FOURTH SECTION<\/p>\n
CASE OF GRIGOLOVI\u010c v. LITHUANIA
\n(Application no. 54882\/10)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\n(Just satisfaction)
\nSTRASBOURG
\n15 January 2019<\/p>\n
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article\u00a044 \u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Grigolovi\u010d v. Lithuania,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:<\/p>\n Ganna Yudkivska, President, Having deliberated in private on 11 December 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. 54882\/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 a Lithuanian national, Mr FabijanGrigolovi\u010d (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 14 September 2010.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0In a judgment delivered on 10 October 2017 (\u201cthe principal judgment\u201d), the Court held that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the failure of the authorities to restore the applicant\u2019s property rights to the remaining plot of land of 9.3905 hectares (Grigolovi\u010d v. Lithuania, no. 54882\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 40-49, 10\u00a0October 2017).<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Under Article 41 of the Convention the applicant sought compensation of 585,072 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, representing the market value of the property that had not been returned to him, and EUR 16,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicant to submit, within six months from the date on which the judgment became final in accordance with Article 44 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (ibid., \u00a7 56 and point\u00a03 of the operative provisions).<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant and the Government each filed observations.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The parties\u2019 submissions<\/em><\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed EUR 585,072 in respect of pecuniary damage, representing the market value of the three plots of land that were transferred to third parties and that were in the place where the applicant\u2019s father had previously had his land. In support of his claim, the applicant submitted a document prepared by the Vilnius branch of the State Enterprise Centre of Registers in 2018. The report estimated the market value of the three plots of land in question.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed EUR 16,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He considered that an award of EUR 1,000 for each year his property rights had not been restored would be just.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested the applicant\u2019s claim for pecuniary damage as excessive and unsubstantiated. They argued that in the context of restoration of property which had been nationalised by the Soviet regime, the State should not be obliged to compensate for the full market value of that property. The Government submitted that the domestic law provided for partial reparation of nationalised property. They also submitted that the applicant was 1,650th in line to receive 0.12 hectares of land for individual construction.In addition, the Government claimed that it would not be possible to provide the applicant with a plot of land of equivalent value in Vilnius because there was not enough land. They considered that monetary compensation would be the best way to restore the remainder of the applicant\u2019s property rights. As the applicant was on the list to receive 0.12\u00a0hectares of land for individual construction, the remaining part to be restored would be 9.2705 hectares, and its value was EUR 26,085.84.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0As regards compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Government considered the amount indicated by the applicant excessive. They submitted that an amount of EUR 4,000 would be just and that, in any event, the award should not exceed EUR 8,000.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Court\u2019s assessment<\/em><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that a judgment in which it finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to the breach and make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Brum\u0103rescu v.\u00a0Romania (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 28342\/95, \u00a7 19, ECHR 2001\u2011I, and Nekvedavi\u010dius v. Lithuania (just satisfaction), no. 1471\/05, \u00a7 14, 17\u00a0November 2015).<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0Furthermore, if the nature of the breach allows restitutio in integrum, it is for the respondent State to implement this. If, on the other hand, national law does not allow \u2013 or allows only partial \u2013 reparation to be made for the consequences of the breach, Article 41 empowers the Court to afford the injured party such satisfaction as appears to it to be appropriate (seeKuri\u0107 and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828\/06, \u00a7 80, ECHR 2014).<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that in the principal judgment it held that the domestic authorities had not acted in line with the principle of good governance to ensure that the applicant\u2019s property rights were protected. Moreover, the applicant\u2019s legitimate expectation to have his property rights restored to the remaining plot of land was unjustifiably affected by failure of the authorities to act. As a result, the balance which had to be struck between the general interest and the applicant\u2019s personal interest was upset, and he has had to bear an individual and excessive burden (see paragraph\u00a048 of the principal judgment).<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention does not impose any restrictions on the Contracting States\u2019 freedom to determine the scope of property restitution or to choose the conditions under which they agree to restore title to property which was transferred to them before they ratified the Convention (see Nekvedavi\u010dius (just satisfaction), cited above, \u00a7 19 and the references therein). While Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01 requires that the amount of compensation granted for property taken by the State be \u201creasonably related\u201d to its value, the same rule does not apply to situations in which the compensatory entitlement arises not from any previous taking of individual property by the respondent State, but is designed to mitigate the effects of a taking or loss of property not attributable to that State \u2013 in such situations, the State is entitled to reduce, even substantially, the levels of compensation provided for by law (ibid.).<\/p>\n
\nFaris Vehabovi\u0107,
\nEgidijus K\u016bris,
\nCarlo Ranzoni,
\nGeorges Ravarani,
\nMarko Bo\u0161njak,
\nP\u00e9ter Paczolay, judges,
\nand Marialena Tsirli, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n