FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF GEGLIS v. LITHUANIA
\n(Application no. 52815\/15)<\/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 Geglis 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. 52815\/15) 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, Ms Danuta Geglis (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 19 October 2015.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Ms A. Saul\u0117nien\u0117, a lawyer practising in Vilnius. The Lithuanian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Bubnyt\u0117-\u0160irmen\u0117.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant alleged that her property rights to part of her father\u2019s land had not been restored and that the restitution process had been unreasonably lengthy, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 December 2017the above complaints were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissiblepursuant to Rule 54 \u00a7 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Vilnius.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Decisions on restoration of the applicant\u2019s property rights<\/strong><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 October 1991 the applicant\u2019s sister applied for the restoration of her property rights to her late father\u2019s land, which was located in Pylim\u0117liai village, city of Vilnius.She indicated that the applicant was also a successor to the same plot of land.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0It appears that the applicant\u2019s father had owned some land in Pylim\u0117liai village. According to the most recent information available to the Court, the exact plot of land he had owned was 6.0961 hectares. It appears that the applicant\u2019s restitution process took two directions: at first she agreed to receive part of the land in the Vilnius region and then she asked to receive another 0.32 hectares in the Vilnius region, andshe wanted to receive some land in the city of Vilnius (see paragraphs 8-22 below).<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Restoration of the applicant\u2019s property rights in the Vilnius region<\/em><\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 May 2000 the applicant asked the authorities to restore her property rights to her father\u2019s land by giving her plots of land of equivalent value in the Vilniusregion.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0By a decision of 6 April 2001, the applicant\u2019s property rights were restored in respect of 0.2420\u00a0hectares of her father\u2019s land by attributing to the applicant a plot measuring 0.5124\u00a0hectares in the Vilnius region.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 May 2006 the authorities established that the applicant had a right to restore her title to 0.32 hectares of her father\u2019s land. It appears that they did so following an application lodged by the applicant to have her right to a plot of land of 0.32 hectares transferred from Vilnius to the Vilnius region.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 November 2014 the applicant was informed that she could have her property rights restored to her father\u2019s land by receiving a plot of forest in a rural area. She had to apply before 1 March 2015.\u00a0On 27\u00a0February 2015 the applicant informed the authorities that she wanted her property rights restored by receiving a plot of forest in Did\u017eioji Rie\u0161\u0117.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 July 2015 the National Land Service (\u201cthe NLS\u201d) decided to restore the applicant\u2019s property rights to 0.0315 hectares of her father\u2019s land by transferring her right to a plot of land of 0.1599 hectares. It was indicated in the decision that her rights to the remaining 0.2884\u00a0hectares would be restored later.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 August 2016 the NLS held a meeting to consider the location where the applicant had chosen two plots of land.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 February 2018 the NLS held a meeting to consider the location where the applicant had chosen four plots of land. It appears that no decision as to the restoration of the remaining land was adopted.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0It appears that at the date of the latest information available to the Court (17 September 2018), the applicant\u2019s property rights to 0.2884\u00a0hectares of her father\u2019s land had not yet been restored.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Restoration of the applicant\u2019s property rights in the city of Vilnius<\/em><\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 December 2001 the applicant applied for the restoration of her property rights to her father\u2019s land by returning to her 0.2 hectares of land in Vilnius, either in the former Pylim\u0117liai village or in Antakalnis. It appears that this request was the change of her initial wish as regards the form of restitution (see paragraph 8above).<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 March 2003 the applicant asked the authorities to return to her in kind the remaining part of her father\u2019s land in Pylim\u0117liai, Vilnius. It appears that this request was another change of her wish as regards the form of restitution (see paragraph 16 above).<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 June 2005 the Vilnius County Administration(\u201cthe VCA\u201d)restored the applicant\u2019s property rights to 0.0973 hectares of her father\u2019s land by transferring to her a plot of land in Vilnius for the construction of an individual house.\u00a0On 10 February 2006 the VCA restored the applicant\u2019s property rights to 0.0544 hectares of her father\u2019s land by transferring to her eleven plots of land in the former Pylim\u0117liai village.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 May 2012 the applicant informed the authorities that she would not accept monetary compensation as a form of restitution and that she wanted to restore her property rights to her father\u2019s landin natura. She also asked what actions she had to take in order to receive the land.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0On 23 April 2013 the NLS restored the applicant\u2019s property rights to 0.0005 hectares of her father\u2019s land.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 July 2016 the NLS restored the applicant\u2019s property rights to 0.0042 hectares of land by returning to her in natura four plots of land measuring 0.0042 hectares in total.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 January 2018 the NLS restored the applicant\u2019s rights to 0.0078\u00a0hectares of land by returning to her in natura two plots of land measuring 0.0078 hectares in total. It was indicated that the applicant\u2019s property rights to the remaining 0.2898 hectares would be restored later. It appears that at the date of the latest information available to the Court (17\u00a0September 2018), the applicant had not yet received those 0.2898 hectares of land.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Court proceedings on the restoration of the applicant\u2019s property rights<\/strong><\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 November 2004 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court examined a claim lodged by the applicant that the VCAhad been protracting the adoption of a decision on the restoration of her property rights in Vilnius. The court found that the authorities had asked the applicant to provide a document which she had in fact already provided and held that the authorities had failed to act in due time in the process of restoring her property rights. The court ordered the authorities to act in accordance with domestic law and to proceed with the restitution process.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 June 2005 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court examined another claim lodged by the applicant that the VCA had been protracting the adoption of a decision on the restoration of her property rights. She asked the court to oblige the VCA to return to her 0.7730\u00a0hectares of land. The court held that the authorities had been inactive and ordered them to issue a decision restoring the applicant\u2019s property rightswithin three months of the date on which the aforementioned court decision had become final (see paragraph 36 below).<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The VCAappealed against that decision. On 11 October 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first-instance decision.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 April 2009 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court examined a third complaint lodged by the applicantregarding the inactivity of the authorities in the process of restoration of her property rights.The applicant asked the court to oblige the VCA to restore her property rights to 0.3013\u00a0hectares of land in Vilnius and to 1.72 hectares in the Vilnius region, as well as to award her 10,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 2,896\u00a0euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The court held that the applicant had submitted several requests in 2006asking the VCA to proceed with the restoration of her property rights; however, the latterhad refused to act. Moreover, the authorities\u2019 decision of 19 May 2006 (see paragraph10above) had remained unenforced. It was explained to the applicant that several measures had yet to be carried out in order to proceed. The court held that the applicant had to be included on the list of citizens wishing to receive land in Did\u017eioji Rie\u0161\u0117, but that due to the authorities\u2019 inactivity,she had not been included on the list. The court also found that she still had a right to the restoration of her title to 0.6223 hectares of land and that the restitution process in her case had been going on for more than eighteen years. The court ordered the VCA to issue a decision restoring the applicant\u2019s property rights to 0.6223 hectares of land within three months of the date on which the aforementioned court decision became final. As regards compensation, the court awarded the applicant EUR 579 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0The authorities appealed.On 14 June 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court found that the first-instance court had made some mistakes in calculating the time-limits for submission of a claim, and remitted the case for fresh examination.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0On 8 December 2011 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court carried out a fresh examination of the applicant\u2019s complaint (see paragraph\u00a026above).The court stated that 5.44 ares of land had been returned to the applicant in natura in total and that the applicant\u2019s property rights to 0.6223 hectares of her father\u2019s land had not been restored. The court held that it could not order the VCA to transfer her rights to a plot of land measuring 0.3013 hectares in Vilnius because the largest plot that could be transferred in Vilnius was 0.12 hectares. Nor could it order the VCA to transfer 1.72 hectares of land in the Vilnius region because the plot of land the applicant had indicated belonged to someone else. The court awarded the applicant EUR\u00a0869 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant and the NLS appealed. On 16 April 2012 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeals. The court held that the decision regarding the applicant\u2019s right to the restitution of 0.32 hectares of land had not yet been adopted and that the applicant had been offered the option of monetary compensation.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0In 2014 the applicant instituted court proceedings seeking compensation amounting to EUR\u00a0133,848 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 28,962 in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage. She claimed that the authorities had failed to issue decisions restoring her property rights in due time and that her property rights had not yet been restored. She also claimed that she had lost the right to the restoration of her title to 0.2 hectares of land in the city of Vilnius because \u2012 after a change in the domestic regulations\u2012 the maximum plot size that could be restored for the construction of an individual housewas now fixed at 0.12 hectares (see paragraphs 28 above and37 below). However, she had received a plot of land measuring 0.0973 hectares.