Communicated on 1 December 2017
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 52815/15
Danuta GEGLIS
against Lithuania
lodged on 19 October 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Danuta Geglis, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Vilnius.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 30 October 1991 the applicant asked the Lithuanian authorities to restore her property rights to her father’s land.
In 2000 it was established as a legal fact that the applicant’s father had owned 5.58 hectares of land before nationalisation. A document stating that the applicant was entitled to the restoration of property rights to 1.0150 hectares of her father’s land was drawn up on 8 June 2000.
It appears that on 6 April 2001 property rights were restored in respect of 0.2420 hectares of land by attributing to the applicant a plot of land measuring 0.5124 hectares and it was stated that her rights to the remaining 0.7730 hectares would be restored later. On 6 December 2004 the Vilnius County Administration determined the quantity of land that was to be restored to the applicant, stating that the remaining parcel to be restored amounted to 0.6880 hectares.
Between 2004 and 2011 the applicant instituted several sets of proceedings asking the courts to establish that the authorities had failed to act in due time at several stages of the restitution process.
In 2004 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court found that the authorities had asked the applicant to provide a document which she had in fact already provided and agreed that the authorities had failed to act in due time in the process of restoring the applicant’s property rights.
In 2005 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court both held that the authorities had failed to act in due time in not issuing a decision regarding the restoration of the remainder of the applicant’s property rights. The Vilnius County Administration was obliged within three months from the date on which the aforementioned court’s decision became final to issue a decision restoring the applicant’s property rights.
Between 2009 and 2012 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court found that in 2006 the authorities had restored the applicant’s property rights to 0.7740 hectares of land and had indicated that her rights to the remaining 0.6223 hectares of land would be restored at a later date. The courts found that the authorities had also issued a decision holding that the applicant had the right to 0.32 hectares of State redeemable land, but no further decision regarding it had been issued after 2006. The applicant was awarded 3,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL ‑ approximately 869 euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
In 2014 the applicant started court proceedings asking for a compensation award amounting to EUR 133,848 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 28,962 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. The applicant claimed that the authorities had failed to issue decisions restoring her property rights in due time and that her property rights had not been restored. She also claimed that she had lost the right to have her property rights restored to 0.2 hectares of land in the city of Vilnius because ‒ after a change in the domestic regulations ‒ the maximum plot size that could be restored for individual construction was now fixed at 0.12 hectares. However, she had received a plot of land measuring 0.0973 hectares.
On 26 May 2014 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s compensation claim. It held that in 2000 the applicant had asked the authorities for the restitution of 2 hectares of her father’s land in Vilnius Region instead of the original plot her father had owned in Vilnius County, and she had received 0.5124 hectares in 2001. In 2001 she had asked for the restoration of her property rights to 0.2 hectares of land in Vilnius, and in 2003 she had asked for the remaining parcel of land to be returned in natura. In 2005 the applicant’s property rights to 0.0973 hectares of land had been restored, meaning that the remaining land to be restored amounted to 0.5907 hectares. However, the authorities had later stated that the remaining parcel to be restored amounted to 0.6767 hectares. In 2006 the applicant’s property rights to 0.0544 hectares of land had been restored. In 2012 the applicant had informed the authorities that she did not want to receive monetary compensation and still wanted to receive the remaining parcel of land in natura. In 2013 property rights had been restored to 0.0005 hectares of land and the court had ruled that the remaining land to be restored to the applicant amounted to 0.6223 hectares. The court also noted that the process of restoration of the applicant’s property rights had been carried out in several stages: in 2005 she had received a plot of 0.0937 hectares in Vilnius, Pašilaičiai; in 2006 a document confirming that she had a right to receive 0.32 hectares of State redeemable land had been drawn up and in 2006 and 2013 property rights had been restored to 0.0544 hectares and 0.0005 hectares respectively. As regards the plot for individual construction, the court held that a decision to restore the applicant’s property rights to 0.0937 hectares of land had been issued in 2005 and had not been challenged. The court also ruled that the restitution process was not over and would be continued. In the court’s opinion, the authorities had not acted unlawfully and there were no grounds for awarding the applicant compensation.
On 7 April 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court decided to reopen the examination of the case on the merits.
On 19 June 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first‑instance court’s decision. It held that, although the applicant claimed that the authorities had failed to execute the decisions of the courts to restore her property rights, she had never challenged the authorities’ decisions to restore her property rights to certain plots of land. The court also held that the restoration process had been carried out and suspended for objective reasons. The authorities confirmed that the process would recommence as soon as the municipality had delineated the plots of land.
B. Relevant domestic law
Article 5 § 2 of the Law on the Restoration of Citizens’ Ownership Rights to Existing Real Property (Piliečių nuosavybės teisių į išlikusį nekilnojamąjį turtą atkūrimo įstatymas – hereinafter “the Law on Restitution”) of 1997, which was in force at the material time, provided that property rights to land which until 1 June 1995 had been in urban areas were to be restored by: 1) giving back to the citizens concerned the plots of land with buildings on them, unless the land was State redeemable and if they did not want to have it returned in natura; 2) transferring without payment plots of land on which the citizens concerned had buildings (the maximum size in the city of Vilnius was limited to 0.2 hectares); 3) transferring without payment new plots of land in the city where the citizens concerned were entitled to have their property rights restored or in the city where they were living (except the city of Vilnius).
On 1 February 2012, Article 16 § 9 (6) the Law on Restitution was amended by ‒ for the first time ‒ providing for cash payments as one of the ways of compensating for land compulsorily bought by the State.
Government Resolution no. 1057, setting out the “Order for Execution of the Law on the Restoration of Citizens’ Ownership Rights to Existing Real Property” (Lietuvos Respublikos piliečių nuosavybės teisių į išlikusį nekilnojamąjį turtą atkūrimo įstatymo įgyvendinimo tvarka), as amended on 31 January 2003, provided that in cases where a decision to restore property rights had not been issued, the citizen concerned could, before 1 April 2003, express his or her wish regarding the form in which the ownership rights to the real property were to be restored. If the citizen concerned failed to make a choice before 1 April 2003, a decision had to be issued taking into account the form of restitution indicated in his or her last request. If the form of restitution indicated in the request was not expressly provided for in the Law on Restitution, or if it was impossible to restore property rights in the form indicated in the request, the authorities had to offer the other possible forms of restitution listed in the Law on Restitution before 1 March 2003. If the citizen concerned failed to make his or her choice before 1 April 2003, it was for the authorities to choose the form of restitution (Point 3).
Government Resolution no. 920, setting out the “Sizes of the New Plots of Land in Cities” (Dėl naujų žemės sklypų dydžių miestuose patvirtinimo) ‒ which was in force between 12 October 2000 and 6 June 2007 ‒ provided that new plots of land that could be transferred to citizens of the city of Vilnius (excluding the city centre) could be between 0.09 and 0.2 hectares in size. After 9 April 2010, the maximum size in the city of Vilnius could not exceed 0.12 hectares.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that her property rights to some of her father’s land have not been entirely restored. She further complains of the overall delay in finalising the restitution process.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of:
(a) the fact that rights to the remainder of the applicant’s property have not been restored;
(b) the overall delay in finalising the restitution process (see Kavaliauskas and Others v. Lithuania, no. 51752/10, § 61, 14 March 2017 and the case-law cited therein)?
In this respect the Government are asked to provide the decisions issued by the authorities to restore the applicant’s property rights to her father’s land and additional information about any other developments regarding the applicant’s situation.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy