Communicated on 11 May 2020
Published on 2 June 2020
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 50831/19
Bronė LOZOVSKIENĖ
against Lithuania
lodged on 17 September 2019
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged breach of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions as a result of the State authorities’ refusal of her restitution request.
Between 2003 and 2006 the State authorities confirmed that the applicant had the right of restitution and that they had all the necessary documents to proceed. In 2011 the State authorities informed the applicant that certain documents proving the applicant’s family links to her ancestors who owned the land before the nacionalisation were incomplete, without explicitly requesting the applicant to submit those. In 2015 the State authorities refused to restore property rights of the applicant on the grounds that the applicant submitted the documents after the deadline set up in law, which was 31 December 2003. They informed the applicant that the additional documents, purportedly provided by her, could be accepted and taken into consideration only if the court restored the term for the submission of such documents, which was not the case.
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention that the State authorities refused to restore her property rights. She alleges that she was informed about the necessity to submit additional documents only after the legal deadline to submit them was already over.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have legitimate expectations for the restitution of her property rights within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Paukštis v. Lithuania, no. 17467/07, § 67, 24 November 2015)? If so, have the State authorities made mistakes in the process of the restitution of the applicant’s property rights?
2. When was the first time when the State authorities informed the applicant that documentation for the restoration of property rights was incomplete? Did this happen after the deadline set up in law for the submission the documents for restitution had already expired?
3. Have the State authorities set up any deadline for the applicant to submit the requested documents? Has the applicant submitted requested documents, and, if so, on which date? Have the State authorities accepted the documents submitted by the applicant?
4. In the light of the above, has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? Did she have to bear the burden of remedying any mistakes in the restitution process attributable to the State authorities (see, among other authorities, Beinarovič and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 70520/10 and 2 others, §§ 140-142, 12 June 2018, and the case-law cited therein).
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy