Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217) - Petani Law & Tax<\/title>\r\n <script src=\"https:\/\/cdn.tailwindcss.com\"><\/script>\r\n <link href=\"https:\/\/fonts.googleapis.com\/css2?family=Inter:wght=300;400;500;600;700&family=Playfair+Display:ital,wght=0,400;0,600;0,700;1,400;1,700&display=swap\" rel=\"stylesheet\">\r\n \r\n <style>\r\n :root {\r\n --gold: #c5a059;\r\n --gold-light: #dfc493;\r\n --espresso: #1a0f0a;\r\n --brown-deep: #2c1810;\r\n --cream: #fdfcf9;\r\n }\r\n body { font-family: 'Inter', sans-serif; background-color: var(--cream); color: var(--espresso); line-height: 1.8; }\r\n .serif { font-family: 'Playfair Display', serif; }\r\n \r\n .lang-nav-container { width: 100%; display: flex; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 3rem; }\r\n .lang-nav { display: inline-flex; background-color: var(--espresso); padding: 4px; border-radius: 9999px; border: 1px solid var(--gold); }\r\n .language-btn { padding: 8px 24px; border-radius: 9999px; font-size: 0.875rem; font-weight: 600; color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.7); transition: all 0.3s ease; text-transform: uppercase; cursor: pointer; border: none; background: transparent; }\r\n .language-btn.active { background-color: var(--gold); color: white; box-shadow: 0 4px 12px rgba(0,0,0,0.1); }\r\n\r\n .content-section { display: none; }\r\n .content-section.active { display: block; animation: fadeIn 0.6s ease-out; }\r\n @keyframes fadeIn { from { opacity: 0; transform: translateY(15px); } to { opacity: 1; transform: translateY(0); } }\r\n\r\n .drop-cap::first-letter { float: left; font-family: 'Playfair Display', serif; font-size: 4.5rem; line-height: 3.5rem; padding-top: 8px; padding-right: 12px; color: var(--gold); font-weight: 700; }\r\n p { margin-bottom: 1.5rem; font-size: 1.125rem; color: #333; }\r\n \r\n .case-card { background-color: var(--brown-deep) !important; color: #ffffff !important; border-left: 4px solid var(--gold); }\r\n .case-card p, .case-card h3 { color: #ffffff !important; }\r\n <\/style>\r\n<\/head>\r\n<body class=\"antialiased\">\r\n\r\n <main class=\"max-w-4xl mx-auto px-6 py-12\">\r\n \r\n \r\n <div class=\"relative w-full h-[400px] rounded-3xl overflow-hidden shadow-2xl mb-12 border-b-4 border-[var(--gold)]\">\r\n <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/images.pexels.com\/photos\/8850747\/pexels-photo-8850747.jpeg\" alt=\"Shpron\u00ebsimet dhe e Drejta e Pron\u00ebsis\u00eb\" class=\"w-full h-full object-cover brightness-[0.65]\">\r\n <div class=\"absolute inset-0 bg-gradient-to-t from-black\/90 to-transparent\"><\/div>\r\n <div class=\"absolute bottom-8 left-8 text-white pr-8\">\r\n <p class=\"text-[var(--gold)] tracking-widest uppercase font-semibold text-sm mb-2\">Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 Kolegji Administrativ<\/p>\r\n <h1 class=\"serif text-4xl font-bold leading-tight\">Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217)<\/h1>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n <div class=\"lang-nav-container sticky top-4 z-50\">\r\n <div class=\"lang-nav shadow-2xl backdrop-blur-md bg-[#1a0f0a]\/95\">\r\n <button onclick=\"switchLang('sq')\" id=\"btn-sq\" class=\"language-btn active\">Sq<\/button>\r\n <button onclick=\"switchLang('en')\" id=\"btn-en\" class=\"language-btn\">En<\/button>\r\n <button onclick=\"switchLang('it')\" id=\"btn-it\" class=\"language-btn\">It<\/button>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article id=\"lang-sq\" class=\"content-section active\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217), dat\u00eb 16.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">Afati 60-ditor i parashikuar nga ligji i posa\u00e7\u00ebm p\u00ebr shpron\u00ebsimet nuk zbatohet ndaj k\u00ebrkimeve q\u00eb lidhen me marrjen <i>de facto<\/i> t\u00eb pron\u00ebs, kur organi publik nuk ka p\u00ebrmbushur detyrimin ligjor p\u00ebr kompensim dhe nuk ka dh\u00ebn\u00eb nj\u00eb akt p\u00ebrfundimtar p\u00ebr njohjen ose refuzimin e s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs. N\u00eb k\u00ebto raste, gjykata duhet t\u00eb identifikoj\u00eb shkakun e v\u00ebrtet\u00eb t\u00eb padis\u00eb nga p\u00ebrmbajtja e saj n\u00eb t\u00ebr\u00ebsi dhe t\u00eb verifikoj\u00eb n\u00ebse d\u00ebmi i pretenduar ka ardhur si pasoj\u00eb e mosveprimit t\u00eb organit publik.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor<\/h3>\r\n <p>N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, pala padit\u00ebse X pretendoi se p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb nd\u00ebrtimit t\u00eb Uj\u00ebmbledh\u00ebsit t\u00eb Bovill\u00ebs, familja e tij ishte shp\u00ebrngulur nga fshati Zall M\u00ebner dhe ishte p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb list\u00ebn e banor\u00ebve q\u00eb do t\u00eb p\u00ebrfitonin kompensim. Padit\u00ebsi pretendoi se ishte kompensuar vet\u00ebm me tok\u00eb bujq\u00ebsore, por jo me banes\u00eb dhe truall n\u00eb raport me numrin e frym\u00ebve t\u00eb familjes, ndaj k\u00ebrkoi kompensimin e munguar dhe shp\u00ebrblimin e frutave civile.<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Gjykata Administrative e Shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb Par\u00eb Tiran\u00eb e pranoi pjes\u00ebrisht padin\u00eb, nd\u00ebrsa Gjykata Administrative e Apelit e ndryshoi vendimin dhe e rr\u00ebzoi padin\u00eb, me arsyetimin se ishte paraqitur jasht\u00eb afatit 60-ditor t\u00eb parashikuar nga ligji i posa\u00e7\u00ebm p\u00ebr shpron\u00ebsimet.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Kolegji Administrativ i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb vler\u00ebsoi se Gjykata Administrative e Apelit nuk kishte identifikuar drejt shkakun e padis\u00eb dhe e kishte kufizuar gabimisht \u00e7\u00ebshtjen te afati i ankimit ndaj aktit t\u00eb shpron\u00ebsimit. Kolegji theksoi se k\u00ebrkimi i padit\u00ebsit nuk varej nga kund\u00ebrshtimi, shfuqizimi ose pavlefshm\u00ebria e VKM, por nga verifikimi n\u00ebse atij i ishte shkaktuar d\u00ebm si pasoj\u00eb e mosveprimit t\u00eb organit publik n\u00eb p\u00ebrmbushjen e detyrimit ligjor p\u00ebr kompensim.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n <p>P\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye, Gjykata e Lart\u00eb prishi vendimin e Gjykat\u00ebs Administrative t\u00eb Apelit dhe e ktheu \u00e7\u00ebshtjen p\u00ebr rigjykim n\u00eb at\u00eb gjykat\u00eb, me tjet\u00ebr trup gjykues.<\/p>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article id=\"lang-en\" class=\"content-section\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">Decision no. 00-2026-1382 (217), dated 16.04.2026 of the Administrative College<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">The statutory 60-day deadline provided by the special law on expropriations does not apply to claims related to the <i>de facto<\/i> taking of property, where the public authority has failed to fulfill its legal obligation to compensate and has not issued a final act recognizing or rejecting the right. In such cases, the court must identify the true cause of action from the claim as a whole and verify whether the alleged damage resulted from the public authority's omission to act.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">Case Summary & Legal Reasoning<\/h3>\r\n <p>In this case, plaintiff X claimed that due to the construction of the Bovilla Reservoir, his family was displaced from the village of Zall M\u00ebner and included in the list of residents eligible for compensation. The plaintiff asserted that he had only received agricultural land as compensation, but not residential housing or land proportional to the household size, thereby requesting the missing compensation and civil fruits (rental value).<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">The First Instance Administrative Court of Tirana partially accepted the lawsuit. However, the Administrative Court of Appeal reversed the decision and dismissed the suit, reasoning that it had been filed past the 60-day deadline specified in the special expropriation law.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">The Administrative College of the Supreme Court ruled that the Administrative Court of Appeal failed to correctly identify the cause of action and mistakenly restricted the matter to the appeal deadline against an expropriation act. The College emphasized that the plaintiff's claim did not depend on challenging, nullifying, or invalidating the Council of Ministers' Decision (VKM), but rather on determining whether harm was suffered due to the public authority's failure to fulfill its statutory duty of compensation.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n <p>Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the ruling of the Administrative Court of Appeal and remanded the case to that court for retrial by a different panel.<\/p>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article id=\"lang-it\" class=\"content-section\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">Sentenza n. 00-2026-1382 (217), del 16.04.2026 del Collegio Amministrativo<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">Il termine decadenziale di 60 giorni previsto dalla legge speciale sugli espropri non si applica alle domande relative all'occupazione <i>de facto<\/i> dell'immobile, qualora l'amministrazione pubblica non abbia adempiuto al proprio obbligo legale di indennizzo e non abbia adottato un atto definitivo di riconoscimento o rigetto del diritto. In tali casi, il giudice deve individuare la vera causa petendi dall'insieme del ricorso e verificare se il danno sia derivato dall'omissione della pubblica amministrazione.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica<\/h3>\r\n <p>Nel caso in esame, il ricorrente X ha sostenuto che, a seguito della costruzione dell'Invaso di Bovilla, la sua famiglia era stata sfollata dal villaggio di Zall M\u00ebner e inserita nell'elenco dei residenti aventi diritto all'indennizzo. Il ricorrente ha lamentato di essere stato compensato unicamente con terreno agricolo, ma non con un'abitazione e relativo terreno proporzionato al numero dei componenti del nucleo familiare, chiedendo quindi il risarcimento mancante e i frutti civili.<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Il Tribunale Amministrativo di Primo Grado di Tirana ha accolto parzialmente la domanda. Al contrario, la Corte d'Appello Amministrativa ha riformato la sentenza e rigettato il ricorso, ritenendolo proposto oltre il termine di 60 giorni previsto dalla legge speciale sugli espropri.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Il Collegio Amministrativo della Corte Suprema ha rilevato che la Corte d'Appello Amministrativa non aveva identificato correttamente la causa petendi, limitando erroneamente la questione al termine di impugnazione dell'atto di esproprio. Il Collegio ha evidenziato che la pretesa dell'attore non dipendeva dall'impugnazione o dall'invalidit\u00e0 della Delibera del Consiglio dei Ministri (VKM), bens\u00ec dall'accertamento del danno subito a causa dell'inerzia della P.A. nell'adempiere ai propri obblighi di legge.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n <p>Per questi motivi, la Corte Suprema ha annullato la decisione della Corte d'Appello Amministrativa e ha rinviato la causa dinanzi alla medesima corte, in diversa composizione, per un nuovo giudizio.<\/p>\r\n <\/article>\r\n <\/main>\r\n\r\n <script>\r\n function switchLang(lang) {\r\n \/\/ Hide all sections\r\n document.querySelectorAll('.content-section').forEach(s => s.classList.remove('active'));\r\n \/\/ Show selected section\r\n document.getElementById('lang-' + lang).classList.add('active');\r\n \/\/ Update button states\r\n document.querySelectorAll('.language-btn').forEach(b => b.classList.remove('active'));\r\n document.getElementById('btn-' + lang).classList.add('active');\r\n \/\/ Smooth scroll to top of navigation\r\n window.scrollTo({ top: document.querySelector('.lang-nav-container').offsetTop - 20, behavior: 'smooth' });\r\n }\r\n <\/script>\r\n<\/body>\r\n<\/html>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217) – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 Kolegji Administrativ Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217) Sq En It Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217), dat\u00eb 16.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ Afati 60-ditor i parashikuar nga ligji i posa\u00e7\u00ebm p\u00ebr shpron\u00ebsimet nuk zbatohet ndaj k\u00ebrkimeve q\u00eb lidhen me marrjen de facto t\u00eb pron\u00ebs, kur organi publik nuk ka p\u00ebrmbushur detyrimin ligjor p\u00ebr kompensim dhe nuk ka dh\u00ebn\u00eb nj\u00eb akt p\u00ebrfundimtar p\u00ebr njohjen ose refuzimin e s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs. N\u00eb k\u00ebto raste, gjykata duhet t\u00eb identifikoj\u00eb shkakun e v\u00ebrtet\u00eb t\u00eb padis\u00eb nga p\u00ebrmbajtja e saj n\u00eb t\u00ebr\u00ebsi dhe t\u00eb verifikoj\u00eb n\u00ebse d\u00ebmi i pretenduar ka ardhur si pasoj\u00eb e mosveprimit t\u00eb organit publik. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, pala padit\u00ebse X pretendoi se p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb nd\u00ebrtimit t\u00eb Uj\u00ebmbledh\u00ebsit t\u00eb Bovill\u00ebs, familja e tij ishte shp\u00ebrngulur nga fshati Zall M\u00ebner dhe ishte p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb list\u00ebn e banor\u00ebve q\u00eb do t\u00eb p\u00ebrfitonin kompensim. Padit\u00ebsi pretendoi se ishte kompensuar vet\u00ebm me tok\u00eb bujq\u00ebsore, por jo me banes\u00eb dhe truall n\u00eb raport me numrin e frym\u00ebve t\u00eb familjes, ndaj k\u00ebrkoi kompensimin e munguar dhe shp\u00ebrblimin e frutave civile. Gjykata Administrative e Shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb Par\u00eb Tiran\u00eb e pranoi pjes\u00ebrisht padin\u00eb, nd\u00ebrsa Gjykata Administrative e Apelit e ndryshoi vendimin dhe e rr\u00ebzoi padin\u00eb, me arsyetimin se ishte paraqitur jasht\u00eb afatit 60-ditor t\u00eb parashikuar nga ligji i posa\u00e7\u00ebm p\u00ebr shpron\u00ebsimet. Kolegji Administrativ i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb vler\u00ebsoi se Gjykata Administrative e Apelit nuk kishte identifikuar drejt shkakun e padis\u00eb dhe e kishte kufizuar gabimisht \u00e7\u00ebshtjen te afati i ankimit ndaj aktit t\u00eb shpron\u00ebsimit. Kolegji theksoi se k\u00ebrkimi i padit\u00ebsit nuk varej nga kund\u00ebrshtimi, shfuqizimi ose pavlefshm\u00ebria e VKM, por nga verifikimi n\u00ebse atij i ishte shkaktuar d\u00ebm si pasoj\u00eb e mosveprimit t\u00eb organit publik n\u00eb p\u00ebrmbushjen e detyrimit ligjor p\u00ebr kompensim. P\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye, Gjykata e Lart\u00eb prishi vendimin e Gjykat\u00ebs Administrative t\u00eb Apelit dhe e ktheu \u00e7\u00ebshtjen p\u00ebr rigjykim n\u00eb at\u00eb gjykat\u00eb, me tjet\u00ebr trup gjykues. Decision no. 00-2026-1382 (217), dated 16.04.2026 of the Administrative College The statutory 60-day deadline provided by the special law on expropriations does not apply to claims related to the de facto taking of property, where the public authority has failed to fulfill its legal obligation to compensate and has not issued a final act recognizing or rejecting the right. In such cases, the court must identify the true cause of action from the claim as a whole and verify whether the alleged damage resulted from the public authority’s omission to act. Case Summary & Legal Reasoning In this case, plaintiff X claimed that due to the construction of the Bovilla Reservoir, his family was displaced from the village of Zall M\u00ebner and included in the list of residents eligible for compensation. The plaintiff asserted that he had only received agricultural land as compensation, but not residential housing or land proportional to the household size, thereby requesting the missing compensation and civil fruits (rental value). The First Instance Administrative Court of Tirana partially accepted the lawsuit. However, the Administrative Court of Appeal reversed the decision and dismissed the suit, reasoning that it had been filed past the 60-day deadline specified in the special expropriation law. The Administrative College of the Supreme Court ruled that the Administrative Court of Appeal failed to correctly identify the cause of action and mistakenly restricted the matter to the appeal deadline against an expropriation act. The College emphasized that the plaintiff’s claim did not depend on challenging, nullifying, or invalidating the Council of Ministers’ Decision (VKM), but rather on determining whether harm was suffered due to the public authority’s failure to fulfill its statutory duty of compensation. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the ruling of the Administrative Court of Appeal and remanded the case to that court for retrial by a different panel. Sentenza n. 00-2026-1382 (217), del 16.04.2026 del Collegio Amministrativo Il termine decadenziale di 60 giorni previsto dalla legge speciale sugli espropri non si applica alle domande relative all’occupazione de facto dell’immobile, qualora l’amministrazione pubblica non abbia adempiuto al proprio obbligo legale di indennizzo e non abbia adottato un atto definitivo di riconoscimento o rigetto del diritto. In tali casi, il giudice deve individuare la vera causa petendi dall’insieme del ricorso e verificare se il danno sia derivato dall’omissione della pubblica amministrazione. Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica Nel caso in esame, il ricorrente X ha sostenuto che, a seguito della costruzione dell’Invaso di Bovilla, la sua famiglia era stata sfollata dal villaggio di Zall M\u00ebner e inserita nell’elenco dei residenti aventi diritto all’indennizzo. Il ricorrente ha lamentato di essere stato compensato unicamente con terreno agricolo, ma non con un’abitazione e relativo terreno proporzionato al numero dei componenti del nucleo familiare, chiedendo quindi il risarcimento mancante e i frutti civili. Il Tribunale Amministrativo di Primo Grado di Tirana ha accolto parzialmente la domanda. Al contrario, la Corte d’Appello Amministrativa ha riformato la sentenza e rigettato il ricorso, ritenendolo proposto oltre il termine di 60 giorni previsto dalla legge speciale sugli espropri. Il Collegio Amministrativo della Corte Suprema ha rilevato che la Corte d’Appello Amministrativa non aveva identificato correttamente la causa petendi, limitando erroneamente la questione al termine di impugnazione dell’atto di esproprio. Il Collegio ha evidenziato che la pretesa dell’attore non dipendeva dall’impugnazione o dall’invalidit\u00e0 della Delibera del Consiglio dei Ministri (VKM), bens\u00ec dall’accertamento del danno subito a causa dell’inerzia della P.A. nell’adempiere ai propri obblighi di legge. Per questi motivi, la Corte Suprema ha annullato la decisione della Corte d’Appello Amministrativa e ha rinviato la causa dinanzi alla medesima corte, in diversa composizione, per un nuovo giudizio.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3637,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"elementor_header_footer","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4185","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-petani-blog"],"yoast_head":"\n<title>Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217),\u00a0dat\u00eb\u00a016.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ - Petani Law Firm<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"sq_AL\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217),\u00a0dat\u00eb\u00a016.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ - Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217) – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 Kolegji Administrativ Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217) Sq En It Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217), dat\u00eb 16.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ Afati 60-ditor i parashikuar nga ligji i posa\u00e7\u00ebm p\u00ebr shpron\u00ebsimet nuk zbatohet ndaj k\u00ebrkimeve q\u00eb lidhen me marrjen de facto t\u00eb pron\u00ebs, kur organi publik nuk ka p\u00ebrmbushur detyrimin ligjor p\u00ebr kompensim dhe nuk ka dh\u00ebn\u00eb nj\u00eb akt p\u00ebrfundimtar p\u00ebr njohjen ose refuzimin e s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs. N\u00eb k\u00ebto raste, gjykata duhet t\u00eb identifikoj\u00eb shkakun e v\u00ebrtet\u00eb t\u00eb padis\u00eb nga p\u00ebrmbajtja e saj n\u00eb t\u00ebr\u00ebsi dhe t\u00eb verifikoj\u00eb n\u00ebse d\u00ebmi i pretenduar ka ardhur si pasoj\u00eb e mosveprimit t\u00eb organit publik. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, pala padit\u00ebse X pretendoi se p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb nd\u00ebrtimit t\u00eb Uj\u00ebmbledh\u00ebsit t\u00eb Bovill\u00ebs, familja e tij ishte shp\u00ebrngulur nga fshati Zall M\u00ebner dhe ishte p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb list\u00ebn e banor\u00ebve q\u00eb do t\u00eb p\u00ebrfitonin kompensim. Padit\u00ebsi pretendoi se ishte kompensuar vet\u00ebm me tok\u00eb bujq\u00ebsore, por jo me banes\u00eb dhe truall n\u00eb raport me numrin e frym\u00ebve t\u00eb familjes, ndaj k\u00ebrkoi kompensimin e munguar dhe shp\u00ebrblimin e frutave civile. Gjykata Administrative e Shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb Par\u00eb Tiran\u00eb e pranoi pjes\u00ebrisht padin\u00eb, nd\u00ebrsa Gjykata Administrative e Apelit e ndryshoi vendimin dhe e rr\u00ebzoi padin\u00eb, me arsyetimin se ishte paraqitur jasht\u00eb afatit 60-ditor t\u00eb parashikuar nga ligji i posa\u00e7\u00ebm p\u00ebr shpron\u00ebsimet. Kolegji Administrativ i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb vler\u00ebsoi se Gjykata Administrative e Apelit nuk kishte identifikuar drejt shkakun e padis\u00eb dhe e kishte kufizuar gabimisht \u00e7\u00ebshtjen te afati i ankimit ndaj aktit t\u00eb shpron\u00ebsimit. Kolegji theksoi se k\u00ebrkimi i padit\u00ebsit nuk varej nga kund\u00ebrshtimi, shfuqizimi ose pavlefshm\u00ebria e VKM, por nga verifikimi n\u00ebse atij i ishte shkaktuar d\u00ebm si pasoj\u00eb e mosveprimit t\u00eb organit publik n\u00eb p\u00ebrmbushjen e detyrimit ligjor p\u00ebr kompensim. P\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye, Gjykata e Lart\u00eb prishi vendimin e Gjykat\u00ebs Administrative t\u00eb Apelit dhe e ktheu \u00e7\u00ebshtjen p\u00ebr rigjykim n\u00eb at\u00eb gjykat\u00eb, me tjet\u00ebr trup gjykues. Decision no. 00-2026-1382 (217), dated 16.04.2026 of the Administrative College The statutory 60-day deadline provided by the special law on expropriations does not apply to claims related to the de facto taking of property, where the public authority has failed to fulfill its legal obligation to compensate and has not issued a final act recognizing or rejecting the right. In such cases, the court must identify the true cause of action from the claim as a whole and verify whether the alleged damage resulted from the public authority’s omission to act. Case Summary & Legal Reasoning In this case, plaintiff X claimed that due to the construction of the Bovilla Reservoir, his family was displaced from the village of Zall M\u00ebner and included in the list of residents eligible for compensation. The plaintiff asserted that he had only received agricultural land as compensation, but not residential housing or land proportional to the household size, thereby requesting the missing compensation and civil fruits (rental value). The First Instance Administrative Court of Tirana partially accepted the lawsuit. However, the Administrative Court of Appeal reversed the decision and dismissed the suit, reasoning that it had been filed past the 60-day deadline specified in the special expropriation law. The Administrative College of the Supreme Court ruled that the Administrative Court of Appeal failed to correctly identify the cause of action and mistakenly restricted the matter to the appeal deadline against an expropriation act. The College emphasized that the plaintiff’s claim did not depend on challenging, nullifying, or invalidating the Council of Ministers’ Decision (VKM), but rather on determining whether harm was suffered due to the public authority’s failure to fulfill its statutory duty of compensation. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the ruling of the Administrative Court of Appeal and remanded the case to that court for retrial by a different panel. Sentenza n. 00-2026-1382 (217), del 16.04.2026 del Collegio Amministrativo Il termine decadenziale di 60 giorni previsto dalla legge speciale sugli espropri non si applica alle domande relative all’occupazione de facto dell’immobile, qualora l’amministrazione pubblica non abbia adempiuto al proprio obbligo legale di indennizzo e non abbia adottato un atto definitivo di riconoscimento o rigetto del diritto. In tali casi, il giudice deve individuare la vera causa petendi dall’insieme del ricorso e verificare se il danno sia derivato dall’omissione della pubblica amministrazione. Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica Nel caso in esame, il ricorrente X ha sostenuto che, a seguito della costruzione dell’Invaso di Bovilla, la sua famiglia era stata sfollata dal villaggio di Zall M\u00ebner e inserita nell’elenco dei residenti aventi diritto all’indennizzo. Il ricorrente ha lamentato di essere stato compensato unicamente con terreno agricolo, ma non con un’abitazione e relativo terreno proporzionato al numero dei componenti del nucleo familiare, chiedendo quindi il risarcimento mancante e i frutti civili. Il Tribunale Amministrativo di Primo Grado di Tirana ha accolto parzialmente la domanda. Al contrario, la Corte d’Appello Amministrativa ha riformato la sentenza e rigettato il ricorso, ritenendolo proposto oltre il termine di 60 giorni previsto dalla legge speciale sugli espropri. Il Collegio Amministrativo della Corte Suprema ha rilevato che la Corte d’Appello Amministrativa non aveva identificato correttamente la causa petendi, limitando erroneamente la questione al termine di impugnazione dell’atto di esproprio. Il Collegio ha evidenziato che la pretesa dell’attore non dipendeva dall’impugnazione o dall’invalidit\u00e0 della Delibera del Consiglio dei Ministri (VKM), bens\u00ec dall’accertamento del danno subito a causa dell’inerzia della P.A. nell’adempiere ai propri obblighi di legge. Per questi motivi, la Corte Suprema ha annullato la decisione della Corte d’Appello Amministrativa e ha rinviato la causa dinanzi alla medesima corte, in diversa composizione, per un nuovo giudizio.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-24T08:37:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-24T08:37:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Stafi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Stafi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minuta\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Stafi\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90\"},\"headline\":\"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217),\u00a0dat\u00eb\u00a016.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-24T08:37:18+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-24T08:37:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1012,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"articleSection\":[\"Petani Blog\"],\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/\",\"name\":\"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217),\u00a0dat\u00eb\u00a016.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ - Petani Law Firm\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-24T08:37:18+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-24T08:37:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":2560},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217),\u00a0dat\u00eb\u00a016.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/\",\"name\":\"Petani Law Firm\",\"description\":\"Law Firm in Durr\u00ebs\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"sq\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Petani Law Firm\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/04\\\/logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/04\\\/logo.png\",\"width\":500,\"height\":155,\"caption\":\"Petani Law Firm\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90\",\"name\":\"Stafi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"caption\":\"Stafi\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/author\\\/admin\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217),\u00a0dat\u00eb\u00a016.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ - Petani Law Firm","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/","og_locale":"sq_AL","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217),\u00a0dat\u00eb\u00a016.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ - Petani Law Firm","og_description":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217) – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 Kolegji Administrativ Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217) Sq En It Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217), dat\u00eb 16.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ Afati 60-ditor i parashikuar nga ligji i posa\u00e7\u00ebm p\u00ebr shpron\u00ebsimet nuk zbatohet ndaj k\u00ebrkimeve q\u00eb lidhen me marrjen de facto t\u00eb pron\u00ebs, kur organi publik nuk ka p\u00ebrmbushur detyrimin ligjor p\u00ebr kompensim dhe nuk ka dh\u00ebn\u00eb nj\u00eb akt p\u00ebrfundimtar p\u00ebr njohjen ose refuzimin e s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs. N\u00eb k\u00ebto raste, gjykata duhet t\u00eb identifikoj\u00eb shkakun e v\u00ebrtet\u00eb t\u00eb padis\u00eb nga p\u00ebrmbajtja e saj n\u00eb t\u00ebr\u00ebsi dhe t\u00eb verifikoj\u00eb n\u00ebse d\u00ebmi i pretenduar ka ardhur si pasoj\u00eb e mosveprimit t\u00eb organit publik. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, pala padit\u00ebse X pretendoi se p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb nd\u00ebrtimit t\u00eb Uj\u00ebmbledh\u00ebsit t\u00eb Bovill\u00ebs, familja e tij ishte shp\u00ebrngulur nga fshati Zall M\u00ebner dhe ishte p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb list\u00ebn e banor\u00ebve q\u00eb do t\u00eb p\u00ebrfitonin kompensim. Padit\u00ebsi pretendoi se ishte kompensuar vet\u00ebm me tok\u00eb bujq\u00ebsore, por jo me banes\u00eb dhe truall n\u00eb raport me numrin e frym\u00ebve t\u00eb familjes, ndaj k\u00ebrkoi kompensimin e munguar dhe shp\u00ebrblimin e frutave civile. Gjykata Administrative e Shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb Par\u00eb Tiran\u00eb e pranoi pjes\u00ebrisht padin\u00eb, nd\u00ebrsa Gjykata Administrative e Apelit e ndryshoi vendimin dhe e rr\u00ebzoi padin\u00eb, me arsyetimin se ishte paraqitur jasht\u00eb afatit 60-ditor t\u00eb parashikuar nga ligji i posa\u00e7\u00ebm p\u00ebr shpron\u00ebsimet. Kolegji Administrativ i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb vler\u00ebsoi se Gjykata Administrative e Apelit nuk kishte identifikuar drejt shkakun e padis\u00eb dhe e kishte kufizuar gabimisht \u00e7\u00ebshtjen te afati i ankimit ndaj aktit t\u00eb shpron\u00ebsimit. Kolegji theksoi se k\u00ebrkimi i padit\u00ebsit nuk varej nga kund\u00ebrshtimi, shfuqizimi ose pavlefshm\u00ebria e VKM, por nga verifikimi n\u00ebse atij i ishte shkaktuar d\u00ebm si pasoj\u00eb e mosveprimit t\u00eb organit publik n\u00eb p\u00ebrmbushjen e detyrimit ligjor p\u00ebr kompensim. P\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye, Gjykata e Lart\u00eb prishi vendimin e Gjykat\u00ebs Administrative t\u00eb Apelit dhe e ktheu \u00e7\u00ebshtjen p\u00ebr rigjykim n\u00eb at\u00eb gjykat\u00eb, me tjet\u00ebr trup gjykues. Decision no. 00-2026-1382 (217), dated 16.04.2026 of the Administrative College The statutory 60-day deadline provided by the special law on expropriations does not apply to claims related to the de facto taking of property, where the public authority has failed to fulfill its legal obligation to compensate and has not issued a final act recognizing or rejecting the right. In such cases, the court must identify the true cause of action from the claim as a whole and verify whether the alleged damage resulted from the public authority’s omission to act. Case Summary & Legal Reasoning In this case, plaintiff X claimed that due to the construction of the Bovilla Reservoir, his family was displaced from the village of Zall M\u00ebner and included in the list of residents eligible for compensation. The plaintiff asserted that he had only received agricultural land as compensation, but not residential housing or land proportional to the household size, thereby requesting the missing compensation and civil fruits (rental value). The First Instance Administrative Court of Tirana partially accepted the lawsuit. However, the Administrative Court of Appeal reversed the decision and dismissed the suit, reasoning that it had been filed past the 60-day deadline specified in the special expropriation law. The Administrative College of the Supreme Court ruled that the Administrative Court of Appeal failed to correctly identify the cause of action and mistakenly restricted the matter to the appeal deadline against an expropriation act. The College emphasized that the plaintiff’s claim did not depend on challenging, nullifying, or invalidating the Council of Ministers’ Decision (VKM), but rather on determining whether harm was suffered due to the public authority’s failure to fulfill its statutory duty of compensation. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the ruling of the Administrative Court of Appeal and remanded the case to that court for retrial by a different panel. Sentenza n. 00-2026-1382 (217), del 16.04.2026 del Collegio Amministrativo Il termine decadenziale di 60 giorni previsto dalla legge speciale sugli espropri non si applica alle domande relative all’occupazione de facto dell’immobile, qualora l’amministrazione pubblica non abbia adempiuto al proprio obbligo legale di indennizzo e non abbia adottato un atto definitivo di riconoscimento o rigetto del diritto. In tali casi, il giudice deve individuare la vera causa petendi dall’insieme del ricorso e verificare se il danno sia derivato dall’omissione della pubblica amministrazione. Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica Nel caso in esame, il ricorrente X ha sostenuto che, a seguito della costruzione dell’Invaso di Bovilla, la sua famiglia era stata sfollata dal villaggio di Zall M\u00ebner e inserita nell’elenco dei residenti aventi diritto all’indennizzo. Il ricorrente ha lamentato di essere stato compensato unicamente con terreno agricolo, ma non con un’abitazione e relativo terreno proporzionato al numero dei componenti del nucleo familiare, chiedendo quindi il risarcimento mancante e i frutti civili. Il Tribunale Amministrativo di Primo Grado di Tirana ha accolto parzialmente la domanda. Al contrario, la Corte d’Appello Amministrativa ha riformato la sentenza e rigettato il ricorso, ritenendolo proposto oltre il termine di 60 giorni previsto dalla legge speciale sugli espropri. Il Collegio Amministrativo della Corte Suprema ha rilevato che la Corte d’Appello Amministrativa non aveva identificato correttamente la causa petendi, limitando erroneamente la questione al termine di impugnazione dell’atto di esproprio. Il Collegio ha evidenziato che la pretesa dell’attore non dipendeva dall’impugnazione o dall’invalidit\u00e0 della Delibera del Consiglio dei Ministri (VKM), bens\u00ec dall’accertamento del danno subito a causa dell’inerzia della P.A. nell’adempiere ai propri obblighi di legge. Per questi motivi, la Corte Suprema ha annullato la decisione della Corte d’Appello Amministrativa e ha rinviato la causa dinanzi alla medesima corte, in diversa composizione, per un nuovo giudizio.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/","og_site_name":"Petani Law Firm","article_published_time":"2026-07-24T08:37:18+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-24T08:37:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":2560,"url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"Stafi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Stafi","Est. reading time":"5 minuta"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/"},"author":{"name":"Stafi","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/person\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90"},"headline":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217),\u00a0dat\u00eb\u00a016.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ","datePublished":"2026-07-24T08:37:18+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-24T08:37:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/"},"wordCount":1012,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","articleSection":["Petani Blog"],"inLanguage":"sq","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/","name":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217),\u00a0dat\u00eb\u00a016.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ - Petani Law Firm","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","datePublished":"2026-07-24T08:37:18+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-24T08:37:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"sq","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"sq","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","width":2560,"height":2560},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217),\u00a0dat\u00eb\u00a016.