Published on 14 October 2024
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 48537/22
Edmundas BŪBELIS
against Lithuania
lodged on 12 October 2022
communicated on 23 September 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns restitution of property.
In 1991 the applicant asked the authorities to restore his property rights to the land that his grandfather owned in the resort town of Palanga; that land was nationalised by the soviets in the 1940s.
On 18 June 1992 the municipal authorities in Palanga restored the applicant’s right to land in natura, and on 20 July 1992 they ordered that the applicant be given a plot of land at the address A. Mickevičius 4a, Palanga.
Afterwards, the implementation of the two decisions was suspended until 26 July 2007, although they were not annulled. In the meantime, on 11 January 1998 the authorities wrote to the applicant that the Palanga municipality decided to restore to the applicant a plot of land of up to the size that the initial owner (the applicant’s grandfather) had owned, yet the restoration of property could take place only after the detailed plan of Palanga city was approved.
On 25 October 2007 the authorities informed the applicant that the plot of land could not be returned in natura, on the grounds that, among others, it fell within the territory of another plot of land, which in 2004 was rented out, for a duration of 58 years, to a trade union, which operated a sanatorium on that land. The applicant also specifies that another part of the plot of land that he sought to have restored was transferred to third persons by the authorities between 1996 and 2007.
In 2020 the National Land Service informed the applicant that instead of restoring his property rights in natura, he would be given a pecuniary compensation, 997 euros, for a 0,20 hectares’ plot of land in Palanga town. The applicant started administrative court proceedings, arguing that his right to property was breached because of the authorities’ mistakes and delay to act, which led to a situation where restitution in natura became impossible. He also argued that the proposed compensation was entirely incommensurate with the actual value of the plot of land in the centre of Palanga.
By a final ruling of 15 June 2022 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It held that the land which the applicant sought to have restored, was rented out and also transferred into private ownership; those plots also fell within the territory of Palanga town’s historic centre, and thus could not be restored in natura. There was no basis to quash the National Land Service’s decision that the applicant be paid a pecuniary compensation. The fact that the Palanga authorities’ decisions of 18 June 1992 and 20 July 1992 were not implemented was irrelevant, because to implement them would mean disregarding the protected status of Palanga town’s historic part.
Relying, in particular, on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and also on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant states that his right to restitution of property was acknowledged as early as in 1992. Yet, as the authorities acted in breach of the principle of good administration and delayed implementing the relevant decisions, restitution of property in natura became impossible, he was deprived of property, and left with an incommensurate compensation, making him bear the burden of the authorities’ mistakes.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Paukštis v. Lithuania, no. 17467/07, §§ 67-69, 24 November 2015; and also Gėglis v. Lithuania [Committee], no. 52815/15, § 47, 18 December 2018)?
Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
If so, did that interference satisfy the requirement of proportionality? In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Nekvedavičius v. Lithuania, no. 1471/05, §§ 86 and 87, 10 December 2013, and Beinarovič and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 70520/10 and 2 others, §§ 138-139, 12 June 2018)?