6.  The individual applicants were born in 1938, 1938, 1926, 1963, 1942, 1970 and 1954 respectively and live in Albania, the United States of America and Italy. 7.  The applicant company is incorporated under Albanian law and is registered in Tirana. 8.  The individual applicants are the heirs of a certain Mr M. who, in 1947, was the owner of a three-storey villa and an adjacent plot of land situated in the centre of Tirana. On an unspecified date in 1947 the authorities confiscated the property, which remained in their possession until 1994. 9.  On 30 December 1994, following the individual applicants' request in accordance with the Property Act 1993, the Tirana Commission on Restitution and Compensation of Properties (“the Commission”) allowed their claim to the villa and 1,100 sq. m of land. The Commission rectified that decision on 8 August 2002, recognising the individual applicants' property rights to a plot of land measuring 1,515 sq. m, which corresponded to the original property. The property title was entered in the Land Register. 10.  From 1996 to 1998 the property concerned was leased by the individual applicants to the Libyan Embassy in Tirana. 11.  On 30 April 1998 the individual applicants entered into an agreement with the applicant company for the construction of a tower block on their property. Under that agreement the applicant company was given authority to obtain the administrative authorisations needed for the construction. A final contract was to be concluded when the requisite permit had been obtained. 12.  On 23 October 1998 and 22 December 1998 the Tirana Municipality's Council for Territorial Planning (Këshilli i Rregullimit Territorit të Bashkisë së Tiranës – “the municipal CTP”) granted the applicant company a planning permit and a building permit authorising it to erect a sixteen-storey building on the property. Consequently, on15 July 1999 the Tirana Municipality Technical Council (Këshilli Teknik i Bashkisë së Tiranës) authorised the applicant company to demolish the existing three-storey villa and erect the new construction in its place. 13.  On an unspecified date in 1999 the applicant company demolished the villa and developed the site according to the permits and plans approved by the Tirana Municipality (“the Municipality”). 14.  On 31 August 1999, while the construction work was under way, the Prefect of Tirana, (“the Prefect”) issued a notice suspending the work. The notice stated that the building permit should have been granted by the national Council for Territorial Planning (“the national CTP”) and that the Municipality had exceeded its competence by authorising the construction of such a large building in the centre of Tirana (see paragraph 59 below). 15.  On 6 September 1999 the Municipality informed the Prefect that the building permit was in order and had been issued on the basis of the relevant legal provisions. Notwithstanding this, on 4 October 1999, the Tirana Construction Police (Policia Ndërtimore) enforced the Prefect's notice and suspended work on the construction site. 16.  On 12 January 2000, acting on the applicant company's request, the Prefect annulled his previous notice and the building work resumed. 17.  On 22 January 2000 the Minister of Public Works (“the Minister”) ordered the suspension of the construction work on the basis that the municipal CTP's decisions (see paragraph 12 above) had to be examined and approved by the national CTP. On the same day the Tirana Construction Police enforced the Minister's order by suspending the work again. 18.  On 26 January 2000 the applicant company unsuccessfully filed an application with the Director of the national Construction Police to have the suspension order lifted. 19.  On 9 February 2000 the national CTP decided that a legal interpretation of the validity of the building permit was needed, stating that the permit had been adopted on the basis of the Urban Planning Act 1993, which had been repealed at the material time. It did not revoke the suspension order. Nor did the decision explicitly indicate the body that was to be responsible for the legal interpretation. However, it appears that the decision was addressed to the Municipality, requesting it to issue a new urban plan of the area and to inform the national CTP accordingly. 20.  On 13 March 2000 and 3 May 2000 the Ministry of Public Works requested the Tirana Municipality to comply with the national CTP's decision. 21.  According to the individual applicants and the applicant company, on an unspecified date in 2000 the Municipality confirmed the validity of its decisions of 23 October 1998 and 22 December 1998. However, no substantiating document was produced. 