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 May 2014 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s compensation claim. It held that in 2000 she had applied to the authorities for the restitution of 2 hectares of her father\u2019s land in the Vilnius region instead of the original plot her father had owned in Vilnius County (see paragraph 8 above). She had received 0.5124 hectares in 2001 (see paragraph 9 above). In 2001 she had applied for the restoration of her property rights to 0.2 hectares of land in Vilnius (see paragraph 16 above), and in 2003 she had asked for the remaining land to be returned in kind (see paragraph 17 above). In 2005 and 2006 the applicant\u2019s property rights to 0.0973 and 0.0544 hectares of land had been restored (see paragraph 18 above). In 2012 the applicant had informed the authorities that she would not accept monetary compensation and still wanted to receive the remaining land in natura(see paragraph 19 above). In 2013 her property rights had been restored to 0.0005\u00a0hectares of land (see paragraph\u00a020 above). The court also indicated that before 1\u00a0April 2003 the applicant had changed her mind as to the form of restitution and had claimed that she wanted to receive the land in natura. The court noted that the process of restoration of the applicant\u2019s property rights had been carried out in several stages: in 2005 she had received a plot of 0.0937\u00a0hectares in Pa\u0161ilai\u010diai, Vilnius (see paragraph 18 above); in 2006 a document confirming that she had a right to receive 0.32 hectares of State redeemable land had been drawn up; and in 2006 and 2013 her property rights had been restored to 0.0544\u00a0hectares and 0.0005 hectares respectively (see paragraphs\u00a018 and 20 above). As regards the plot for the construction of an individual house, the court held that a decision to restore the applicant\u2019s property rights to 0.0937 hectares of land had been issued in 2005 and had not been challenged. The court also ruled that the restitution process was not over and would be continued. In the court\u2019s opinion, the authorities had not acted unlawfully and there were no grounds for awarding the applicant compensation.<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant appealed against the first-instance decision and on 7\u00a0April 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court decided to reopen the case for examination on the merits in order to receive some additional documents.<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 June 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first\u2011instance decision. It held that although the applicant claimed that the authorities had failed to execute the decisions of the courts to restore her property rights, she had never challenged the authorities\u2019 decisions to restore her property rights to certain plots of land. The court also held that the restitution process had been carried out and suspended for objective reasons. The authorities had confirmed that the process would recommence as soon as the municipality had delineated the plots of land.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0For relevant domestic law, see Grigolovi\u010d v. Lithuania (no.\u00a054882\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 25-26, 10 October 2017),<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0Article 21 of the Law on the Restoration of Citizens\u2019 Ownership Rights to Existing Real Property (Pilie\u010di\u0173 nuosavyb\u0117s teisi\u0173 \u012f i\u0161likus\u012f nekilnojam\u0105j\u012f turt\u0105 atk\u016brimo \u012fstatymas\u2013 hereinafter \u201cthe Law on Restitution\u201d) of 1997 currently provides that in cases where citizens have not expressed their intentions as to their preferred form of restitution within the time-limits laid down in the law, or where they have chosen a form not provided for by law, or where it is impossible to restore their property rights in the form chosen, property rights are restored by means of monetary compensation.<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0Government Resolution no. 1057, setting out the \u201cOrder for Execution of the Law on the Restoration of Citizens\u2019 Ownership Rights to Existing Real Property\u201d (Lietuvos Respublikos pilie\u010di\u0173 nuosavyb\u0117s teisi\u0173 \u012f i\u0161likus\u012f nekilnojam\u0105j\u012f turt\u0105 atk\u016brimo \u012fstatymo \u012fgyvendinimo tvarka), in force between 31 August 2004 and 10 April 2005, provided that county administrations had to examine citizens\u2019 requests and adopt decisions regarding restitution within three months of the date of approval of the plans in respect of the land if the land had been within the boundaries of a city before 1 June 1995 (Point 111).<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0Government Resolution no. 920, setting out the \u201cSizes of New Plots of Land in Cities\u201d (D\u0117l nauj\u0173 \u017eem\u0117s sklyp\u0173 dyd\u017ei\u0173 miestuose patvirtinimo)\u2012 which was in force between 12 October 2000 and 6 June 2007 \u2012 provided that new plots of land that could be transferred to citizens of the city of Vilnius (excluding the city centre) could be between 0.09\u00a0and\u00a00.2 hectares in size. After 9 April 2010, the maximum size of a plot in the city of Vilnius was 0.12 hectares.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1TO THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that that her property rights to some of her father\u2019s land had not been entirely restored. She was also dissatisfied with the overall length of the restitution process in her case.<\/p>\n She invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1to the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cEvery natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.<\/p>\n The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The parties\u2019 submissions<\/em><\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0The applicant<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed that Pylim\u0117liai had never been classified as an \u201copen-field village\u201d (r\u0117\u017einis kaimas) and that there were no particularities in the process of restoring her property rights. She further submitted that although she had applied for the restoration of her property rights in 1991, the authorities had not taken the first decision until 2005. There had been several court decisions in which it had been confirmed that the authorities had been protracting the restitution process.Nevertheless, those decisions had either been partly enforced or not enforced at all, and part of her property rights had not yet been restored on the date of her observations in reply before the Court (27 June 2018).<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0The Government<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the property that had belonged to the applicant\u2019s father was in an \u201copen-field village\u201dwhich implied that there were certain stipulations attached to the restitution process. In such villages the land was divided in strips, there were no partitions between the different plots and the land was in shared ownership. The size of the plots of land to be restored to citizens who wanted their property rights restored in kind had to be calculated in proportion to the part they had had in the village. The authorities had a difficult task in delineating the boundaries of such villages and measuring the land because there was not enough land to be transferred in kind, especially in the cities. Moreover, the applicant\u2019s father\u2019s land was located in Antakalnis, one of the most prestigious districts in Vilnius,where the majority of land had been used for private housing as early as 1990, making it difficult to restore citizens\u2019property rights in kind.<\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0As to the length of the restitution process, the Government claimed that the applicant had applied for the restoration of her property rights in the Vilnius region in 2000 (see paragraph 8above). In 2001 the authorities had adopted a decision to restore her property rights to only 0.2420 hectares of land (see paragraph 9above) because she had requested land in Vilnius (see paragraph 16 above). In 2003 the applicant had expressed the wish to have her property rights restored in kind in Pylim\u0117liai, Vilnius (see paragraph 17 above). The authorities had then proceeded with drawing up maps of the area. Moreover, the applicant\u2019s property rights, with her approval, had been restored to 0.0973 hectares of land in Pa\u0161ilai\u010diai, Vilnius, by giving her a plot for the construction of an individual house. Later on, in 2006, her property rights had been restored to 0.0544 hectares of land in Pylim\u0117liai, Vilnius (see paragraph 18above).<\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that when the applicant asked to have her property rights to 0.32 hectares of land restored by receiving a plot of land in the Vilnius region (see paragraph 10above), the authorities had asked her to choose the location of the land. She had been dissatisfied with the restitution process and had instituted court proceedings,which had prevented the authorities from taking actions until the court proceedings were over. Only after the final decision of 2015 (see paragraph 33 above) had the authorities been able to proceed with the restoration of the applicant\u2019s rights to 0.32 hectares of land, and they had acted with undue delay. Out of those 0.32 hectares, the applicant\u2019s property rights still had to be restored to the remaining 0.2884 hectares of land in the Vilnius region (see paragraph 12above). The plans of the plots of land the applicant had chosen were being prepared and a decision on the restitution would be adopted before the end of 2018.<\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the remaining land to be restored, the Government submitted that the amount of land in Vilnius was very limited and citizens could either wait for restoration in natura or opt for other means of restitution. The applicant had partially used that right and had received a plot of land of equivalent value in the Vilnius region in 2001 (see paragraph\u00a09above), a plot of land for the construction of an individual housein Vilnius in 2005 (see paragraph 18 above), and plots of land in the Vilnius region(see paragraph 12above); she would receive other plots in due course. The remaining plot to be restored to her in Pylim\u0117liai, Vilnius was 0.2898 hectares (see paragraph22above) and the authorities were planning to finalise the restitution process in Vilnius by 2020. If the applicant\u2019s property rights to the remaining land could not be restored in kind, she would be paid monetary compensation (see paragraph 35 above).<\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0In that connection, the Government noted that the applicant had not applied for other alternative forms of restitution, which could have ended the restitution process earlier. Even when the authorities had offered such alternatives, for example, monetary compensation, she had refused (see paragraph 19 above). She had also been offered a plot of forest, but had submitted her request after the date indicated by the authority (see paragraph11above).<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Court\u2019s assessment<\/em><\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the applicant complained about several different aspects of the domestic proceedings. Firstly, she complained that her property rights to her father\u2019s land had not been fully restored. Secondly, she complained of delays in the restitution process overall. Because those complaints are closely related, the Court will examine themtogether.<\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the applicant\u2019s right to have her property rights to her father\u2019s land restored was never disputed. She therefore had a \u201cpossession\u201d within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and the Court considers that the way in which the restoration at issue was implemented amounted to an interference with her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.<\/p>\n 48.\u00a0\u00a0For the purposes of the above-mentioned provision, the Court must determine whether a fair balance was struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the protection of the individual\u2019s fundamental rights. The requisite balance will not be struck where the person concerned bears an individual and excessive burden (see Grigolovi\u010d v.\u00a0Lithuania, no. 54882\/10, \u00a7 42, 10 October 2017 and the references therein).<\/p>\n
\nEgidijus K\u016bris,
\nIulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
\nand Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n