I. Factual Background
The plaintiff is the universal heir of the decedent’s estate, who had legally constructed and registered a building of 71.2 m², while another structure of approximately 100 m² was in the process of legalization. The property was later included in an urban requalification plan, and within the framework of implementing a construction permit for a multi-story building, the local authorities ordered the demolition of the existing structures, despite judicial and administrative proceedings conducted over the years. The Tirana District Court, with Decision No. 8997, dated 09.11.2016, ruled: “Partial acceptance of the plaintiff’s claim. Obligation of the defendant, Tirana Municipality, to compensate the plaintiff […]”. Both the plaintiff and the defendant appealed this decision. The Tirana Court of Appeal, with Decision No. 1194, dated 09.05.2017, ruled: “Upholding the decision […]”. Both parties subsequently filed a recourse against this decision.
II. Assessment by the Civil College of the Supreme Court
The College found that the courts of first instance had not conducted a complete investigation of the actual property damage suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the de facto expropriation of her property. In this case, neither the legal criteria nor the procedures for expropriation were respected, and the plaintiff was not granted any compensation, thereby violating her substantive property rights and her right to compensation and appeal through judicial channels.
The expropriation institute represents a legal mechanism for the loss of private property rights and is enforceable subject to fair compensation. The pursuit of public interests does not automatically justify the unilateral or abusive infringement of private property rights by the state (Article 42 of the Constitution), nor should it openly violate the individual’s right to fair compensation for the expropriated property (Article 41 of the Constitution).In the case law of both the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), alongside formal expropriation carried out according to the law, de facto expropriation is also recognized. De facto expropriation constitutes a form of state intervention in private property for public interest and differs from formal or de jure expropriation in that the formal legal procedures are not respected. Nevertheless, the ECtHR, for the purposes of applying Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, has recognized that the state is obliged to compensate the owner of expropriated property, even in cases of de facto expropriation, with an amount equivalent to the value of the property. The existence of public interest cannot legitimize public authorities to destroy or appropriate private property arbitrarily.
The College noted that the courts had not analyzed whether the demolition of the structures served the realization of a construction project in the public interest (Article 8 of Law No. 8561/1999) or if it primarily benefited a private entity.
Regarding the property in the legalization process, the concept of “property,” according to the ECtHR, extends beyond mere ownership rights. Within this autonomous concept protected by the Convention, the Court’s jurisprudence has assessed it mainly according to two criteria: first, the economic interest, and second, the legitimate expectation of future appropriation.In conclusion, the College decided to annul the decision of the Court of Appeal and to return the case for retrial before the same court with a different panel of judges.
