FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF \u010cERNIAK v. LITHUANIA
\n(Application no. 37723\/11)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n18 December 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of \u010cerniak v. Lithuania,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President, Having deliberated in private on 27 November 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 37723\/11) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Lithuanian national, Mr Edvard \u010cerniak (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 31 May 2011.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Ms E. Jankovska, a lawyer practising in Vilnius. The Lithuanian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, most recently Ms\u00a0K.\u00a0Bubnyt\u0117-\u0160irmen\u0117.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 6 December 2011 the application was communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Juod\u0161iliai in the Vilnius Region.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0In 1991 the applicant\u2019s mother applied for restoration of her property rights to land which had been nationalised by the Soviet regime.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 September 2001 the Vilnius County Administration (hereinafter \u201cthe VCA\u201d) restored the applicant\u2019s mother\u2019s property rights by giving her a plot of six hectares in Pagiriai, an area in the Vilnius city municipality. As the applicant\u2019s mother had died in 1995, the applicant was issued with a certificate of inheritance in respect of the plot on 13 March 2003.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Annulment of property rights to six hectares<\/strong><\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 December 2008 the prosecutor of the Vilnius Region (hereinafter \u201cthe prosecutor\u201d) lodged a claim with the Vilnius Regional Court, seeking to have the applicant\u2019s mother\u2019s property rights to the six hectares given to her annulled. The prosecutor submitted that, according to the data provided by the State Forest Management Service, 5.59 hectares of the plot was covered by forest. Since that forest was situated in a city, it was considered a forest of national importance and could therefore only be owned by the State (see the relevant domestic law cited inBeinarovi\u010d and\u00a0Others v.\u00a0Lithuania,nos.\u00a070520\/10 and 2 others<\/a>, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a086-89, 12\u00a0June 2018). In view of the circumstances, the VCA\u2019s decision had to be declared unlawful and its effects annulled. The prosecutor asked that after annulling the applicant\u2019s mother\u2019s property rights to the plot, the applicant\u2019s property rights to it also be annulled.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant and the VCA disputed the prosecutor\u2019s claim. However, on 15 September 2009 the Vilnius Regional Court allowed the prosecutor\u2019s claim and annulled the VCA\u2019s decision to restore the applicant\u2019s mother\u2019s property rights to six hectares of land, as well as the applicant\u2019s property rights to that land.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant and the VCA lodged appeals against that decision, arguing that the restoration of the applicant\u2019s mother\u2019s property rights had complied with the relevant legislation. The applicant also submitted that he was being deprived of his property without any compensation. However, on 1 June 2010 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals and upheld the lower court\u2019s decision in its entirety.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, arguing that the lower courts had incorrectlyfound that the forest on his land constituted an urban forest, but on 25\u00a0January 2011 it was dismissed by the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Subsequent restitution process<\/strong><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 23 February 2012 the applicant received a letter from the National Land Service (the institution which took over the relevant functions of the VCA after an administrative reform \u2013 hereinafter \u201cthe NLS\u201d) confirming that his mother had retained the right to have her property rights to six hectares of land restored. It stated that there was no more vacant land in Pagiriai and asked the applicant to inform the authorities of his choice as to one of the forms of restitution provided for by the domestic law (ibid., \u00a7 92). It is unclear whether he replied to this letter.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 July 2012 the applicant received another letter from the NLS which stated that there was a possibility for the applicant to receive a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in the Vilnius city area but as there were 4,806 other candidates waiting to receive plots in the area, the restitution process would take a long time. The applicant was asked to consider an alternative form of restitution, such as a plot of land in a rural area, a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in a different city, or monetary compensation (ibid., \u00a7 92). He was also informed that there might be some vacant land in Pagiriai, so if he wished to receive a plot in that area, his request would be considered when the land plan was being prepared.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 August 2012 the applicant sent a letter to the NLS. He submitted that the annulment of his property rights to six hectares of land had caused him pecuniary damage in the amount of 251,217 Lithuanian litai (LTL \u2013 approximately 72,760 euros (EUR)), according to an assessment of the value of the land carried out in May 2012. In the applicant\u2019s view, being put on the list with 4,806 other candidates and being made to wait for an undetermined period of time for restitution was unacceptable. He asked to be allocated a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in Vilnius in the order of priority, and if that was not possible, to be informed how many plots were available in Vilnius and when he might expect to receive one. If he could not be given such a plot, he wished to receive compensation of LTL 251,217. The applicant also stated that he would only be able to decide whether he wished to receive a plot in Pagiriai after being presented with a plan of a specific plot. He stated that he did not wish to choose any other form of restitution.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 October 2013 the NLS approved the list of candidates to receive plots of land in several areas around Vilnius, including Pagiriai. The applicant\u2019s mother was included in that list as a candidate to receive six hectares of land. On 22 October 2013 the NLS held a meeting in which candidates were offered plots in the relevant areas andthe applicant took part in that meeting.According to the minutes of the meeting, which were approved by the NLS,he stated thatthe question of the restoration of his property rights was pending before the European Court of Human Rights, thathe was dissatisfied with the available vacant land and that he refused to choose any plots (\u017eem\u0117s sklyp\u0173 nesirinko).<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On 22April2016 the NLS held another meeting in which the applicant took part. According to the minutes of the meeting, which were approved by the NLS and signed by the applicant, he asked to be shown the plots which had been offered to him at their location and not juston a plan. He stated that he had lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights and wished to receive its decision- only then would he \u201cdecide what to do with his land\u201d. The applicant examined the land plan but did not make any decisions with regard to the available plots (joki\u0173 sprendim\u0173 nepri\u0117m\u0117), stating that he would \u201cseeksolutionsfrom organisations of a higher instance\u201d.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0At a subsequent meeting held on 17 May 2016,the applicant stated that he had seen the plots offered to him but that they could not be used according to their purpose because of their uneven surface and the presence of electricity and other installations on them. He therefore \u201csaw no possibility of choosing any plots\u201d (\u017eem\u0117s sklyp\u0173 pasirinkimo galimybi\u0173 nemato). The applicant further stated that the plot which had been taken away from him had been large and of good quality, and that he preferred to \u201cwait for decisions of a higher instance\u201d.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 October 2017 the NLS approved the list of candidates to receive plots of land in several areas around Vilnius, including Pagiriai. The applicant\u2019s mother was included in that list as a candidate to receive six hectares of land. On 25 October 2017 the NLS held a meeting for candidates in whichthe applicant took part. According to the minutes of the meeting, which were approved by the NLS and signed by the applicant, he was dissatisfied with the size and location of the plots which had been offered to him. He again stated that he had lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rightsand wished to receive that Court\u2019s decision- only then would he decide \u201cwhat to do with the land which had not been returned to him\u201d. He refused to make any decisions during the meeting (susirinkimo metu joki\u0173 sprendim\u0173 nepri\u0117m\u0117) on the grounds that he was \u201cwaiting for a response from a competent institution\u201d.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 November 2017 the NLS held yet another meeting of candidates to receive plots of land in the aforementioned areas andthe applicant took part in that meeting. According to the minutes of the meeting, approved by the NLS and signed by the applicant, he again refused to make any decisions (susirinkimo metu joki\u0173 sprendim\u0173 nepri\u0117m\u0117) and repeated that he was waiting for a response from the European Court of Human Rights.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0At the date of the latest information provided to the Court (13\u00a0February 2018), the applicant\u2019s property rights to six hectares of land had still not been restored.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE<\/p>\n
\nEgidijus K\u016bris,
\nIulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
\nand Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n