2. The judicial proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the Minister's order and the action of the Construction Police of 22 January 2000 22.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the applicant company challenged the validity of the above acts (see paragraph 17 above). 23.  On 11 July 2000 the District Court dismissed their application. In its reasoning it found that the building permit was null and void as it had been issued on the basis of the Urban Planning Act 1993, which was not in force at the material time. The operative part of the judgment did not state that the building permit was null and void. 24.  On 4 January 2001 the Tirana Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the District Court's judgment. It upheld the applicant company's grounds of appeal and annulled the Minister's order and the action of the Construction Police. 25.  On 29 March 2001, following an appeal by the Construction Police, the Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal's judgment and upheld that of the District Court. The Supreme Court found that the prefect's decision of 12 January 2000 was ultra vires in so far as the proceedings were pending before the national CTP. Given the circumstances, the Minister and the Tirana Construction Police had suspended the work on 22 January 2000. The judgment stated the following:
“(...) The court notes that the national CTP's decision is not final. It does not determine the merits of the case at issue, but it implies that they will be determined once the tasks emanating from the decision have been completed. Point (a) of the national CTP's decision [the legal interpretation of the municipal CTP decision of22 December 1998] questions the lawfulness of the building permit issued by the municipal CTP. It does not, however, take a final decision on the matter, even though it should have done so. It is not clear as to who is to make the legal interpretation of the municipal CTP decision. (...)
The contents of points (b) [the preparation of a new urban plan of the area] and (c) [the Municipality's obligation to comply with the national CTP decision and inform it accordingly] of the national CTP decision reinforce the conclusion that the decision is not final.
The final decision shall be taken after the municipal CTP issues a new urban plan of the area, which shall be subject to examination by the national CTP.
(...)
It is incumbent upon the national CTP to fully, unequivocally and finally address the above issues. Only after the administrative remedies have been exhausted, with the help of the national CTP (...), can the matter be referred to the courts for the protection of property rights and other rights in rem of parties bordering on the plot of land (...).
The prefect represents the Council of Ministers [the Central Government] to the local government. He has been invested with powers by law. However, when an issue has been transferred to the Central Government, even by his own motion, he cannot exercise any other right. Otherwise, that would be considered an excess of powers.” 26.  However, in the same judgment the Supreme Court went on to declare the building permit null and void for the following reasons:
“(...) It results that at the time the building permit was granted, the Urban Planning Act 1993, which redefined the composition of the municipal CTP, had been repealed. Article 19 of the new [Urban Planning] Act of 1998 establishes the new composition of the municipal CTP, made up of 21 members, stipulating the respective functions and tasks to be carried out.
(...) The new [1998] Act entered into force on 25 October 1998.
Given that the new Act does not contain any transitional provisions which would render legitimate the continuation of the municipal CTP's work on the basis of the 1993 Act, the new [municipal] CTP should have been established in compliance with the composition and selection criteria of its members laid down in the new [1998] Act.
Consequently, any decision taken by the previous CTP [on the basis of the Urban Planning Act 1993] is considered null. A decision taken by an organ which has been revoked by law and on the basis of a repealed law is null and, as such, cannot yield any legal consequences.
That being so, the [applicant company's] building permit of 22 December 1998 is considered null and void.
In view of the foregoing, the Civil Bench of the Supreme Court concludes that the District Court's judgment was not ultra vires when it considered the building permit null and void, even though this was not part of the object of those proceedings.
