SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 39344/19
Marija BUTKEVIČ
against Lithuania
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting 21 September 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Aleš Pejchal, President,
Egidijus Kūris,
Marko Bošnjak, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 39344/19) against Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 19 July 2019 by a Lithuanian national, Ms Marija Butkevič, who was born in 1947 and lives in Vilnius (“the applicant”) who was represented by Mr E. Kudriavcev, a lawyer practising in Vilnius;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Lithuanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms K. Bubnytė-Širmenė;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the alleged failure of the authorities to notify the applicant about a decision regarding the restoration of her property rights.
2. On 11 January 2018 the National Land Service (hereinafter “the NLS”) adopted a decision to restore the applicant’s property rights by paying her monetary compensation. A complaint against that decision could be lodged with the administrative courts within thirty days.
3. In November 2018 the applicant asked the administrative courts to renew the time-limit for lodging a complaint. She submitted that she had not been notified of the decision and had learned about its existence only in October 2018. The courts refused her request. They found that the impugned decision had been sent to her by registered post. It was no longer possible to obtain proof of receipt from the post office because such documents were kept only for six months. However, the letter had not come back to the NLS undelivered, and therefore it had to be assumed that the applicant had received it.
4. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that she had not been properly notified of the decision regarding the restoration of her property rights and had not had the possibility to lodge a complaint against it with the courts.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
5. The Court is prepared to proceed on the assumption that the decision of 11 January 2018 was not delivered to the applicant, as the Government did not provide any documents showing otherwise (see, mutatis mutandis, Fridman v. Lithuania, no. 40947/11, § 27, 24 January 2017). Nonetheless, it is not persuaded by the applicant’s assertion that she had no knowledge of the impugned decision until October 2018.
6. According to the documents submitted by the parties, in October 2017 the NLS informed the applicant and her lawyer that her property rights would be restored by payment of monetary compensation (for the relevant domestic law and the Court’s assessment of it, see Beinarovič and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 70520/10 and 2 others, §§ 93 and 158, 12 June 2018). They were invited to attend a meeting on 14 November 2017 during which the draft decision on the restoration of her property rights would be considered. They were also informed that, in case they did not appear, the decision would be taken in their absence. However, neither the applicant nor her lawyer attended the meeting, without providing any justification to the domestic authorities or to the Court (see ibid., § 162, regarding the applicants’ duty to cooperate with the domestic authorities during the restitution process). Moreover, there is no indication that they subsequently made any effort to find out what had been discussed or decided during that meeting.
7. In addition, in January 2018 the applicant instituted court proceedings against the NLS regarding a different decision related to the restoration of her property rights. During those proceedings, on 31 January 2018 the NLS submitted a response to the applicant’s appeal, in which it noted, inter alia, that her property rights had been restored by the decision of 11 January 2018 and indicated the amount of compensation which had been awarded to her. However, nothing in the case file shows that, after receiving that information, the applicant or her lawyer sought to obtain a copy of the impugned decision or took any other relevant actions.
8. Furthermore, between 2016 and 2018 the applicant and her lawyer made numerous inquiries to the NLS, in writing, by telephone and in person, regarding various other decisions taken with respect to her property rights. This demonstrates that she was undoubtedly aware of the ongoing procedure of the restoration of her property rights and of the available avenues of obtaining information from the NLS.
9. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that, irrespective of whether the NLS decision of 11 January 2018 was delivered to the applicant, she ought to have known about its adoption, but she did not take any action to apprise herself of its contents until October 2018. Accordingly, the main factor which precluded the applicant from lodging a complaint against the impugned decision was her own lack of diligence.
10. It follows that the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 21 October 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Hasan Bakırcı Aleš Pejchal
Deputy Registrar President