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/","name":"Petani Law Firm","description":"Law Firm in Durr\u00ebs","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"sq"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization","name":"Petani Law Firm","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"sq","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/logo.png","width":500,"height":155,"caption":"Petani Law Firm"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/person\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90","name":"Stafi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"sq","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","caption":"Stafi"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com"],"url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4185","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4185"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4185\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4189,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4185\/revisions\/4189"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3637"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4185"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4185"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4185"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217) - Petani Law & Tax<\/title>\r\n <script src=\"https:\/\/cdn.tailwindcss.com\"><\/script>\r\n <link href=\"https:\/\/fonts.googleapis.com\/css2?family=Inter:wght=300;400;500;600;700&family=Playfair+Display:ital,wght=0,400;0,600;0,700;1,400;1,700&display=swap\" rel=\"stylesheet\">\r\n \r\n <style>\r\n :root {\r\n --gold: #c5a059;\r\n --gold-light: #dfc493;\r\n --espresso: #1a0f0a;\r\n --brown-deep: #2c1810;\r\n --cream: #fdfcf9;\r\n }\r\n body { font-family: 'Inter', sans-serif; background-color: var(--cream); color: var(--espresso); line-height: 1.8; }\r\n .serif { font-family: 'Playfair Display', serif; }\r\n \r\n .lang-nav-container { width: 100%; display: flex; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 3rem; }\r\n .lang-nav { display: inline-flex; background-color: var(--espresso); padding: 4px; border-radius: 9999px; border: 1px solid var(--gold); }\r\n .language-btn { padding: 8px 24px; border-radius: 9999px; font-size: 0.875rem; font-weight: 600; color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.7); transition: all 0.3s ease; text-transform: uppercase; cursor: pointer; border: none; background: transparent; }\r\n .language-btn.active { background-color: var(--gold); color: white; box-shadow: 0 4px 12px rgba(0,0,0,0.1); }\r\n\r\n .content-section { display: none; }\r\n .content-section.active { display: block; animation: fadeIn 0.6s ease-out; }\r\n @keyframes fadeIn { from { opacity: 0; transform: translateY(15px); } to { opacity: 1; transform: translateY(0); } }\r\n\r\n .drop-cap::first-letter { float: left; font-family: 'Playfair Display', serif; font-size: 4.5rem; line-height: 3.5rem; padding-top: 8px; padding-right: 12px; color: var(--gold); font-weight: 700; }\r\n p { margin-bottom: 1.5rem; font-size: 1.125rem; color: #333; }\r\n \r\n .case-card { background-color: var(--brown-deep) !important; color: #ffffff !important; border-left: 4px solid var(--gold); }\r\n .case-card p, .case-card h3 { color: #ffffff !important; }\r\n <\/style>\r\n<\/head>\r\n<body class=\"antialiased\">\r\n\r\n <main class=\"max-w-4xl mx-auto px-6 py-12\">\r\n \r\n \r\n <div class=\"relative w-full h-[400px] rounded-3xl overflow-hidden shadow-2xl mb-12 border-b-4 border-[var(--gold)]\">\r\n <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/images.pexels.com\/photos\/8850747\/pexels-photo-8850747.jpeg\" alt=\"Shpron\u00ebsimet dhe e Drejta e Pron\u00ebsis\u00eb\" class=\"w-full h-full object-cover brightness-[0.65]\">\r\n <div class=\"absolute inset-0 bg-gradient-to-t from-black\/90 to-transparent\"><\/div>\r\n <div class=\"absolute bottom-8 left-8 text-white pr-8\">\r\n <p class=\"text-[var(--gold)] tracking-widest uppercase font-semibold text-sm mb-2\">Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 Kolegji Administrativ<\/p>\r\n <h1 class=\"serif text-4xl font-bold leading-tight\">Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217)<\/h1>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n <div class=\"lang-nav-container sticky top-4 z-50\">\r\n <div class=\"lang-nav shadow-2xl backdrop-blur-md bg-[#1a0f0a]\/95\">\r\n <button onclick=\"switchLang('sq')\" id=\"btn-sq\" class=\"language-btn active\">Sq<\/button>\r\n <button onclick=\"switchLang('en')\" id=\"btn-en\" class=\"language-btn\">En<\/button>\r\n <button onclick=\"switchLang('it')\" id=\"btn-it\" class=\"language-btn\">It<\/button>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article id=\"lang-sq\" class=\"content-section active\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217), dat\u00eb 16.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">Afati 60-ditor i parashikuar nga ligji i posa\u00e7\u00ebm p\u00ebr shpron\u00ebsimet nuk zbatohet ndaj k\u00ebrkimeve q\u00eb lidhen me marrjen <i>de facto<\/i> t\u00eb pron\u00ebs, kur organi publik nuk ka p\u00ebrmbushur detyrimin ligjor p\u00ebr kompensim dhe nuk ka dh\u00ebn\u00eb nj\u00eb akt p\u00ebrfundimtar p\u00ebr njohjen ose refuzimin e s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs. N\u00eb k\u00ebto raste, gjykata duhet t\u00eb identifikoj\u00eb shkakun e v\u00ebrtet\u00eb t\u00eb padis\u00eb nga p\u00ebrmbajtja e saj n\u00eb t\u00ebr\u00ebsi dhe t\u00eb verifikoj\u00eb n\u00ebse d\u00ebmi i pretenduar ka ardhur si pasoj\u00eb e mosveprimit t\u00eb organit publik.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor<\/h3>\r\n <p>N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, pala padit\u00ebse X pretendoi se p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb nd\u00ebrtimit t\u00eb Uj\u00ebmbledh\u00ebsit t\u00eb Bovill\u00ebs, familja e tij ishte shp\u00ebrngulur nga fshati Zall M\u00ebner dhe ishte p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb list\u00ebn e banor\u00ebve q\u00eb do t\u00eb p\u00ebrfitonin kompensim. Padit\u00ebsi pretendoi se ishte kompensuar vet\u00ebm me tok\u00eb bujq\u00ebsore, por jo me banes\u00eb dhe truall n\u00eb raport me numrin e frym\u00ebve t\u00eb familjes, ndaj k\u00ebrkoi kompensimin e munguar dhe shp\u00ebrblimin e frutave civile.<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Gjykata Administrative e Shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb Par\u00eb Tiran\u00eb e pranoi pjes\u00ebrisht padin\u00eb, nd\u00ebrsa Gjykata Administrative e Apelit e ndryshoi vendimin dhe e rr\u00ebzoi padin\u00eb, me arsyetimin se ishte paraqitur jasht\u00eb afatit 60-ditor t\u00eb parashikuar nga ligji i posa\u00e7\u00ebm p\u00ebr shpron\u00ebsimet.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Kolegji Administrativ i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb vler\u00ebsoi se Gjykata Administrative e Apelit nuk kishte identifikuar drejt shkakun e padis\u00eb dhe e kishte kufizuar gabimisht \u00e7\u00ebshtjen te afati i ankimit ndaj aktit t\u00eb shpron\u00ebsimit. Kolegji theksoi se k\u00ebrkimi i padit\u00ebsit nuk varej nga kund\u00ebrshtimi, shfuqizimi ose pavlefshm\u00ebria e VKM, por nga verifikimi n\u00ebse atij i ishte shkaktuar d\u00ebm si pasoj\u00eb e mosveprimit t\u00eb organit publik n\u00eb p\u00ebrmbushjen e detyrimit ligjor p\u00ebr kompensim.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n <p>P\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye, Gjykata e Lart\u00eb prishi vendimin e Gjykat\u00ebs Administrative t\u00eb Apelit dhe e ktheu \u00e7\u00ebshtjen p\u00ebr rigjykim n\u00eb at\u00eb gjykat\u00eb, me tjet\u00ebr trup gjykues.<\/p>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article id=\"lang-en\" class=\"content-section\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">Decision no. 00-2026-1382 (217), dated 16.04.2026 of the Administrative College<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">The statutory 60-day deadline provided by the special law on expropriations does not apply to claims related to the <i>de facto<\/i> taking of property, where the public authority has failed to fulfill its legal obligation to compensate and has not issued a final act recognizing or rejecting the right. In such cases, the court must identify the true cause of action from the claim as a whole and verify whether the alleged damage resulted from the public authority's omission to act.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">Case Summary & Legal Reasoning<\/h3>\r\n <p>In this case, plaintiff X claimed that due to the construction of the Bovilla Reservoir, his family was displaced from the village of Zall M\u00ebner and included in the list of residents eligible for compensation. The plaintiff asserted that he had only received agricultural land as compensation, but not residential housing or land proportional to the household size, thereby requesting the missing compensation and civil fruits (rental value).<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">The First Instance Administrative Court of Tirana partially accepted the lawsuit. However, the Administrative Court of Appeal reversed the decision and dismissed the suit, reasoning that it had been filed past the 60-day deadline specified in the special expropriation law.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">The Administrative College of the Supreme Court ruled that the Administrative Court of Appeal failed to correctly identify the cause of action and mistakenly restricted the matter to the appeal deadline against an expropriation act. The College emphasized that the plaintiff's claim did not depend on challenging, nullifying, or invalidating the Council of Ministers' Decision (VKM), but rather on determining whether harm was suffered due to the public authority's failure to fulfill its statutory duty of compensation.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n <p>Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the ruling of the Administrative Court of Appeal and remanded the case to that court for retrial by a different panel.<\/p>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article id=\"lang-it\" class=\"content-section\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">Sentenza n. 00-2026-1382 (217), del 16.04.2026 del Collegio Amministrativo<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">Il termine decadenziale di 60 giorni previsto dalla legge speciale sugli espropri non si applica alle domande relative all'occupazione <i>de facto<\/i> dell'immobile, qualora l'amministrazione pubblica non abbia adempiuto al proprio obbligo legale di indennizzo e non abbia adottato un atto definitivo di riconoscimento o rigetto del diritto. In tali casi, il giudice deve individuare la vera causa petendi dall'insieme del ricorso e verificare se il danno sia derivato dall'omissione della pubblica amministrazione.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica<\/h3>\r\n <p>Nel caso in esame, il ricorrente X ha sostenuto che, a seguito della costruzione dell'Invaso di Bovilla, la sua famiglia era stata sfollata dal villaggio di Zall M\u00ebner e inserita nell'elenco dei residenti aventi diritto all'indennizzo. Il ricorrente ha lamentato di essere stato compensato unicamente con terreno agricolo, ma non con un'abitazione e relativo terreno proporzionato al numero dei componenti del nucleo familiare, chiedendo quindi il risarcimento mancante e i frutti civili.<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Il Tribunale Amministrativo di Primo Grado di Tirana ha accolto parzialmente la domanda. Al contrario, la Corte d'Appello Amministrativa ha riformato la sentenza e rigettato il ricorso, ritenendolo proposto oltre il termine di 60 giorni previsto dalla legge speciale sugli espropri.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Il Collegio Amministrativo della Corte Suprema ha rilevato che la Corte d'Appello Amministrativa non aveva identificato correttamente la causa petendi, limitando erroneamente la questione al termine di impugnazione dell'atto di esproprio. Il Collegio ha evidenziato che la pretesa dell'attore non dipendeva dall'impugnazione o dall'invalidit\u00e0 della Delibera del Consiglio dei Ministri (VKM), bens\u00ec dall'accertamento del danno subito a causa dell'inerzia della P.A. nell'adempiere ai propri obblighi di legge.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n <p>Per questi motivi, la Corte Suprema ha annullato la decisione della Corte d'Appello Amministrativa e ha rinviato la causa dinanzi alla medesima corte, in diversa composizione, per un nuovo giudizio.<\/p>\r\n <\/article>\r\n <\/main>\r\n\r\n <script>\r\n function switchLang(lang) {\r\n \/\/ Hide all sections\r\n document.querySelectorAll('.content-section').forEach(s => s.classList.remove('active'));\r\n \/\/ Show selected section\r\n document.getElementById('lang-' + lang).classList.add('active');\r\n \/\/ Update button states\r\n document.querySelectorAll('.language-btn').forEach(b => b.classList.remove('active'));\r\n document.getElementById('btn-' + lang).classList.add('active');\r\n \/\/ Smooth scroll to top of navigation\r\n window.scrollTo({ top: document.querySelector('.lang-nav-container').offsetTop - 20, behavior: 'smooth' });\r\n }\r\n <\/script>\r\n<\/body>\r\n<\/html>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217) – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 Kolegji Administrativ Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217) Sq En It Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217), dat\u00eb 16.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ Afati 60-ditor i parashikuar nga ligji i posa\u00e7\u00ebm p\u00ebr shpron\u00ebsimet nuk zbatohet ndaj k\u00ebrkimeve q\u00eb lidhen me marrjen de facto t\u00eb pron\u00ebs, kur organi publik nuk ka p\u00ebrmbushur detyrimin ligjor p\u00ebr kompensim dhe nuk ka dh\u00ebn\u00eb nj\u00eb akt p\u00ebrfundimtar p\u00ebr njohjen ose refuzimin e s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs. N\u00eb k\u00ebto raste, gjykata duhet t\u00eb identifikoj\u00eb shkakun e v\u00ebrtet\u00eb t\u00eb padis\u00eb nga p\u00ebrmbajtja e saj n\u00eb t\u00ebr\u00ebsi dhe t\u00eb verifikoj\u00eb n\u00ebse d\u00ebmi i pretenduar ka ardhur si pasoj\u00eb e mosveprimit t\u00eb organit publik. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, pala padit\u00ebse X pretendoi se p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb nd\u00ebrtimit t\u00eb Uj\u00ebmbledh\u00ebsit t\u00eb Bovill\u00ebs, familja e tij ishte shp\u00ebrngulur nga fshati Zall M\u00ebner dhe ishte p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb list\u00ebn e banor\u00ebve q\u00eb do t\u00eb p\u00ebrfitonin kompensim. Padit\u00ebsi pretendoi se ishte kompensuar vet\u00ebm me tok\u00eb bujq\u00ebsore, por jo me banes\u00eb dhe truall n\u00eb raport me numrin e frym\u00ebve t\u00eb familjes, ndaj k\u00ebrkoi kompensimin e munguar dhe shp\u00ebrblimin e frutave civile. Gjykata Administrative e Shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb Par\u00eb Tiran\u00eb e pranoi pjes\u00ebrisht padin\u00eb, nd\u00ebrsa Gjykata Administrative e Apelit e ndryshoi vendimin dhe e rr\u00ebzoi padin\u00eb, me arsyetimin se ishte paraqitur jasht\u00eb afatit 60-ditor t\u00eb parashikuar nga ligji i posa\u00e7\u00ebm p\u00ebr shpron\u00ebsimet. Kolegji Administrativ i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb vler\u00ebsoi se Gjykata Administrative e Apelit nuk kishte identifikuar drejt shkakun e padis\u00eb dhe e kishte kufizuar gabimisht \u00e7\u00ebshtjen te afati i ankimit ndaj aktit t\u00eb shpron\u00ebsimit. Kolegji theksoi se k\u00ebrkimi i padit\u00ebsit nuk varej nga kund\u00ebrshtimi, shfuqizimi ose pavlefshm\u00ebria e VKM, por nga verifikimi n\u00ebse atij i ishte shkaktuar d\u00ebm si pasoj\u00eb e mosveprimit t\u00eb organit publik n\u00eb p\u00ebrmbushjen e detyrimit ligjor p\u00ebr kompensim. P\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye, Gjykata e Lart\u00eb prishi vendimin e Gjykat\u00ebs Administrative t\u00eb Apelit dhe e ktheu \u00e7\u00ebshtjen p\u00ebr rigjykim n\u00eb at\u00eb gjykat\u00eb, me tjet\u00ebr trup gjykues. Decision no. 00-2026-1382 (217), dated 16.04.2026 of the Administrative College The statutory 60-day deadline provided by the special law on expropriations does not apply to claims related to the de facto taking of property, where the public authority has failed to fulfill its legal obligation to compensate and has not issued a final act recognizing or rejecting the right. In such cases, the court must identify the true cause of action from the claim as a whole and verify whether the alleged damage resulted from the public authority’s omission to act. Case Summary & Legal Reasoning In this case, plaintiff X claimed that due to the construction of the Bovilla Reservoir, his family was displaced from the village of Zall M\u00ebner and included in the list of residents eligible for compensation. The plaintiff asserted that he had only received agricultural land as compensation, but not residential housing or land proportional to the household size, thereby requesting the missing compensation and civil fruits (rental value). The First Instance Administrative Court of Tirana partially accepted the lawsuit. However, the Administrative Court of Appeal reversed the decision and dismissed the suit, reasoning that it had been filed past the 60-day deadline specified in the special expropriation law. The Administrative College of the Supreme Court ruled that the Administrative Court of Appeal failed to correctly identify the cause of action and mistakenly restricted the matter to the appeal deadline against an expropriation act. The College emphasized that the plaintiff’s claim did not depend on challenging, nullifying, or invalidating the Council of Ministers’ Decision (VKM), but rather on determining whether harm was suffered due to the public authority’s failure to fulfill its statutory duty of compensation. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the ruling of the Administrative Court of Appeal and remanded the case to that court for retrial by a different panel. Sentenza n. 00-2026-1382 (217), del 16.04.2026 del Collegio Amministrativo Il termine decadenziale di 60 giorni previsto dalla legge speciale sugli espropri non si applica alle domande relative all’occupazione de facto dell’immobile, qualora l’amministrazione pubblica non abbia adempiuto al proprio obbligo legale di indennizzo e non abbia adottato un atto definitivo di riconoscimento o rigetto del diritto. In tali casi, il giudice deve individuare la vera causa petendi dall’insieme del ricorso e verificare se il danno sia derivato dall’omissione della pubblica amministrazione. Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica Nel caso in esame, il ricorrente X ha sostenuto che, a seguito della costruzione dell’Invaso di Bovilla, la sua famiglia era stata sfollata dal villaggio di Zall M\u00ebner e inserita nell’elenco dei residenti aventi diritto all’indennizzo. Il ricorrente ha lamentato di essere stato compensato unicamente con terreno agricolo, ma non con un’abitazione e relativo terreno proporzionato al numero dei componenti del nucleo familiare, chiedendo quindi il risarcimento mancante e i frutti civili. Il Tribunale Amministrativo di Primo Grado di Tirana ha accolto parzialmente la domanda. Al contrario, la Corte d’Appello Amministrativa ha riformato la sentenza e rigettato il ricorso, ritenendolo proposto oltre il termine di 60 giorni previsto dalla legge speciale sugli espropri. Il Collegio Amministrativo della Corte Suprema ha rilevato che la Corte d’Appello Amministrativa non aveva identificato correttamente la causa petendi, limitando erroneamente la questione al termine di impugnazione dell’atto di esproprio. Il Collegio ha evidenziato che la pretesa dell’attore non dipendeva dall’impugnazione o dall’invalidit\u00e0 della Delibera del Consiglio dei Ministri (VKM), bens\u00ec dall’accertamento del danno subito a causa dell’inerzia della P.A. nell’adempiere ai propri obblighi di legge. Per questi motivi, la Corte Suprema ha annullato la decisione della Corte d’Appello Amministrativa e ha rinviato la causa dinanzi alla medesima corte, in diversa composizione, per un nuovo giudizio.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3637,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"elementor_header_footer","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4185","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-petani-blog"],"yoast_head":"\n<title>Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217),\u00a0dat\u00eb\u00a016.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ - Petani Law Firm<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"sq_AL\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217),\u00a0dat\u00eb\u00a016.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ - Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217) – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 Kolegji Administrativ Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217) Sq En It Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217), dat\u00eb 16.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ Afati 60-ditor i parashikuar nga ligji i posa\u00e7\u00ebm p\u00ebr shpron\u00ebsimet nuk zbatohet ndaj k\u00ebrkimeve q\u00eb lidhen me marrjen de facto t\u00eb pron\u00ebs, kur organi publik nuk ka p\u00ebrmbushur detyrimin ligjor p\u00ebr kompensim dhe nuk ka dh\u00ebn\u00eb nj\u00eb akt p\u00ebrfundimtar p\u00ebr njohjen ose refuzimin e s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs. N\u00eb k\u00ebto raste, gjykata duhet t\u00eb identifikoj\u00eb shkakun e v\u00ebrtet\u00eb t\u00eb padis\u00eb nga p\u00ebrmbajtja e saj n\u00eb t\u00ebr\u00ebsi dhe t\u00eb verifikoj\u00eb n\u00ebse d\u00ebmi i pretenduar ka ardhur si pasoj\u00eb e mosveprimit t\u00eb organit publik. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, pala padit\u00ebse X pretendoi se p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb nd\u00ebrtimit t\u00eb Uj\u00ebmbledh\u00ebsit t\u00eb Bovill\u00ebs, familja e tij ishte shp\u00ebrngulur nga fshati Zall M\u00ebner dhe ishte p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb list\u00ebn e banor\u00ebve q\u00eb do t\u00eb p\u00ebrfitonin kompensim. Padit\u00ebsi pretendoi se ishte kompensuar vet\u00ebm me tok\u00eb bujq\u00ebsore, por jo me banes\u00eb dhe truall n\u00eb raport me numrin e frym\u00ebve t\u00eb familjes, ndaj k\u00ebrkoi kompensimin e munguar dhe shp\u00ebrblimin e frutave civile. Gjykata Administrative e Shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb Par\u00eb Tiran\u00eb e pranoi pjes\u00ebrisht padin\u00eb, nd\u00ebrsa Gjykata Administrative e Apelit e ndryshoi vendimin dhe e rr\u00ebzoi padin\u00eb, me arsyetimin se ishte paraqitur jasht\u00eb afatit 60-ditor t\u00eb parashikuar nga ligji i posa\u00e7\u00ebm p\u00ebr shpron\u00ebsimet. Kolegji Administrativ i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb vler\u00ebsoi se Gjykata Administrative e Apelit nuk kishte identifikuar drejt shkakun e padis\u00eb dhe e kishte kufizuar gabimisht \u00e7\u00ebshtjen te afati i ankimit ndaj aktit t\u00eb shpron\u00ebsimit. Kolegji theksoi se k\u00ebrkimi i padit\u00ebsit nuk varej nga kund\u00ebrshtimi, shfuqizimi ose pavlefshm\u00ebria e VKM, por nga verifikimi n\u00ebse atij i ishte shkaktuar d\u00ebm si pasoj\u00eb e mosveprimit t\u00eb organit publik n\u00eb p\u00ebrmbushjen e detyrimit ligjor p\u00ebr kompensim. P\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye, Gjykata e Lart\u00eb prishi vendimin e Gjykat\u00ebs Administrative t\u00eb Apelit dhe e ktheu \u00e7\u00ebshtjen p\u00ebr rigjykim n\u00eb at\u00eb gjykat\u00eb, me tjet\u00ebr trup gjykues. Decision no. 00-2026-1382 (217), dated 16.04.2026 of the Administrative College The statutory 60-day deadline provided by the special law on expropriations does not apply to claims related to the de facto taking of property, where the public authority has failed to fulfill its legal obligation to compensate and has not issued a final act recognizing or rejecting the right. In such cases, the court must identify the true cause of action from the claim as a whole and verify whether the alleged damage resulted from the public authority’s omission to act. Case Summary & Legal Reasoning In this case, plaintiff X claimed that due to the construction of the Bovilla Reservoir, his family was displaced from the village of Zall M\u00ebner and included in the list of residents eligible for compensation. The plaintiff asserted that he had only received agricultural land as compensation, but not residential housing or land proportional to the household size, thereby requesting the missing compensation and civil fruits (rental value). The First Instance Administrative Court of Tirana partially accepted the lawsuit. However, the Administrative Court of Appeal reversed the decision and dismissed the suit, reasoning that it had been filed past the 60-day deadline specified in the special expropriation law. The Administrative College of the Supreme Court ruled that the Administrative Court of Appeal failed to correctly identify the cause of action and mistakenly restricted the matter to the appeal deadline against an expropriation act. The College emphasized that the plaintiff’s claim did not depend on challenging, nullifying, or invalidating the Council of Ministers’ Decision (VKM), but rather on determining whether harm was suffered due to the public authority’s failure to fulfill its statutory duty of compensation. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the ruling of the Administrative Court of Appeal and remanded the case to that court for retrial by a different panel. Sentenza n. 00-2026-1382 (217), del 16.04.2026 del Collegio Amministrativo Il termine decadenziale di 60 giorni previsto dalla legge speciale sugli espropri non si applica alle domande relative all’occupazione de facto dell’immobile, qualora l’amministrazione pubblica non abbia adempiuto al proprio obbligo legale di indennizzo e non abbia adottato un atto definitivo di riconoscimento o rigetto del diritto. In tali casi, il giudice deve individuare la vera causa petendi dall’insieme del ricorso e verificare se il danno sia derivato dall’omissione della pubblica amministrazione. Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica Nel caso in esame, il ricorrente X ha sostenuto che, a seguito della costruzione dell’Invaso di Bovilla, la sua famiglia era stata sfollata dal villaggio di Zall M\u00ebner e inserita nell’elenco dei residenti aventi diritto all’indennizzo. Il ricorrente ha lamentato di essere stato compensato unicamente con terreno agricolo, ma non con un’abitazione e relativo terreno proporzionato al numero dei componenti del nucleo familiare, chiedendo quindi il risarcimento mancante e i frutti civili. Il Tribunale Amministrativo di Primo Grado di Tirana ha accolto parzialmente la domanda. Al contrario, la Corte d’Appello Amministrativa ha riformato la sentenza e rigettato il ricorso, ritenendolo proposto oltre il termine di 60 giorni previsto dalla legge speciale sugli espropri. Il Collegio Amministrativo della Corte Suprema ha rilevato che la Corte d’Appello Amministrativa non aveva identificato correttamente la causa petendi, limitando erroneamente la questione al termine di impugnazione dell’atto di esproprio. Il Collegio ha evidenziato che la pretesa dell’attore non dipendeva dall’impugnazione o dall’invalidit\u00e0 della Delibera del Consiglio dei Ministri (VKM), bens\u00ec dall’accertamento del danno subito a causa dell’inerzia della P.A. nell’adempiere ai propri obblighi di legge. Per questi motivi, la Corte Suprema ha annullato la decisione della Corte d’Appello Amministrativa e ha rinviato la causa dinanzi alla medesima corte, in diversa composizione, per un nuovo giudizio.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-24T08:37:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-24T08:37:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Stafi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Stafi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minuta\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Stafi\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90\"},\"headline\":\"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217),\u00a0dat\u00eb\u00a016.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-24T08:37:18+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-24T08:37:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1012,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"articleSection\":[\"Petani Blog\"],\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/\",\"name\":\"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217),\u00a0dat\u00eb\u00a016.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ - Petani Law Firm\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-24T08:37:18+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-24T08:37:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":2560},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217),\u00a0dat\u00eb\u00a016.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/\",\"name\":\"Petani Law Firm\",\"description\":\"Law Firm in Durr\u00ebs\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"sq\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Petani Law Firm\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/04\\\/logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/04\\\/logo.png\",\"width\":500,\"height\":155,\"caption\":\"Petani Law Firm\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90\",\"name\":\"Stafi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"caption\":\"Stafi\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/author\\\/admin\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217),\u00a0dat\u00eb\u00a016.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ - Petani Law Firm","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/","og_locale":"sq_AL","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217),\u00a0dat\u00eb\u00a016.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ - Petani Law Firm","og_description":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217) – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 Kolegji Administrativ Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217) Sq En It Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217), dat\u00eb 16.