Cadastre lawyer to stand trial over removal of restriction on property in Selitë

The Tirana Prosecutor’s Office has concluded its investigation and sent a lawyer with the State Cadastre Agency (ASHK) to trial. He is accused of abuse of office for allegedly unlawfully removing from the cadastral record of a property in Selitë, Tirana, a restriction linked to a development contract.

The defendant, A.B., is a lawyer at ASHK’s Vlorë local office. He is charged with “abuse of office” under Article 248 of the Criminal Code in criminal proceeding No. 6824 of 2025. The investigation began after a complaint from J.D., administrator of Triumph Company sh.p.k., who alleged that the deletion of the entry from the cadastral register had harmed the company’s interests.

The property covers 3,250 square meters and is located in cadastral zone 3292 in Selitë, Tirana. Its owners had signed a development contract with Triumph Company for the property. The agreement stipulated that construction would be completed within three years of obtaining a building permit.

The contract had been recorded in the cadastral documents through a blocking entry in favor of Triumph Company. The restriction was intended to protect the company’s contractual interest and prevent changes to the property’s registration that could undermine its rights.

According to the investigation, the case file for the Tirana property was assigned to A.B. by electronic lottery, although he worked at ASHK’s Vlorë local office. The lawyer deleted the entry at the owners’ request. They claimed that Triumph Company had not developed the property. Their request was accompanied by a notarized notice through which the owners’ family had informed the company that it was terminating their contractual relationship.

After the restriction was removed from the property record, the owners signed a new development contract for the same property with Al Development sh.p.k. Prosecutors examined whether the lawyer had a legal basis to amend the register and remove the entry protecting the first company’s interests.

Following its review, the Prosecutor’s Office concluded that the claim that the property had not been developed was not enough to consider the contract automatically terminated. It noted that, under the agreement, the three-year construction period began when the building permit was obtained, not when the contract was signed.

Consequently, according to the Prosecutor’s Office, A.B. could not determine on his own that the contract had ended solely on the basis of the owners’ unilateral claims and the notarized notice. Removing the restriction required a legal basis establishing that the contractual relationship had been terminated.

Prosecutors believe the lawyer acted without a legal basis when he accepted the request and notarized notice as sufficient grounds to delete the restriction. According to the Prosecutor’s Office, this harmed Triumph Company’s legitimate interest in preserving its contractual position as recorded in the cadastre.

The Prosecutor’s Office also believes that removing the entry made it possible for the property to become the subject of a contract with another company, Al Development. Concluding that A.B.’s actions harmed Triumph Company’s legitimate interests, the Tirana Prosecutor’s Office sent the case to court on the charge of abuse of office.