land measuring 9 sq. m.

To date, the Tirana Commission decision in respect of the applicants ’ right to compensation remains unenforced.

(b) Proceedings concerning a plot of land measuring 59,500 sq. m

On 20 November 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants ’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 59,500 sq. m, of which 15,000 sq. m were returned. It decided that they would be compensated by way of an equivalent plot of land within their property (pronarët kompensohen me truall ekuivalent brenda truallit të tyre) in respect of another plot measuring 15,000 sq. m. Since both plots of land, totalling 30,000 sq. m, were partly occupied by illegal constructions built by third parties, the Tirana Commission decided that the applicants could seek their removal before the relevant authorities. It further decided that the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law in respect of a plot of land measuring 29,500 sq. m. It would appear that an application has been made to legalise the illegal constructions.

To date, the Tirana Commission decision in respect of the applicants ’ right to compensation and right to restoration remains unenforced.

(c) Proceedings concerning a plot of land measuring 64,500 sq. m

On 20 November 1995 the Tirana Commission, by way of another decision, recognised the applicants ’ inherited title to another plot of land measuring 64,500 sq. m, of which 5,000 sq. m were returned. It decided that they would be compensated by way of an equivalent plot of land within their property (pronarët kompensohen me truall ekuivalent brenda truallit të tyre) in respect of another plot of land measuring 5,000 sq. m. Since both plots of land totalling 10,000 sq. m were partly occupied by illegal constructions built by third parties, the Tirana Commission decided that the applicants could seek their removal before the relevant authorities. It further decided that the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law in respect of a plot of land measuring 29,500 sq. m. Lastly, it recognised the applicants ’ right of first refusal in respect of water tanks and a safety zone (depot e ujit së bashku me zonën e sigurisë) , which had been constructed on a plot of land measuring 25,000 sq. m, and ordered that, in the alternative, a rent contract in relation to the plot of land should be concluded. It would appear that an application has been made to legalise the illegal constructions.

On 21 October 2010 the applicants asked the Ministry to enforce their right of first refusal in respect of the water tanks by either returning the plot of land to them or concluding the relevant rent contract with the S tate ‑ owned water and sewerage company which occupied the land (Ujësjellës-Kanalizime Tiranë sh.a) .

On 27 January 2011 the water and sewerage company informed the applicants that their right of first refusal could not be enforced, as no privatisation proceedings had ever been initiated.

On 15 April 2013 the applicants, relying on a Council of Ministers ’ decision of 15 September 2010, asked the Ministry to sell the plot of land to the water and sewerage company. They stated that if the sale were effected , they would renounce their right of first refusal in exchange for a right to compensation, as provided for under the 2004 Property Act.

On 5 September 2013 the Ministry informed the applicants that the water and sewerage company was a State-owned joint-stock company, whose capital (of which the buildings formed part) could not be the subject of a privatisation procedure. The applicants were entitled to acquire shares in the State-owned water and sewerage company under the Privatisation of Companies Act. The Council of Ministers ’ decision of 15 September 2010 could not be implemented, since it applied only to companies which had a right to use the land.

To date, the Tirana Commission decision in respect of the applicants ’ right to compensation, right to restoration and right of first refusal remains unenforced.

4. Application no. 21704/15

(a) Proceedings concerning a plot of land measuring 713.5 sq. m

On 23 June 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants ’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 713.5 sq. m, of which 220.2 sq. m (137.9 sq. m and 82.3 sq. m) were returned. It also returned another plot of land measuring 35.9 sq. m. Since a shop had been built on it, the occupiers were entitled to buy the plot of land measuring 35.9 sq. m or rent it out on the basis of an agreement to be concluded between the relevant parties. The applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law in respect of three plots of land measuring 252 sq. m, 65 sq. m and 162.2 sq. m. Under section 18(2) of the 1993 Property Act, the Tirana Commission also recognised the applicants ’ right of first refusal in respect of caf é s situated on the plots of land measuring 252 sq. m and 65 sq. m, whose locations had been changed, contrary to the provisions in force.

On 5 April 2013 the Agency dismissed the applicants ’ request for compensation, on the grounds of a lack of funds.

To date, the Tirana Commission decision in respect of the applicants ’ right to compensation and right of first refusal remains unenforced.

(b) Proceedings concerning a plot of land measuring 59 sq. m

On 28 February 1996 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants ’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 59 sq. m. Since the plot of land was occupied, it was decided that they would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law.

To date, the Tirana Commission decision in respect of the applicants ’ right to compensation remains unenforced.

(c) Proceedings concerning a plot of land measuring 400 sq. m

On 30 July 1996 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants ’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 400 sq. m, of which 60 sq. m were returned. It decided that they would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law in respect of the remaining 340 sq. m of land. There appear to be illegal constructions on the plot of land measuring 60 sq. m.

To date, the Tirana Commission decision in respect of the applicants ’ right to compensation and right to restoration remains unenforced.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

1. Application no. 11321/11

(a) The right of first refusal

(i) Civil Code

The right of first refusal is provided for by Article 204 of the Civil Code, which states that a co-owner is obliged to ask other co-owners in writing whether they intend to buy his share in the immovable property, before he sells it to third parties.

(ii) The Property Act 1993

Section 21 of the Property Act 1993 (law no. 7698 of 15 April 1993, as amended by laws nos. 7736 and 7765 of 1993, 7808 and 7879 of 1994, 7916 of 1995 and 8084 of 1996) stated that former owners were entitled to the right of first refusal in respect of State-owned buildings constructed on their plots of land, such as shops, warehouses and workshops.

(iii) The Property Act 2004, as amended

The Property Act 2004, which repealed the Property Act 1993, provides that former owners, at the moment of privatisation, are entitled to the right of first refusal in respect of State-owned buildings constructed on their plots of land. Former owners can renounce that right in exchange for a right to compensation. The right of first refusal is registered in the land register (section 14).

(b) Domestic decisions concerning the right of first refusal

(i ) The Constitutional Court ’ s decision of 25 April 1997

On 25 April 1997, in relation to section 21 of the Property Act 1993, the Constitutional Court stated:

“In section 21 the lawmaker envisaged securing former owners ’ right of first refusal in respect of small and medium buildings, such as shops, warehouses, and workshops, in the event of their privatisation. More importantly, the right of first refusal was recognised in respect of the privatisation of such buildings in line with “prices determined in accordance with legal provisions”. It is a fact that a number of by-laws which were adopted pursuant to the (Property) Act provided for former owners ’ right of first refusal in respect of the privatisation of small and medium enterprises.”

The Constitutional Court further stated that if State-owned companies became commercial companies where the State was the only shareholder, the privatisation of shares either in part or in full was not akin to the privatisation of objects. As such, it was at the State ’ s discretion to freely dispose of those shares, there being no legal obligation to honour former owners ’ right of first refusal.

(ii) The Supreme Court Joint Benches ’ decision no. 23 of 1 April 2002

In relation to section 21 of the Property Act 1993, the Supreme Court Joint Benches stated in the decision of 2002 that:

“The right of first refusal, as provided for by section 21 of the Property Act 1993, is a potential right, which will materialise in respect of objects built by the State on a former owner ’ s land, where the State continues to be the owner of the objects at the time of the [Property] Act ’ s entry into force (that is, where ownership has not been lawfully transferred to a third party), which the State decides to privatise ... T he size of the plot of land to be awarded as compensation may be increased in the event that the right of first refusal cannot be exercised.” ( E drejta e parablerjes, e parashikuar ne nenin 21 te Ligjit te mesiperm, eshte nje e drejte e mundeshme per t`u realizuar ne potence per ato objekte qe jane ndertuar nga shteti ne token e ish-pronarit e qe vazhdojne te jene ne pronesi te tij ne kohen e hyrjes ne fuqi te ketij ligji (d.m.th. qe nuk rezultojne te kene kaluar ne menyre te ligjeshme ne pronesi te te tjereve) dhe qe shteti vendos t ’ i privatizoje...ne masen e ngushtimit apo pamundesise se realizimit te se drejtes se parablerjes, mund te zmadhohet siperfaqja e truallit te kompensueshem ne favor te trashegimtareve te ish-pronarit ) ”

(c) Trade union properties

On 5 June 1992 the President of the Republic of Albania promulgated a decree (“the 1992 decree”), which provided that properties such as holiday camps ( shtëpi pushimi ), which were under the administration of trade unions and used for their activities and the professional education of their employees, were to be considered their properties (“pasuria e paluajtshme që shërben për veprimtarinë sindikale dhe edukimin professional e sindikal të punonjësve, si shtëpi pushimi, shtëpi kulture etj, është në pronësi të sindikatave”).

On 6 May 1998 Parliament did not endorse the 1992 decree (law no. 8340/1998). On the same day it enacted a new Act on how to deal with the consequences of the implementation of the 1992 decree. Section 1 of the new Act provided that trade union properties acquired on the strength of the 1992 decree consisted of movable and immovable properties which had been subject to an inventory and assessment process carried out by the authorities in June 1992. Section 4 stated that no transfer of trade union immovable property to third parties was allowed until 31 December 2020. Section 5 provided that trade union properties were considered occupied for the purpose of the Property Act 1993, and consequently former owners would be awarded compensation in lieu.

On 15 December 2009 Law no. 8340/1 was repealed (by Law no. 10159/2009). Under the new legislation, any contractual relationship created between trade unions and third parties as a result of trade union occupation and possession of immovable properties is determined on the basis of the Civil Code.

(d) Domestic decisions concerning trade union properties

(i ) The Supreme Court Joint Benches ’ decision no. 85 of 29 June 2001

The Supreme Court held that, if a conflict arose between former owners ’ interests in unmodified buildings ( ndërtesa të pandryshuara ) or unoccupied plots of land and trade union interests, the former would prevail. Law no. 8340/1/1998 was applicable insofar as it was not contrary to the provisions of the Property Act 1993. The Property Act 1993 would apply to past disputes which had already been examined by domestic courts where decisions had become final before the entry into force of Act no. 8340/1/1998, and to subsequent disagreements.

(ii) The Supreme Court Joint Benches ’ decision no. 5 of 23 March 2004

The Supreme Court stated that trade union property titles remained unchanged if: no claim was made by a former owner; a former owner did not possess a property title; or a former owner failed to request the recognition of property rights under the Property Act 1993. Otherwise, a former owner could seek to enforce property rights which had been recognised pursuant to the Property Act 1993, including the right of first refusal in respect of State-owned buildings constructed on a plot of land. If those buildings were put up for sale by the State, they would become the property of the former owner. Ownership was transferred to the former owner after payment of the sale price.

(iii) The Constitutional Court ’ s decision no. 31 of 18 June 2010

The Constitutional Court ruled that Law no. 8340/1/1998 gave a retroactive effect to the 1992 decree only in respect of legal acts which reflected the transfer of property titles to trade unions (such as the registration of properties in the land register or the division of properties). It reaffirmed trade union ownership of properties which had been recognised by the 1992 decree. As a result, the Constitutional Court declared Law no. 10159/2009 unconstitutional. However, it noted that Law no. 8340/1/1998 did not give retroactive effect to legal situations governed by the Property Act 1993, or legal situations in respect of which the courts had already given final decisions (“ ligji nr. 8340/1 është ligj legalizues me efekte retroaktive, por vetëm pjesërisht, sepse megjithëse rregulloi dhe u dha fuqi prapavepruese akteve dhe veprimeve të kryera nga sindikatat për kalimin e pronësisë në bazë të dektretit të 1992, si dhe marrëveshjeve të tyre për ndarjen e këtyre pasurive, nuk ka vepruar në mënyrë retroaktive mbi marrëdhëniet e rregulluara në këtë periudhë mbi bazën e ligjit për kthimin dhe kompensimin e pronave ose mbi ato marrëdhënie dhe praktika për të cilat gjykata ishin shprehur përfundimisht me vendime gjyqësore të formës së prerë ”) .

