Communicated on 12 March 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 63542/14 Hysen BEGA and Arjeta BEGA against Albania lodged on 9 July 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Mr Hysen Bega and Ms Arjeta Bega , are Albanian nationals, who were born in 1958 and 1954, respectively , and live in Tirana .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicants and other persons (“co-owners”) were heirs to a plot of land measuring 7,675 sq. m. Between 1997 and 1999 they sold th at plot of land to third parties for the purpose of constructing multi- storey buildings.

O n 11 February 1998, in the course of the proceedings in relation to the first stage of the division of property, the Tirana District Court decided that A was one of the co-owners and determined that A ’ s share equaled one fifth of the above plot of land, that is 1,535 sq. m.

On an unspecified date in 1998 A ’ s heirs instituted proceedings for the second stage of the division of property .

On 19 September 2007, after numerous stays of the proceedings owing to the conduct of other related sets of proceedings, the Tirana District Court found that A ’ s corresponding plot of land had been sold by the other co-owners , including the applicants, after the institution of th e set of proceedings concerning the first stage of the division of property . The division of property was no longer possible in kind , because it had been transferred to third parties. Consequently, the court ordered the co-owners to pay compensation to A ’ s heirs in the amount of 460,500 euros (“EUR”), the current market having been calculated by an expert ’ s report to be at EUR 300 per sq. m. The applicants were ordered to pay EUR 153,510.

The applicants allege that they appealed against the decision on the grounds that, inter alia , the compensation amount should have been based on the sale price of the plot of land or, alternatively, on the Government ’ s property valuation maps 2008. According to an expert ’ s report drawn up on behalf of the applicants, the market value of the plot of land measuring 1,535 sq. m was EUR 341,298 in 2007. They further allege that they could not question the expert.

On 3 March 2009, following the applicants ’ appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court ’ s decision.

The applicants allege that they raised the same grounds of appeal before the Supreme Court.

On 24 April 2014 the Supreme Court, following a hearing, upheld the lower courts ’ decisions.

On 15 September 2014 the applicants were informed by the Ministry of Urban Development and Territory that the expert who had drawn up the report for the domestic courts had not been a licensed real-estate evaluator.

B. Relevant domestic law

1. Code of Civil Procedure

Under Articles 369-374 of the Albanian, the procedure concerning the division of property consists of two stages. During the first stage the domestic courts adopt an interim decision to allow, in principle, the division of property by determining the names of co-owners, the objects to be divided and the shares of each co-owner. Only when the interim decision becomes final, do the domestic courts proceed with the actual division, which constitutes the second stage. If the division is not possible, the courts assign the property to one of the co-owners and oblige him/her to reimburse other co-owners the cash amount equivalent to the value of their shares on the basis of an expert ’ s report.

2. Property valuation maps

According to the Government ’ s decision no. 1620 of 26 November 2008 the reference price per square meter in respect of the applicants ’ plot of land was ALL 27,104, approximately EUR 215 .

COMPLAINT S

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about their inability to question the expert. They further complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the excessive amount of compensation they were ordered to pay, which sum was not calculated on the basis of the Government ’ s property valuation map or, alternatively, of the sale price of the plot of land .

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a breach of the applicants ’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, did the domestic court rely on the property valuation maps in awarding pecuniary damage to A ’ s heirs?

2. In what circumstances have the domestic authorities relied on the property valuation maps in calculating pecuniary damage? The parties are requested to provide examples in support of their submissions.

3. Has there been a breach of the equality of arms under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the applicants ’ inability to question the expert and submit relevant evidence?