Communicated on 11 May 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 15202/11
Ryšard LAVRENOV and others
against Lithuania
lodged on 15 February 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants (Mr Ryšard Lavrenov, Ms Tamara Berkovič, Ms Niura Borisova, Ms Valentina Konovalova, Mr Jonas Lavrenov and Mr Michailas Lavrenovas) are all Lithuanian nationals born in 1943, 1942, 1942, 1946, 1945 and 1943 respectively. They all live in Vilnius and are represented before the Court by Mr Jonas Algirdas Smagurauskas, a lawyer practising in Vilnius.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants are heirs of A. L., who owned two houses and a plot of land in Vilnius. The land was nationalised in 1940.
On 11 June 2003 the Vilnius City First District Court adopted a decision and established as a legal fact that A. L.’s estate owned a plot of land in Vilnius measuring 1,500 sq. m. On 26 May 2005, at the request of the domestic authorities, the proceedings in the case were reopened, and on 27 October 2005 the Vilnius City First District Court annulled the decision of 11 June 2003 and held that the applicants had not provided any documents proving the acquisition of the land by A. L. The applicants appealed, and on 9 February 2006 the Vilnius Regional Court held that the court of first instance had misinterpreted the facts and certain pieces of evidence, and decided not to modify the decision of the Vilnius City First District Court of 11 June 2003.
On 19 February 2004 the national authorities informed the applicants that the plot of land measuring 1,500 sq. m. would be demarcated. However, on 6 April 2004 the authorities informed the applicants that the land in question was State redeemable, and the question of restitution had to be dealt with by other means provided for in the domestic law.
The applicants started court proceedings, and asked the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court to oblige the national authorities to return the 1,500 sq. m. plot of land in natura. On 15 June 2004 the court refused to accept the action, because the applicants had not complained to a non‑judicial institution first, as was obligatory. The applicants lodged a separate action, and on 22 July 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court remitted the case for fresh examination at the court of first instance. On 25 May 2006 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court held that the applicants had not contested the issue of whether the land in question was State redeemable, and until this was contested, there were no legal grounds to restore their property rights.
The applicants started separate court proceedings, and asked the domestic courts to oblige the national authorities to adopt the decision on the restitution of their property rights by giving them another plot of land or paying them monetary compensation. On 27 August 2009 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the action as unfounded. The court held that the applicants’ property rights could not be restored in natura, because the land was already occupied, and another plot could not be given to them, because the parts due to each applicant would be smaller than the minimum required by domestic law. The court also stated that there had been no written request by the applicants for monetary compensation for the land.
The applicants submitted an appeal, and on 20 September 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court decided that they had asked to be given another plot of land or to be paid monetary compensation, however, in all the circumstances, it was clear that they had expressed their desire to be compensated for the land in accordance with its market value. The court also held that compensation for such land was “impossible under domestic law”, but stated that the applicants had to express what they wanted clearly, and that they still had the possibility to choose monetary compensation.
The applicants submitted an application for clarification of the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision of 20 September 2010, and on 8 November 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court explained that the applicants had asked for clarification of the motivational part of the decision, and, in accordance with the domestic provisions, it was only possible to clarify the operative part of the decision. Therefore, that application was dismissed.
On an unspecified date the applicants asked the domestic authorities to pay them monetary compensation or give them another plot of land, but on 14 March 2015 they received a response that there was no more available land in Vilnius, and monetary compensation would be paid in the future, because there was no money in the State budget at that point in time.
B. Relevant domestic law
As enacted, Article 5 of the Law on the Restoration of Citizens’ Ownership Rights to Existing Real Property (Piliečių nuosavybės teisių į išlikusį nekilnojamąjį turtą atkūrimo įstatymas) provided that the restoration of property rights in the city of Vilnius applied only to plots of land measuring more than 0.2 ha.
Article 12 of the Law stated that land on which buildings and equipment were sited which had been purchased for individual use was State redeemable, and could not be returned to citizens.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that their property rights have still not been restored, and they are unable to receive compensation. They also complain that the restitution proceedings have been excessively lengthy.
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 the applicants’ property rights were not restored, and they were not paid any compensation for the land;
b) the overall delay in finalising the restitution proceedings?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy