OPEN LETTER/ Come to the dialogue and listen to me speak, otherwise I will cut off your scholarships, you will rot in prison. Please!

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

30 kg of dynamite was put on the hotel in Saranda, it was estimated at 920 thousand euros, the Greek owned 90% of the shares

2023-02-13 13:57:59Aktualitet SHKRUAR NGA REDAKSIA VOX

30 kg of dynamite was put on the hotel in Saranda, it was estimated at 920

Almost 21 years of clashes in the court ended today with the razing of one of the oldest hotels in the city of Saranda, 'Byzanti'.

Hotel "Bizanti", built in 1996, had 3 partners, a Greek citizen named Dhimitër Evangjeliu and two Albanians, Spiro Çabiri and Vangjel Shtuka (passed away). 

The media have published the file of a decision of the Supreme Court which explains in detail the clash of 2 decades.

The 2 Albanians placed the land area of ​​700 square meters in 2005 as collateral in a loan they received (9.8 million new lek), while the dispute over ownership had started in court.

A first-instance court decision in 2002, confirmed by a final decision of the Gjirokastra Appeal, forced Vangjel Shtuka and Spiro Çabiri to recognize Dhimitër Evangjeliu as co-owners, in the ratio of 90% for the Greek citizen and 10% for the two Albanians.

Pursuant to this decision, the object "Hotel Bar Restaurant" is registered in the real estate registers of ZVRPP Sarandë in co-ownership, in the ratio of 90% plaintiff and 10% defendant. Since the parties have not reached an agreement on the division of the hotel (that is, the monetary value that belonged to each of them), the Greek owner Dhimitër Evangjeliu has turned to the court.

The court confirmed that Evangjeliu had 90% of the property and the other two, Spiro Çabiri and Vangjel Shtuka, from 5%. This decision was then confirmed by the Gjirokastra Court of Appeal through a 2011 decision.  

Then an expert report was made, by the expert Haxhi Musai, and the property was assessed at 920,000 Euros. The assessment emphasized that this property cannot be divided in kind for the very possibility of developing this hotel complex, since the construction project itself does not enable the partial use of the Hotel and there is no theoretical and practical possibility of operation in the designed destination. Therefore, it had to be divided by monetary value. The largest owner agreed with this assessment, while Spiro Çabiri opposed it in several steps, but the court ultimately did not accept it.

In 2015, through a decision of the Court of Saranda, it was decided that the property "Hotel Bar Restaurant" will be left in the ownership of the plaintiff Dhimitër Evangjeliu, while the latter was forced to pay Spiro Çabiri and Vangjel Shtuka 46,000 Euros each, so 5% of the total value of the object.

"The expert, taking into consideration the location of the Hotel-Bar Restaurant, the market value of the area as well as the current conditions of the property, has come to the conclusion that the value of the property is 920,000 Euros. The part of the co-ownership of the plaintiff Dhimitër Evangjeliu is estimated at 828,000 Euros, the part of the co-ownership of the defendant Spiro Çabiri of 5% is estimated at the amount of 46,000 Euros and the part of the co-ownership of the defendant Vangjel Shtuka is estimated at the amount of 46,000", the decision states. of the Court.

Through another appeal, Spiro Çabiri has requested the re-performation of the expertise to determine how much is the share of each co-owner based on the investment made and what is the amount they must give to each other as an obligation for the share in the co-ownership. This is because he invested in the building. The reopening of the judicial investigation has not been allowed by the court, as the issues for which the reopening of the investigation was requested have been considered in previous trials.

"Regarding the method of payment of the compensatory value, the Court considers that it should be paid to the defendants in a single installment, at the time of seeking the amount from their side as creditors upon receiving the final decision. The court assesses that the immediate payment in a single installment of the monetary value of the tax portion of the defendants is part of the full compensation of their share...", the court assessed.

This decision was again opposed by Sprio Çabiri. During the review of the Appeal, the bank where the loan of 9.8 million lek was taken was also called, which, with all the interest, was paid close to 15 million new lek. The court made the decision to once again return the case at first instance to the Court of Saranda.

The court, among other things, decided that the act of evaluation expertise carried out by the expert Haxhi Musai, during the trial at first instance, is considered to be fundamentally flawed, since in the content of this act of expertise, the expert for determining the value of the property submitted to him division, although it defines as the method for calculating this value, that of direct comparison, which means the comparative data collected from the sales contract in the city of Saranda for the last 3 months of 2014, it does not appear to have referred to any contract concrete sale for any nearby object and located in an area close to the one where the property subject to judgment is located, nor has any concrete comparative document for the determination of the market value attached to this expert report.

Apeli also said that the value of investments and repairs in 20 years has not been determined in the expert report. According to the court, the share of 90% of the owner Dhimitër Evangjeliu was determined only on the basis of the contribution given by the plaintiff in 1991 when the company was established. Meanwhile, according to the Appeal, this decision was also opposed by co-owner Vangjel Shtuka. This decision of the Gjirokastra Court of Appeal was opposed in 2016 by the Greek citizen Dhimitër Evangjeliu.

In the decision of the Supreme Court last year, the plaintiff argued that the attempt to present the property as the property of a commercial company is contrary to the law, since this trial has started for many years and has been connected with a final decision, according to which co-owners of the property are the litigants with the parts that have been determined by the court and the commercial activity that they could exercise together is not related to the right of co-ownership.

Regarding the measure of compensation of the defendants for their ideal parts, Evangjeliu says that the court has ordered the performance of an expert act by ordering the valuation of the property at today's market prices and in these circumstances the measure of compensation for each of the defendants is 46,000 Euro for each is in full accordance with their right to benefit from the full and fair value for their share of ownership on this object. Even Spiro Çabiri has submitted an appeal to the Supreme Court. In its decision, the Civil College of the Supreme Court considered the appeals acceptable, and in the decision dated May 27, 2016, returned the case for retrial with a new governing body in the Appeal of Gjirokastra.

"During the first phase of the division, it was decided that the item which is the subject of division is in the name of physical persons and will be divided as such. In these conditions, in relation to this trial, claims cannot be made that we are facing the case of the liquidation of the simple company, since we are not dealing with the division of quotas, but with the division of a concrete thing, nor can the legal nature of the lawsuit be changed under consideration. Every claim related to the co-ownership, the taxable parts, the items to be divided has been resolved by final decision no. 236, dated 20.05.2011, of the Gjirokastër Court of Appeal, which constitutes a res judicata for the court. The panel appreciates that, in the second phase, the court cannot re-enter the claims for the first phase, which have been answered and are binding for the second phase", the Supreme Court emphasizes.

According to the decision, the Court should make it clear to the parties that it is the duty of each of them, in accordance with the law, to present the necessary documentation to prove the facts on which the claims for the rights they seek are based. In the fair and legal settlement of the dispute, just as the parties have rights, they also have obligations "derived from this process, in the forms and deadlines provided for" in the CPC (Article 3).  


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×