[The District Court] did not examine the [applicant company's] right to continue the building work as this would have been beyond the scope of the examination of the administrative dispute before it.” 27.  The operative part of the Supreme Court's ruling did not contain any mention of the invalidity of the building permit. The judgment became final on the same day as none of the parties filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court. 28.  On 19 March 2001 the Embassy, whose premises are adjacent to the construction site, challenged the validity of the building permit. The individual applicants intervened in the proceedings as third parties (ndërhyrës dytësor). 29.  On 28 May 2002 the District Court declared the building permit null and void. Without explicitly referring to the Supreme Court's ruling of 29 March 2001 (see paragraph 26 above), the reasoning of the District Court stated that the building permit had been issued on the strength of the Urban Planning Act 1993, which had been repealed at the material time. 30.  The individual applicants and the applicant company appealed. On 3 March 2003 the Court of Appeal requested the national CTP to rule on the validity of the building permit in the light of the Supreme Court's finding of 29 March 2001 that all administrative remedies had to be exhausted (see paragraph 25 above). 31.  On 18 June 2003 the national CTP upheld the validity of the building permit issued by the Municipality. In its letter to the Court of Appeal the Minister of Territorial Planning, acting as the deputy chairman of the national CTP, indicated that the judicial proceedings pending before the Court of Appeal would examine and finally resolve the dispute (është procesi gjyqësor që do të bëjë vlerësimin dhe do të zgjidhë përfundimisht konfliktin e paraqitur në lidhje me këtë objekt). 32.  On 3 October 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed the District Court's judgment and dismissed the case. In its reasoning, it stated that the Embassy had lodged its action outside the time-limits prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that the building permit was declared lawful, although no mention of this was made in the operative part of the judgment. The Court of Appeal did not make any reference to the reasoning of the Supreme Court's judgment of 29 March 2001, which had declared the building permit null and void (see paragraph 26 above). There was no order in the judgment for the construction work to be resumed. 33.  On 15 September 2003 the applicant company requested the Construction Police to cancel the order for the suspension of building work on the strength of the national CTP's decision of 18 June 2003 (see paragraph 31 above). 34.  The Construction Police requested the applicant company to update the file relating to the work by presenting ex novo the necessary documents in order for them to consider the request. The applicant company submitted the documents as requested. No response from the police was received. 35.  On 29 December 2004, following the applicant company's request for intervention, the Albanian Ombudsperson (Avokati i Popullit) acknowledged that the building permit had been declared null and void by the Supreme Court's judgment of 29 March 2001 and refused to intervene. 36.  On 20 April 2005, following an appeal by the Embassy, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's judgment of 3 October 2003. It found that the Embassy did not have locus standi to challenge the impugned building permit and reasoned, in so far as relevant, as follows.
“The building permit relates to an administrative-legal relationship between the construction company [the applicant company] and the national CTP. The action filed by the plaintiff [the Embassy] cannot pertain outside the context of an action concerning the cessation of interference with its property rights (...)
Article 32 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulates: “A civil legal action is lodged in order to seek the restoration of a right or legitimate interest that has been violated.” (...)
In the instant case, no legitimate interest within the meaning of the provision cited above has been invoked. [The Embassy] has not argued any violation or denial of a right directly caused to it by the defendant's building permit. Since the lodging of the civil action and throughout the [court] proceedings, [the Embassy] has merely set out some procedural violations associated with the granting of the building permit. The existence or otherwise of these violations cannot impinge upon a claimant's subjective right. The claimant would have locus standi if it alleged that the company's construction work resulted in an infringement of its property rights. Even though [the Embassy] initially introduced such a claim, it subsequently withdrew it and did not refer it to the court.
(...) the court concludes that [the Embassy] lacks a legal interest and therefore lacks locus standi to lodge the civil action.
(...)
The claimant argued that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to accept that the national CTP had ruled on the validity of the building permit as no decision had been issued by that authority. This complaint relates to the determination of the merits of the case, on which the court deems it inappropriate to rule one way or the other.