2. Application no. 26412/14

In relation to this case, additional domestic case-law is as follows:

(a) The Property Act 1993

Section 16 of the Property Act 1993 provided for the following forms of compensation in respect of property which could not be returned: (a) State bonds of a value equivalent to the compensation owed, with a first option to acquire shares in State enterprises being privatised by the Government or in other activities carried out through the granting of loans; (b) an equivalent plot of land or building site near to an urban area, in accordance with the general regulations on urban development; and (c) an equivalent plot of land in a tourist zone, in accordance with the general regulations on urban development.

(b) The Property Act 2004, as amended

The Property Act 2004 provides for five forms of compensation: (a) property of the same kind; (b) property of any other kind; (c) shares in State-owned companies; (d) State-owned property subject to the privatisation process, of an equivalent value; and (e) a sum of money corresponding to the value attributed to the property at the time of the relevant decision (section 11).

Under section 8, as amended by the Property Act 2006, if buildings under State ownership are not used for a public interest, the plot of land on which they are built is returned to the former owner, who is entitled to a right of first refusal in respect of the buildings. Until the buildings are privatised, the State will continue paying rent to the former owner for occupying the plot of land.

Section 8 was further amended by the Property Act 2009, which provides that if a plot of land is allocated to a State-owned company for use, the Ministry of Finance can offer to sell it to that company. If the authorities have recognised the property rights in respect of the plot of land in question, the proceeds of sale are transferred to the former owner. If the company refuses to buy the plot of land, that land is returned to the former owner.

(c) Council of Ministers ’ decision of 3 May 1995, as amended

The Council of Ministers ’ decision of 3 May 1995, which was amended on 11 November 1996, provided that the privatisation of State-owned companies and buildings would be carried out by auction. However, no auction would take place if a former owner ’ s right of first refusal had been recognised under the 1993 Property Act . A former owner was required to submit a written request and documentary evidence to the Privatisation Agency in order to substantiate his property claim over the plot of land. If, prior to the institution of privatisation proceedings, a former owner failed to submit the commission decision recognising his property rights and right of first refusal, he was not entitled to exercise the right of first refusal anymore. The buildings would be auctioned off.

(d) Privatisation of Companies Act (Law no. 8334 of 23 April 1998 on the privatisation of companies operating in non-strategic sectors)

The Act provides for the right of former owners to acquire shares in State-owned companies without taking part in an auction. They may acquire shares of an equivalent value to the plot of land, as recognised by a commission decision.

(i) Council of Ministers ’ decisions of 17 December 2008 and 9 June 2010

The Council of Ministers ’ decisions provided for proceedings to be followed in respect of the privatisation of State-owned properties. Section 3 § 3 (a) and (b) of both decisions provided that the sale of a building was effected without an auction if the building was situated on a former owner ’ s plot of land. The former owner was entitled to the right of first refusal in respect of the building for its initial sale price. If the former owner did not reply to the authorities ’ call for privatisation within the statutory deadline, the sale of the building was effected and the plot of land was auctioned. The proceeds of sale were paid to the former owner as compensation.

(ii) The OSSH Privatisation Act (Law no. 9889 of 20 March 2008 on the procedure to be followed in respect of OSSH ’ s privatisation) and OSSH ’ s privatisation agreement of 11 March 2009 (Law no. 10116 of 23 April 2009)

On 20 March 2008 the OSSH Privatisation Act was enacted. It provides for the privatisation of OSSH ’ s majority share capital. Article 2 provides that the remaining State-owned share capital, which will not be subject to privatisation, will subsequently be used to compensate former owners.

On 11 March 2009 the Ministry concluded the privatisation agreement in respect of OSSH. Under the agreement, 76% of the share capital was acquired by an investor, the Ministry being the remaining shareholder.

