FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF VASILEVSKA AND BARTO\u0160EVI\u010c v. LITHUANIA
\n(Applications nos. 38206\/11 and 18054\/12)<\/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 Vasilevska and Barto\u0161evi\u010d 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 two applications (nos.\u00a038206\/11 and 18054\/12) 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 two Lithuanian nationals, Ms LilijaVasilevska and Mr Tadeu\u0161Barto\u0161evi\u010d (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on 23 May 2011 and 25 January 2012.<\/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\u00a0Application no. 38206\/11 was communicated to the Government on 6\u00a0December 2011. As for application no. 18054\/12, the complaint concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention was communicated to the Government on 18 October 2017,and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule\u00a054 \u00a7 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were born in 1960 and 1959 respectively and live in Vilnius.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0In 1991 the applicants\u2019 grandfather, P.S., applied for restoration of his property rights to land which had been nationalised by the Soviet regime. In 1994 the administrative authorities acknowledged that P.S. had the right to have his property rights restored.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 September 2004 the Vilnius County Administration (hereinafter \u201cthe VCA\u201d) restored P.S.\u2019s property rights by giving him 8.17\u00a0hectares of land, consisting of several plots inKry\u017eiokai andNaujaneriai, areas in the Vilnius city municipality.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 May 2005 P.S. sold a plot of 0.50 hectares out of the 8.17\u00a0hectares given to him to S.M. On 30 June 2005 P.S. sold a plot of1.27\u00a0hectares to \u017d.J. Both sale agreements were certified by a notary.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 July 2005 P.S. died. The applicants were issued with a certificate of inheritance in respect of his estate on 21 December 2005.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Annulment of property rights to 2.50 hectares<\/strong><\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 July 2008 the prosecutor of the Vilnius Region (hereinafter \u201cthe prosecutor\u201d) lodged a claim with the Vilnius Regional Court, seeking to have P.S.\u2019s property rights to 2.50 of the 8.17 hectares given to him annulled. The prosecutor submitted that 2.50 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 in Beinarovi\u010d and Others v.\u00a0Lithuania, nos. 70520\/10 and 2 others<\/a>, \u00a7\u00a7 86-89, 12 June 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 P.S.\u2019s property rights to that part of the land, the applicants\u2019 property rights to it also be annulled.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants and the VCA disputed the prosecutor\u2019s claim. However, on 21 October 2009 the Vilnius Regional Court allowed it. On 24\u00a0May 2010 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicants, and on 10 December 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed their appeal on points of law, upholding the lower courts\u2019 decisions in their entirety.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Annulment of property rights to 0.15 hectares<\/strong><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 December 2008 the prosecutor lodged a further claim with the Vilnius Regional Court, seeking to have P.S.\u2019s property rights to 0.15\u00a0hectares of the 8.17 hectares given to him annulled, on the grounds that it was covered by a forest of national importance, as well as to have the applicants\u2019 property rights to that part of the plot annulled. Since the 0.15\u00a0hectares had been sold to S.M. (see paragraph 7 above), the prosecutor asked that after annulling P.S.\u2019s property rights, the sale agreement between him and S.M. be annulled in respect of that part of the land.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants disputed the prosecutor\u2019s claim. However, on 10\u00a0December 2009 the Vilnius Regional Court allowedit. The court annulled P.S.\u2019s property rights to the 0.15 hectares, as well as the sale agreement between P.S. and S.M. with respect to that amount of land. It stated that the applicants, as P.S.\u2019s heirs, had to take over his legal obligations, and ordered them to return to S.M. what he had paid for the 0.15 hectares \u2013 49,500 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 14,340 euros (EUR)).<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 23 September 2010 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicants, and on 11 April 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed their appeal on points of law, upholding the lower courts\u2019 decisions in their entirety.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has not been informed whether the applicants have paid the amount of LTL 49,500 (approximately EUR 14,340) to S.M.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Annulment of property rights to 0.87 hectares<\/strong><\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 November 2008 the prosecutor lodged yet another claim with the Vilnius Regional Court, seeking to have P.S.\u2019s property rights to 0.87\u00a0hectares of the 8.17 hectares given to him annulled, on the grounds that it was covered by a forest of national importance, as well as to have the applicants\u2019 property rights to that part of the plot annulled. Since the 0.87\u00a0hectares had been sold to \u017d.J. (see paragraph 7 above), the prosecutor asked that after annulling P.S.\u2019s property rights, the sale agreement between him and \u017d.J. be annulled in respect of that part of the land.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants disputed the prosecutor\u2019s claim, but on 8 March 2010 the Vilnius Regional Court allowed it. The court annulled the VCA\u2019s decision to restore P.S.\u2019s property rights in the part concerning the 0.87\u00a0hectares, as well as the sale agreement between P.S. and \u017d.J. in respect of that amount of land. It ordered the applicants, as P.S.\u2019s heirs, to return to \u017d.J. what she had paid for the 0.87 hectares \u2013 LTL 188,730 (approximately EUR\u00a054,660).<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants appealed against the first-instance court\u2019s decision, but on 12 July 2011 the Court of Appeal upheld it in its entirety. The applicants then lodged an appeal on points of law, but on 19\u00a0September\u00a02011 the Supreme Court refused to examine it on the basis thatit raised no important legal issues.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 August 2013 the applicants paid to \u017d.J. the amount of LTL\u00a0188,730 (approximately EUR 54,660), as well as LTL 6,440 (approximately EUR 1,865) in bailiff\u2019s expenses.<\/p>\n D.\u00a0\u00a0Subsequent restitution process<\/strong><\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0On 23 February 2012 the applicants 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, after the courts had annulled P.S.\u2019s property rights to 3.52 hectares of land, hehad 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. It is unclear whether the applicants replied to this letter.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 July 2012 the applicants received another letter from the NLS which stated that there was a possibility for the applicants 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 applicants were asked to consider an alternative form 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.). They were also informed that there remained about 0.10 hectares of vacant land in Kry\u017eiokai, so if they wished to receive a plot in that area, their request would be considered when the land plan was being prepared.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 August 2012 the applicants sent a letter to the NLS. They submitted that the annulment of their property rights to 3.52 hectares of land had caused them pecuniary damage in the amount of LTL 627,630 (approximately EUR 181,770), consisting of the value of the 2.50 hectares of land which had been taken away from them (see paragraph 9above), according to a private assessment, as well as the amounts which the applicants had been ordered to pay to S.M. and \u017d.J. (see paragraphs 12 and\u00a016above). In the applicants\u2019 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. The applicants 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 they might expect to receive one. They also stated that they would agree to receive a plot of land in Kry\u017eiokai but would first want to know its exact location. The applicants stated that they did not wish to choose any other form of restitution.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 December 2012 the NLS approved the list of candidates to receive plots of land in several areas around Vilnius, including Kry\u017eiokai. The applicants were included in that list as candidates to receive 3.52\u00a0hectares of land. On 31\u00a0December 2012 the NLS held a meeting at which candidates were offered plots in the relevant areas.The applicants took part in that meeting and chose four plots, measuring a total of 0.8035\u00a0hectares. As regards the remaining land, they stated that they would wait for the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in their case.<\/p>\n However, as it appears from the information at the Court\u2019s possession, those four plots were eventually not given to the applicants, for reasons not provided to the Court.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 August 2014 the NLS adopted a land plan of the aforementioned areas around Vilnius, as well as the list of individuals who would be allocated plots in those areas. The applicants were included in the list and were entitled to receive two plots of land, measuring a total of 0.203\u00a0hectares.The applicants later submitted to the Court that those two plots included installations and buildings belonging to third parties.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 April 2015 the applicants sent a letter to the NLS, asking it to temporarily suspend the planning of the two aforementioned plots \u201cwhile court proceedings [were] ongoing\u201d (kol vyksta teismai). The Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 letter must have been referring to the proceedings before the Court, as no relevant domestic proceedings had been ongoing at that time.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 May 2016 the applicants took part in another candidates\u2019 meeting and chose three plots, measuring a total of 0.23 hectares. It does not appear that they were offered any more plots at that meeting.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0In another candidates\u2019 meeting held on 10 July 2018 the applicants were offered a plot of 0.1239 hectares in joint ownership with a third party, but they refused it on the grounds that such joint ownership would not be financially beneficial to them.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 October 2018 the NLS adopted a decision to restore P.S.\u2019s property rights by giving him 0.23 hectares of land. The decision stated that his rights to the remaining 3.29 hectares would be restored at a later date.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0At the date of the latest information provided to the Court (15\u00a0October 2018), the applicants\u2019 property rights to 3.29 hectares of land had still not been restored.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0For the relevant domestic law and practice, see Beinarovi\u010d and\u00a0Others v. Lithuania (nos. 70520\/10 and 2 others<\/a>, \u00a7\u00a7 84-103, 12\u00a0June 2018).<\/p>\n
\nEgidijusK\u016bris,
\nIulia AntoanellaMotoc, judges,
\nand Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n