In the light of the above conclusions, there are no other legal grounds to challenge the Court of Appeal's judgment.” 37.  In its ruling, the Supreme Court did not examine the lawfulness of the building permit. The judgment became final on the same day, as none of the parties filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court. 38.  On 22 June 2005 the applicant company, considering that the lawfulness of the building permit had been upheld by the Supreme Court's judgment of 20 April 2005, and given the inactivity of the Construction Police, informed the Municipality that it had decided to resume the construction notwithstanding the fact that a suspending order was still in force. 39.  On 23 June 2005 the Municipal Police (Policia Bashkiake) inspected the construction site and ordered the suspension of work until such time as security measures were properly observed. 40.  On 29 June 2005 the Municipal Police extended the suspension order on account of some breaches of urban planning rules. In a letter of 4 July 2005 the applicant company provided explanations concerning the alleged breaches. 41.  On 30 November 2005, following the applicant company's request for permission to resume the building work, the Construction Police informed them that the request concerning the dispute between the applicant company and the Municipal Police was outside their jurisdiction. 42.  On an unspecified date in 2005 the Embassy initiated another set of proceedings with the District Court alleging that the new construction breached its property rights. 43.  On 14 December 2005 the District Court delivered its judgment finding that the new building would not comply with urban planning distances and therefore breached the Embassy's property rights. The District Court ordered the suspension of construction work until the final determination of the dispute. It relied on the Supreme Court's judgment of 29 March 2001, which had declared the building permit null and void. 44.  On an unspecified date between 2005 and 2006 the applicant company challenged the lawfulness of the District Court's judgment before the Court of Appeal, arguing that the Court of Appeal's judgment of 3 October 2003, which had become final, confirmed the validity of the building permit (see paragraph 32 above). The District Court's judgment of 14 December 2005 had quashed that final ruling, thereby contravening the principle of legal certainty. 45.  Two months later, the District Court's judgment had not yet been served on the applicant company. On 15 March 2006, following complaints by the applicant company, the High Council of Justice informed them that the case had been sent to the Ministry of Justice for the appropriate disciplinary proceedings to be taken against the District Court judges who had failed to deliver the judgment. In a letter of 5 April 2006 the applicant company complained to the Court of Appeal that they had not yet been served with a copy of the District Court's judgment. The case file indicates that the judgment was served on them at some point after 5 April 2006. 46.  On 13 June 2007 the Court of Appeal quashed the District Court's judgment. It found that there had been no interference with the Embassy's property rights since the construction had barely started, so there was no building to comply with urban planning distances. It further held that as the Supreme Court had found in its judgment of 29 March 2001 that the building permit was not valid, there could be no interference with the Embassy's property rights. It finally dismissed the case. 47.  On an unspecified date in 2007 the Embassy appealed to the Supreme Court. On 14 July 2009 the Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible in accordance with Article 472 of the Code of Civil Procedure (no valid grounds of appeal). 48.  On 1 August 2007 the Tirana Construction Police informed the Embassy and the Ministry of Public Works that they would comply with the Court of Appeal's judgment of 13 June 2007, which, in their opinion, had confirmed the lawfulness of the applicant company's building permit. 49.  On 21 August 2007, at the applicant company's request, the District Court issued a writ of execution in respect of the Court of Appeal's judgment of 13 June 2007. 50.  On an unspecified date in 2007 the applicant company resumed the construction work, which was subsequently suspended by the Construction Police on 11 September 2007 with the cooperation of the police. 51.  On 13 September 2007 the Municipal Construction Inspectorate (“MCI”) requested the applicant company to provide some missing technical documents. 52.  On 19 September 2007, at the applicant company's request, the Tirana prosecutor's office enquired about the lawfulness of the action of the Construction Police of 11 September 2007 in the absence of any written notice of the suspension of construction work. The applicant company maintained that the validity of the building permit had been acknowledged by the national CTP and confirmed by the judgments of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of 3 October 2003 and 20 April 2005, respectively. 53.  On 24 September 2007 the MCI ordered the suspension of the construction work because certain technical documents were missing from the file. On 1 October 2007 the applicant company appealed to the National Construction Inspectorate (“the NCI”). On 30 October 2007 the NCI informed the applicant company that they should submit their concerns to the MCI. 54.  On 5 January 2008, noting that some technical documents were missing, the MCI decided to suspend the work. There is no indication that an appeal was filed against that decision. On 16 January 2008 the MCI extended the suspension order for a period of sixty days. 55.  On 18 March 2008 the MCI decided to stop the construction work altogether and demolish what had already been built. There is no indication that an appeal was filed against that decision. Nor is there any information that the existing construction has been demolished.