Communicated on 13 June 2014
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 2971/08
Marija ARBAČIAUSKIENĖ
against Lithuania
lodged on 9 January 2008
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Marija Arbačiauskienė, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Buivydiškės, Vilnius Region.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 16 March 1995 the Buivydiškės Circuit Council of the Vilnius Region assigned to the applicant a plot of land of 2.0 ha in the outskirts of the Vilnius City. The land was allocated for individual farming (asmeninio ūkio žemė) with a possibility of buying it from the State pursuant to the Law on the Land Reform. The decision of the local authority also aimed to execute a decision of the first instance court of 17 October 1994 concerning the inactivity of the administrative authorities in attributing the State’s land.
On 28 January 2002 the Vilnius Region Administration (hereinafter “the VRA”) adopted an order by which it included the applicant in a list of users of land for individual farming.
However, according to the information submitted by the applicant, enforcement of those legal acts was not started immediately and the plot in question was never measured and later transferred to the applicant.
The applicant received a letter of 25 August 2004 in which the VRA requested additional documents, at the same time refusing to enforce the above-mentioned legal acts.
The first proceedings
The applicant and her husband applied to the courts and complained of the protraction of administrative procedures by the authorities.
On 13 October 2006 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the claim.
By a decision of 5 May 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court (hereinafter “the SAC”) overturned the decision of the lower court and ordered the VRA to take the necessary action in order to have the plan of the allocated plot prepared. The court concluded that the authorities had failed to comply with their own decisions of 1995 and 2002 and the land had still not been transferred to the applicant.
Given the VRA’s failure to execute that court decision, the applicant and her husband applied to the bailiff, who then sent an order to the VRA asking it to comply with the court decision. On 18 July 2007 the bailiff confirmed that the decision had not been enforced.
Dissatisfied with that situation, the applicant applied to the administrative courts. In a new request she noted that the decision of the SAC had not imposed any deadline, thus, the applicant asked it to clarify this by setting a precise time-limit for the authorities to enforce the court decision and thus to prevent them from abusing their powers.
In rejecting the applicant’s request on 29 October 2007 the SAC reiterated that the applicable laws did not provide for precise time-limits and, in addition, there was no possibility to set a deadline given the complex set of actions which the authorities were required to carry out during the land reform.
The second proceedings
Being unable to enforce the court decision of 5 May 2007 the bailiff applied to the administrative courts. By a final decision of 30 May 2008 the SAC granted the claim and, inter alia, clarified its decision of 5 May 2007. It ordered the VRA to include the applicant by 30 June 2008 in a list of persons eligible to obtain land plots for individual farming. The VRA was also ordered to prepare a plan of the applicant’s land within three months following the adoption of the global project in the Buivydiškės area (which, it appears, had to be officially approved already in 2002).
The third proceedings concerning the criminal investigation
The applicant submits that the authorities unlawfully distributed parcels to third persons in the area where the disputed plot of the applicant was located. Upon the applicant’s request a pre-trial investigation was started and on 29 April 2008 the applicant was granted victim status.
However, on 30 December 2008 her request to complete the investigation and transfer the case to the court was rejected by the Vilnius District Prosecutor’s Office on the ground that the collected data about the alleged crime prescribed in Article 245 of the Criminal Code (failure to execute a decision of the court) was not sufficient.
The fourth proceedings concerning damages against the State
The applicant and her husband lodged a claim for damages in relation to the inactivity of the State authorities in attributing the land to them. By a final decision of 20 November 2008 the SAC partially granted the claim and awarded each of them 1,500 Lithuanian litai (LTL) (approximately 430 euros (EUR)) for non-pecuniary damage.
The fifth proceedings concerning the non-enforcement of the decision
By an order of 23 October 2008 the VRA put the applicant on the list of persons who do not use their land; plans of such parcels could not any longer be prepared by the authorities in order to transfer them to those people pursuant to the regulations of the land reform.
On 31 March 2009 the bailiff ordered the VRA to comply with the final decision of the SAC of 5 May 2007. Given that the VRA failed to do so, the bailiff addressed the civil courts with a request to impose a fine on the VRA pursuant to the Code on Civil Procedure. The applicant and her husband were interested parties in the proceedings and argued that she had never been given at least an opportunity to start using the plot.
On 13 July 2009 the court of first instance established that to that date the VRA had indeed failed to comply with its duties. The court imposed a fine of LTL 400 on the governor of the VRA and ordered execution of the decision of 5 May 2007 of the SAC within three months.
On 9 December 2009 the Vilnius Regional Court quashed the decision of the lower court and rejected the claim. In this connection the court noted that the VRA had taken certain steps to execute the decision of 5 May 2007; a precise deadline to prepare and transfer the plot to the applicant could not be imposed on the VRA because the Law on the Land Reform did not impose such a time-limit.
The sixth proceedings concerning actions of the bailiff
On 2 June 2010 the bailiff again ordered the VRA to execute the decision. On 28 October 2010 the bailiff observed that the decision had not been yet executed.
On 11 November 2010 a new writ of execution was issued because the VRA had ceased to exist due to the reorganisation of the institutions of the public service. The new writ was issued in respect of the National Land Service (hereinafter “the NLS”) which took over legal rights and obligations from the VRA.
By a letter of 20 November 2010 the applicant and her husband were informed that the bailiff had closed their case relying, inter alia, on the Vilnius Regional Court decision of 9 December 2009 (see the fifth proceedings above). They challenged that action of the bailiff before the courts.
By a final decision of 6 September 2011 the Vilnius Regional Court granted the request of the applicant and annulled the termination of the case. The courts found that the authorities had failed to execute the decision of the court without a justification and the bailiff had unlawfully terminated the case, instead of taking further coercive actions against the defendant.
According to the letter of the applicant of 30 December 2012, the disputed plot had still not been transferred to the applicant.
B. Relevant domestic law
Pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 16 (Article 15 as from 23 July 1997) of the Law on the Land Reform at the material time, plots of State land used for individual farming shall be sold to persons who use them according to the procedure established by the Government.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about non-execution of the court decisions of 1994 and 2007 and lack of an effective remedy given the failure of the authorities to comply with their own legal acts attributing the property to her. In addition, the applicant complained that the absence of a precise deadline in the court’s decision of 5 May 2007 allowed the competent authorities to further delay the transfer of the plot of land to her. The applicant alleges that that situation deprived her, as a former agriculture worker, of a source of income.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Were the actions/inactivity of the domestic authorities with regard to the execution of their own legal acts attributing the property to the applicant and the non-enforcement of the final court judgments of 1994 and 2007 in breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? (In this connection, see, mutatis mutandis, Nekvedavičius v. Lithuania, no. 1471/05, §§ 54-67, 10 December 2013.)
2. Has the applicant been deprived of the right to an effective remedy in view of the prolonged failure of the authorities to attribute her the plot of land for individual farming?
The Government are requested to submit factual information and documents on the latest developments in the applicant’s situation.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy