Communicated on 31 August 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 80208/13
Vytautas BARTKUS and Stanislovas KULIKAUSKAS
against Lithuania
lodged on 12 December 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants, Mr Vytautas Bartkus and Mr Stanislovas Kulikauskas, are Lithuanian nationals who were born in 1976 and 1957 and live in Žagarė and Šiauliai respectively.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The first applicant bought a house in an auction organised by the State in 2010. At the time, the former owners of the house, Z.B. and his wife G.B. were living there.
In 2010 the first applicant started court proceedings to evict Z.B. and G.B. Almost at the same time, Z.B. started court proceedings seeking to have a decision on the price of the house and later results of the auction (protokolinio sprendimo, kuriuo buvo nustatyta parduodamo iš varžytinių turto kaina ir varžytinių aktų) annulled, but his applications were dismissed. On 21 December 2011 the Šiauliai District Court adopted a decision on eviction and also ordered damages of 1,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 289 euros (EUR)) to be paid to the applicant every month until eviction.
On 6 April 2012 the bailiff sent a letter to Z.B. and G.B. asking them to vacate the house. G.B. lodged a complaint concerning bailiff’s actions, however, the domestic courts dismissed G.B.’s complaint.
On 13 November 2012 the bailiff again informed Z. B. and G.B. that the eviction would take place on 23 November 2012. Z.B. again lodged a complaint concerning the bailiff’s actions claiming that G.B. was ill and she would not recover; he also claimed that his daughter and his granddaughter, who was a minor, were living in the house. On 22 November 2012 the Šiauliai District Court applied interim measures and suspended the eviction. On 28 March 2013 the Šiauliai Regional Court held that the illness of G.B. had not come on suddenly, that there were no minors living in the house and that there were no grounds to suspend the execution of the eviction order.
On 3 April 2013 the bailiff informed Z.B. and G.B. that the eviction would take place on 16 April 2013. On 8 April 2013 G.B. lodged an application for interim measures, complaining of the results of the auction. This application was dismissed by the Šiauliai Regional Court. On 16 April 2013 Z.B. lodged a complaint stating that the bailiff’s actions were arbitrary. This complaint was dismissed by the Šiauliai District Court on 23 April 2013.
On 14 June 2013 the first applicant sold the house to the second applicant.
G.B. again lodged an application with the domestic courts to have interim measures applied, but her application was dismissed.
The first applicant started court proceedings, complaining of the bailiff’s actions. On 16 August 2013 the Šiauliai District Court allowed his complaint and indicated that the police were to evict Z.B. and G.B. from the house. This decision was appealed against by Z.B.; on 31 October 2013 Z.B.’s appeal was dismissed. Then G.B. again lodged an application with the domestic courts to apply interim measures but her application was dismissed.
On 18 November 2013 the eviction took place. However, Z.B. and G.B. did not participate in it and when the second applicant entered the house, all their furniture and other belongings were still there and the second applicant is still prevented from using the house.
B. Relevant domestic law
Article 769 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down the rules of eviction. It provides that eviction is carried out in accordance with a decision of a court. Eviction usually takes place with the person to be evicted present. However, if that person is in hiding or keeps refusing to vacate the premises, the bailiff evicts him or her by force, accompanied by the police and the court-appointed property manager (turto saugotojas).
COMPLAINT
The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they were prevented from using their house throughout the proceedings and the second applicant complains that he could not use the house even after the eviction took place.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
2. If so, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy