FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF TRUCHANOVI\u010c AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA
\n(Applications nos. 15708\/10, 15874\/10, 25117\/10 and 28380\/10)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\n(Merits)
\nSTRASBOURG
\n18 December 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Truchanovi\u010d and Others 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 four applications (nos.\u00a015708\/10, 15874\/10, 25117\/10 and 28380\/10) 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 eight Lithuanian nationals, Mr Je\u017ei Truchanovi\u010d (\u201cthe first applicant\u201d), Mr Marjan Truchanovi\u010d (\u201cthe second applicant\u201d), Ms Marija Butkevi\u010d (\u201cthe third applicant\u201d), Ms\u00a0Vaclava Snie\u017eko (\u201cthe fourth applicant\u201d), Ms Leokadija Pavlova (\u201cthe fifth applicant\u201d), Ms Jelena Dvarionien\u0117 (\u201cthe sixth applicant\u201d), Ms\u00a0Marija Narkevi\u010d (\u201cthe seventh applicant\u201d) andMs Genoefa Stankevi\u010d (\u201cthe eighth applicant\u201d) on 10\u00a0March 2010 (the first, second and third applicants), 2 March 2010 (the fourth and fifth applicants), 21\u00a0April\u00a02010 (the sixth and seventh applicants) and 27\u00a0April\u00a02010 (the eighth applicant).<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were 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 30 November 2010 the seventh applicant died. Her daughter and legal heir, Ms IrenaMaksimovi\u010d, expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings on her behalf.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 6 December 2011 the applications were communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 October 2013 the third applicant died. The first and second applicants, her brothers and legal heirs, expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings on her behalf.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 January 2016 the second applicant died. His daughters and legal heirs, Ms Irena KristinaTruchanovi\u010d, Ms Regina Marija Dubickaja and Ms\u00a0JulitaPetrauskien\u0117, expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings on his behalf.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant was born in 1937,the second applicant was born in 1930,the third applicant was born in 1934,the fourth applicant was born in 1945,the fifth applicant was born in 1930,the sixth applicant was born in 1954,the seventh applicant was born in 1926 and the eighth applicant was born in 1929. They all live in Vilnius.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Annulment of the applicants\u2019 property rights<\/strong><\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On various dates in 1991 the first, second, third, sixth, seventh and eighth applicants applied for restoration of their property rights to land which had been nationalised by the Soviet regime. The fourth and fifth applicants did so in 2000.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0Between 1995 and 2001 the administrative authorities or courts acknowledged that the first, second and third applicants had the right to have their property rights restored in respect of plots of land in Gudeliai, and that the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth applicants had the right to have their property rights restored in respect of plots of land in Kriau\u010di\u016bnai. Gudeliai and Kriau\u010di\u016bnai were former villages which had become part of the Vilnius city municipality in 1996.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0In 2005 and 2006 the Vilnius County Administration (hereinafter \u201cthe VCA\u201d) restored the applicants\u2019 property rights by giving them the following plots:<\/p>\n – thefirst, second and third applicants \u2013 a total of ten hectares in Gudeliai;<\/p>\n – thefourth and fifth applicants \u2013 a total of two hectares in Kriau\u010di\u016bnai;<\/p>\n – thesixth and seventh applicants \u2013 a total of 8.149 hectares in Kriau\u010di\u016bnai;<\/p>\n – the eighth applicant \u2013 4.6663 hectares in Kriau\u010di\u016bnai.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On various dates in 2008 the prosecutor of the Vilnius Region (hereinafter \u201cthe prosecutor\u201d) lodged claims with the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, seeking to have the applicants\u2019 property rights to some of the land given to them annulled. The prosecutor submitted that part of the applicants\u2019 land was covered by forests. Since those forests were situated in a city, they were considered forests of national importance (valstybin\u0117s reik\u0161m\u0117s mi\u0161kai) and could therefore only be owned by the State (see the relevant domestic law cited inBeinarovi\u010d and Others v.\u00a0Lithuania,nos.\u00a070520\/10 and 2 others<\/a>, \u00a7\u00a7 86-89, 12\u00a0June 2018). As a result, the prosecutor argued that the VCA\u2019s decisions restoring the applicants\u2019 property rights to such forests had to be declared unlawful and their effects annulled.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0In all of the applicants\u2019 cases, the courts upheld the prosecutor\u2019s claims. The final decisions were taken by the Supreme Administrative Court between January and March 2010. By virtue of those decisions, the applicants\u2019 property rights were annulled with respect to the following plots:<\/p>\n – thefirst, second and third applicants \u2013 3.66 hectares;<\/p>\n – thefourth and fifth applicants \u2013 0.52 hectares;<\/p>\n – thesixth and seventh applicants \u2013 1.22 hectares;<\/p>\n – the eighth applicant \u2013 1.2 hectares.