3. Application no. 21648/15

The Council of Ministers ’ decision no. 757 of 15 September 2010 –relating to the criteria and procedures for selling plots of land which are deemed to be necessary for the activities of State-owned companies – states that any company which is owned partially or entirely by the State, and which is entitled to use or rent a plot of land, may have the right to buy that plot of land. If the company agrees to purchase the land for the development of its activities, it should pay a sale price, which will be used to compensate the former owner whose right to compensation was recognised by way of a commission decision. If the company refuses to buy the land, it will be returned to the former owner.

The Legalisation Act (Law no. 9482 of 3 April 2006 on the Legalisation, Urban Planning and Integration of Unauthorised Buildings) was adopted in order to regularise illegal constructions and extensions that had been constructed on public and private land in the 1990s and early 2000s as a result of rapid, profound, internal demographic shifts. The Legalisation Act provides for the transfer of ownership of a plot of land on which unauthorised buildings have been constructed via the State, from an original land owner to the owner of the unauthorised building, in return for payment of a sale price in cash (sections 19-21) or by way of privatisation vouchers (section 17/1). The former land owner receives full compensation in respect of the expropriated plot of land, in accordance with the Property Act 2004.

4. Application no. 21704/15

Section 18 of the Property Act 1993 provided that a former owner was entitled to become the owner of a caf é (which belonged to a third party) if the third party had changed the location of the premises in breach of the domestic law.

COMPLAINTS

1. Application no. 11321/11

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his right of first refusal and right to compensation, which were recognised b y the Commission decisions of 8 January 1996 and 10 July 2008, were not enforced. He further complains about the length of the proceedings before both the Commission and the Agency, as his applications lodged in 1997 and 2005 have not yet been examined.

2. Application no. 26412/14

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention that he was not compensated for exchanging his right of first refusal.

3. Application no. 21648/15

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the Tirana Commission decisions were not enforced.

4. Application no. 21704/15

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that their right of first refusal and right to restoration and compensation, which were recognised by the Tirana Commission decisions, were not enforced.

QUESTIONS

1. Are the applicants ’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to th e Convention concerning the non ‑ enforcement of the right of first refusal ( e drejta e parablerjes ) compatible with the provisions of the Convention, ra tione materi ae ?

2. Have the applicants exhausted all domestic effective remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, as regards their complaints concerning the non-enforcement of the right of first refusal?

3. Have the applicants in applications nos. 21648/15 and 21704/15 exhausted all domestic effective remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, as regards their complaints concerning the non-enforcement of the right to restoration?

4. In respect of all applications, has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of the applicants ’ right of first refusal? In respect of each application, the Government are requested to submit domestic legislation and case-law as regards the interpretation and implementation of the right of first refusal.

5. In respect of applications nos. 21648/15 and 21704/15, has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of the applicants ’ right to restoration?

6. In respect of applications nos. 11321/11, 21648/15, 21704/15, has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the C onvention on account of the non ‑ enforcement of the applicants ’ right to compensation?

7. In respect of application no. 11321/11, has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention as regards the length of the administrative proceedings before the Commission/Agency?

APPENDIX

No.

Application

no.

Lodged on

Applicant ’ s name,

date of birth, and

place of residence

Represented by

11321/11

15/11/2010

Refat PUTO

10/01/1930

Tirana

None

26412/14

06/08/2014

Ymer GEGA

01/07/1943

Tirana

None

21648/15

28/04/2015

Shpresa KERCANI

24/04/1950

Tirana

Luljeta KERCANI

24/04/1950

Tirana

Nuri KERCANI

16/03/1963

Tirana

Sokol PUTO

21704/15

27/04/2015

Hamid MENËRI

20/05/1930

Tirana

Tahir MENERI

30/11/1931

Tirana

Pranvera RECI

18/04/1934

Tirana

Aferdita SARACI

07/09/1941

Tirana

Luljana LLAGAMI

06/01/1943

Tirana

Reshat MENERI

01/01/1944

Tirana

Luan MENERI

10/04/1945

Tirana

Suzana TAFAJ

02/07/1947

Tirana

Dhurata RECI

03/05/1948

Tirana

Ilir MENERI

18/01/1952

Tirana

Betina XHEPA

21/08/1955

Tirana

Suela MENERI