The effects of property laws on the process of restitution and compensation in post-communist Albania, under the framework of transitional justice. private hands, instituting the restitution of property to former owners and private entities as well as providing compensation for non-restitution to former owners, in case of impossibility for property restitution .Compensation can be regarded as a form of correction of injustices done when there is no possibility to return the property. Compensation also represents a favorable solution that does not promote further disagreements. Going back to the purpose of transitional justice, the adjustment of the situation aims to prevent further injustices. Thus, compensation (which should be fair), can serve to regulate the situation of former owners but without affecting third parties who may in good faith have acquired their properties. In the early 1990s, the restitution measures were adopted in many countries: under the so-called “restitution laws” (Albania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, and North Macedonia); under “rehabilitation laws” (the Czech Republic, Germany, Moldova, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine) and under “property legislation” (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, and Slovenia).10 The majority of Eastern European countries implemented full compensation measure as for example in the Czech Republic and Slovakia.11 Albania is also one of those countries seeking full compensation. Even though it has some similarities to the above states, it differs from some other countries such as Croatia, Lithuania, Serbia, Poland and Georgia, which do not recognize full compensation. These countries apply limitations to restitution and compensation based on the public interest and the proper functioning of the state; none of these countries recognizes the possibility of granting compensation equal to 100% of the estimated value of the lost property. Albania on the other hand, has always embraced full compensation as a starting point, without taking into account the real possibilities of the state budget and creating in this way unrealistic expectations.12 Unlike Albania, which bases the compensation on value maps determined by the government, the mentioned countries use the market value as the basis for compensation, whereby using different methods to determine it. Albania has a difference with the Hungarian state regarding the compensation of former owners. In Hungary, the former owners obtained securities that they could use to buy property or other land. In Albania, the former owners were forbidden to acquire land. At first they received (partially) financial compensation. However, following mounting pressure from former owners, the Albanian government introduced legislation to compensate them with urban or coastal land.13 Very important to note is that the legal status of ownership at the beginning was an important factor that determined the restitution of property. In Romania and in other countries such as Poland and Hungary, individual property is not nationalized in the same extent as in Albania. So these countries, have partly allowed the individual property.14 As a result, properties that still had private property status, such as some agricultural assets, have been the subject of restitution in all Central and Eastern European countries. For Albania, as a country where everything was nationalized, would become more difficult. Other factors were added to this difficulty. Albania, as a less developed country from the economic, political, social and cultural view to undertake fundamental reforms towards market economy, appeared more differently than other countries in the post-transition as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland. There are other factors besides the legal status of property that have influenced the initiation and progress of the process such as historical factors, political will, economic and social status. In addition, Albania’s difficulties were further compounded by the frequent changes of property laws in the field of restitution and compensation and the adoption of new laws. According to Arjan Qafa, the frequent legal changes in the legal framework and legal packages, particularly that relating to land ownership, for its improvement, not only didn’t improve but on the contrary, it has further increased the degree of confusion. On the other hand, the frequent changes in 10. European Union.Council of Europe. Handbook on property rights..Effective Exercise of Property Restitution and Compensation Rights in Albania. (Tirana 2017). 108. 11. Florian Bjanku, Çeshtja e pronave në Shqipëri. (Gurten. Tiranë 2018) 12. European Commission.Report on the protection of property in Albania. (July 2017) 13. Florian Bjanku,.Çeshtja e pronave në Shqipëri. (Gurten Tiranë, 2018) p.57-58. 14. Arjan Qafa, The issue of ownership during transition period in the former communist countries of Eastern Europe, as Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Albania. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies.(MCSER Publishing, Rome, Italy.Vol. 4. No 2. July 2015). 175 9