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ Afati 60-ditor i parashikuar nga ligji i posa\u00e7\u00ebm p\u00ebr shpron\u00ebsimet nuk zbatohet ndaj k\u00ebrkimeve q\u00eb lidhen me marrjen de facto t\u00eb pron\u00ebs, kur organi publik nuk ka p\u00ebrmbushur detyrimin ligjor p\u00ebr kompensim dhe nuk ka dh\u00ebn\u00eb nj\u00eb akt p\u00ebrfundimtar p\u00ebr njohjen ose refuzimin e s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs. N\u00eb k\u00ebto raste, gjykata duhet t\u00eb identifikoj\u00eb shkakun e v\u00ebrtet\u00eb t\u00eb padis\u00eb nga p\u00ebrmbajtja e saj n\u00eb t\u00ebr\u00ebsi dhe t\u00eb verifikoj\u00eb n\u00ebse d\u00ebmi i pretenduar ka ardhur si pasoj\u00eb e mosveprimit t\u00eb organit publik. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, pala padit\u00ebse X pretendoi se p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb nd\u00ebrtimit t\u00eb Uj\u00ebmbledh\u00ebsit t\u00eb Bovill\u00ebs, familja e tij ishte shp\u00ebrngulur nga fshati Zall M\u00ebner dhe ishte p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb list\u00ebn e banor\u00ebve q\u00eb do t\u00eb p\u00ebrfitonin kompensim. Padit\u00ebsi pretendoi se ishte kompensuar vet\u00ebm me tok\u00eb bujq\u00ebsore, por jo me banes\u00eb dhe truall n\u00eb raport me numrin e frym\u00ebve t\u00eb familjes, ndaj k\u00ebrkoi kompensimin e munguar dhe shp\u00ebrblimin e frutave civile. Gjykata Administrative e Shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb Par\u00eb Tiran\u00eb e pranoi pjes\u00ebrisht padin\u00eb, nd\u00ebrsa Gjykata Administrative e Apelit e ndryshoi vendimin dhe e rr\u00ebzoi padin\u00eb, me arsyetimin se ishte paraqitur jasht\u00eb afatit 60-ditor t\u00eb parashikuar nga ligji i posa\u00e7\u00ebm p\u00ebr shpron\u00ebsimet. Kolegji Administrativ i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb vler\u00ebsoi se Gjykata Administrative e Apelit nuk kishte identifikuar drejt shkakun e padis\u00eb dhe e kishte kufizuar gabimisht \u00e7\u00ebshtjen te afati i ankimit ndaj aktit t\u00eb shpron\u00ebsimit. Kolegji theksoi se k\u00ebrkimi i padit\u00ebsit nuk varej nga kund\u00ebrshtimi, shfuqizimi ose pavlefshm\u00ebria e VKM, por nga verifikimi n\u00ebse atij i ishte shkaktuar d\u00ebm si pasoj\u00eb e mosveprimit t\u00eb organit publik n\u00eb p\u00ebrmbushjen e detyrimit ligjor p\u00ebr kompensim. P\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye, Gjykata e Lart\u00eb prishi vendimin e Gjykat\u00ebs Administrative t\u00eb Apelit dhe e ktheu \u00e7\u00ebshtjen p\u00ebr rigjykim n\u00eb at\u00eb gjykat\u00eb, me tjet\u00ebr trup gjykues. Decision no. 00-2026-1382 (217), dated 16.04.2026 of the Administrative College The statutory 60-day deadline provided by the special law on expropriations does not apply to claims related to the de facto taking of property, where the public authority has failed to fulfill its legal obligation to compensate and has not issued a final act recognizing or rejecting the right. In such cases, the court must identify the true cause of action from the claim as a whole and verify whether the alleged damage resulted from the public authority’s omission to act. Case Summary & Legal Reasoning In this case, plaintiff X claimed that due to the construction of the Bovilla Reservoir, his family was displaced from the village of Zall M\u00ebner and included in the list of residents eligible for compensation. The plaintiff asserted that he had only received agricultural land as compensation, but not residential housing or land proportional to the household size, thereby requesting the missing compensation and civil fruits (rental value). The First Instance Administrative Court of Tirana partially accepted the lawsuit. However, the Administrative Court of Appeal reversed the decision and dismissed the suit, reasoning that it had been filed past the 60-day deadline specified in the special expropriation law. The Administrative College of the Supreme Court ruled that the Administrative Court of Appeal failed to correctly identify the cause of action and mistakenly restricted the matter to the appeal deadline against an expropriation act. The College emphasized that the plaintiff’s claim did not depend on challenging, nullifying, or invalidating the Council of Ministers’ Decision (VKM), but rather on determining whether harm was suffered due to the public authority’s failure to fulfill its statutory duty of compensation. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the ruling of the Administrative Court of Appeal and remanded the case to that court for retrial by a different panel. Sentenza n. 00-2026-1382 (217), del 16.04.2026 del Collegio Amministrativo Il termine decadenziale di 60 giorni previsto dalla legge speciale sugli espropri non si applica alle domande relative all’occupazione de facto dell’immobile, qualora l’amministrazione pubblica non abbia adempiuto al proprio obbligo legale di indennizzo e non abbia adottato un atto definitivo di riconoscimento o rigetto del diritto. In tali casi, il giudice deve individuare la vera causa petendi dall’insieme del ricorso e verificare se il danno sia derivato dall’omissione della pubblica amministrazione. Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica Nel caso in esame, il ricorrente X ha sostenuto che, a seguito della costruzione dell’Invaso di Bovilla, la sua famiglia era stata sfollata dal villaggio di Zall M\u00ebner e inserita nell’elenco dei residenti aventi diritto all’indennizzo. Il ricorrente ha lamentato di essere stato compensato unicamente con terreno agricolo, ma non con un’abitazione e relativo terreno proporzionato al numero dei componenti del nucleo familiare, chiedendo quindi il risarcimento mancante e i frutti civili. Il Tribunale Amministrativo di Primo Grado di Tirana ha accolto parzialmente la domanda. Al contrario, la Corte d’Appello Amministrativa ha riformato la sentenza e rigettato il ricorso, ritenendolo proposto oltre il termine di 60 giorni previsto dalla legge speciale sugli espropri. Il Collegio Amministrativo della Corte Suprema ha rilevato che la Corte d’Appello Amministrativa non aveva identificato correttamente la causa petendi, limitando erroneamente la questione al termine di impugnazione dell’atto di esproprio. Il Collegio ha evidenziato che la pretesa dell’attore non dipendeva dall’impugnazione o dall’invalidit\u00e0 della Delibera del Consiglio dei Ministri (VKM), bens\u00ec dall’accertamento del danno subito a causa dell’inerzia della P.A. nell’adempiere ai propri obblighi di legge. Per questi motivi, la Corte Suprema ha annullato la decisione della Corte d’Appello Amministrativa e ha rinviato la causa dinanzi alla medesima corte, in diversa composizione, per un nuovo giudizio.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/","og_site_name":"Petani Law Firm","article_published_time":"2026-07-24T08:37:18+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-24T08:37:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":2560,"url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"Stafi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Stafi","Est. reading time":"5 minuta"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/"},"author":{"name":"Stafi","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/person\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90"},"headline":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217),\u00a0dat\u00eb\u00a016.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ","datePublished":"2026-07-24T08:37:18+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-24T08:37:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/"},"wordCount":1012,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","articleSection":["Petani Blog"],"inLanguage":"sq","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/","name":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217),\u00a0dat\u00eb\u00a016.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ - Petani Law Firm","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","datePublished":"2026-07-24T08:37:18+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-24T08:37:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"sq","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"sq","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","width":2560,"height":2560},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/vendimi-nr-00-2026-1382-217-date-16-04-2026-i-kolegjit-administrativ\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vendimi nr. 00-2026-1382 (217),\u00a0dat\u00eb\u00a016.04.2026 i Kolegjit Administrativ"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/","name":"Petani Law Firm","description":"Law Firm in Durr\u00ebs","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"sq"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization","name":"Petani Law Firm","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"sq","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/logo.png","width":500,"height":155,"caption":"Petani Law Firm"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/person\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90","name":"Stafi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"sq","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","caption":"Stafi"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com"],"url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4185","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4185"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4185\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4189,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4185\/revisions\/4189"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3637"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4185"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4185"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4185"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}