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Subsequent restitution process<\/strong><\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0In 2010 and 2011 the fourth and fifth applicants sent several letters to the VCA and subsequently tothe National Land Service (the institution which took over the relevant functions of the VCA after an administrative reform \u2013 hereinafter \u201cthe NLS\u201d), asking that their rights to 0.52 hectares be restored by new land in Kriau\u010di\u016bnaibeing given to them or, if that was not possible, land of equivalent value in a different area in Vilnius. It does not appear that they received any answers from those institutions.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 November 2011 the NLS adopted a decision to restore the seventh applicant\u2019s property rights by giving her 0.251 hectares of agricultural land. The decision stated that her rights to the remaining 0.78\u00a0hectares would be restored later.However, the seventh applicant submitted to the Court that that decision had not been related to her property rights annulled by the domestic courts (see paragraph\u00a012 above), andthe Government did not argue otherwise.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0In February 2012 all the applicants received letters from the NLS confirming that, after the courts had annulled their property rights, they had retained the right to have those property rights restored. The applicants were informed of the forms of restitution provided for by the domestic law (ibid., \u00a7 92) and asked to inform the authorities of their preferred form of restitution. The applicants again received similar letters from the NLS in July 2012 stating that there were 4,806 other candidates waiting to receive plots for the construction of an individual home in the Vilnius city area, and thus the restitution process would take a long time. The applicants were asked to consider alternative forms of restitution, such as being given 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.).<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 May 2012 the NLS adopted a decision to restore the eighth applicant\u2019s property rights by giving her 0.4419 hectares of agricultural land. The decision stated that her rights to the remaining 0.7581 hectares would be restored later.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0In July 2012 the fourth applicant received a letter from the NLS informing her that a plot of land was being prepared for her in Medininkai, in the Vilnius Region. The fourth applicant replied to that letter by stating that she had never agreed to be given land in that area, and asked the NLS to stop any preparation in that regard.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0In August 2012 all the applicants sent letters to the NLS in which they asked, inter alia, to be allocated plots of land for the construction of individual homes in Vilnius in the order of priority, or to receive compensation in respect of the pecuniary damage which they had sustained as a result of the annulment of their property rights.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 May 2016 the NLS held a meeting for candidates to receive plots of land in certain areas around Vilnius, including Kriau\u010di\u016bnai. The eighthapplicant\u2019s representative took part in that meeting and chose two plots. The fifth applicant took part in that meeting but did not choose any plots.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 June 2016 the NLS adopted a decision to restore theeighth applicant\u2019s property rights by giving her 0.24 hectares of agricultural land. The decision stated that her rights to the remaining 0.5181 hectares would be restored later.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 June 2016 the NLS informed the first, second and third applicants (or their heirs \u2013 see paragraphs\u00a05 and 6 above) that their property rights to 3.66 hectares would be restored by monetary compensation of 2,646 euros (EUR).However, the applicants did not agree to this proposal, and it was not carried out.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0In February 2017 the NLS sent a letter to the seventh applicant, asking her to indicate the area in which she wished to receive a plot. The seventh applicant\u2019s heir (see paragraph\u00a03 above) replied that same month, indicating her choice.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 November and 14 December 2017 the NLS held meetingsfor candidates to receive plots of land in certain areas around Vilnius, including Kriau\u010di\u016bnai. The fifth,sixthand eighth applicantstook part in those meetings but did not choose any plots.During the latter meeting, the fifth applicant stated that she would not choose any plots because her complaint was being examined by the European Court of Human Rights.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 January 2018 the NLS held a meeting for candidates to receive plots of land in certain areas around Vilnius, including Kriau\u010di\u016bnai. The seventh applicant\u2019s heir (see paragraph\u00a03 above) took part in that meeting but did not choose any plots.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0In January 2018 the first, second and third applicants (or their heirs \u2013 see paragraphs\u00a05 and 6 above)sent a letter to the NLS stating that they had expressed their wish for their property rights to be restored in kind and not by monetary compensation. They informed the NLS that their complaint was being examined by the European Court of Human Rights, and that the NLS should refrain from any unilateral actions which might make the Court\u2019s decision impossible to implement.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0At the date of the latest information provided to the Court (12\u00a0October 2018), the applicants\u2019 property rights had still not been restored with respect to the following plots:<\/p>\n – thefirst, second and third applicants \u2013 3.66 hectares;<\/p>\n – thefourth and fifth applicants \u2013 0.52 hectares;<\/p>\n – thesixth and seventh applicants \u2013 1.22 hectares;<\/p>\n – the eighth applicant \u2013 0.5181 hectares.<\/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