Communicated on 18 October 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 52524/13
Rūta MAROZAITĖ
against Lithuania
lodged on 17 July 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Rūta Marozaitė, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Kaunas.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Proceedings regarding establishment of a legal fact
On 2 April 2009 the applicant’s grandmother S.M. died and the applicant became entitled to inherit her property. The notary requested that the applicant submit documentary evidence confirming the property rights in respect of S.M.’s estate, in order to prepare documents relating to the inheritance.
The applicant was not in the possession of the requested documents, and asked the Kaunas District Court to establish as a legal fact that S.M. had owned a house, a storehouse with buildings around a courtyard, and a plot of land in the Kaunas Region measuring 25 ares (equivalent to 2,500 square metres). On 23 September 2011 the Kaunas District Court established that on 31 March 1992 S.M. had asked the national authorities to give her permission to buy a plot of land of 0.225 ha. The court also held that there were two receipts dated 8 July 1992 and 23 July 1992 confirming that S.M. had paid 74.80 Russian roubles (RUR) for redemarcation of the land, and RUR 3,119 to purchase a plot of land of 0.225 ha. The court also observed that on 7 July 1992 S.M. had signed a purchase agreement in respect of a plot of land of 0.225 ha. The court held that, in accordance with the provisions of the domestic law, the court was entitled to establish legal facts only when applicants could not obtain documents confirming such facts in any other manner. The court concluded that a representative of the National Land Service had confirmed that the applicant had all the necessary documents to obtain documentary evidence confirming property rights in respect of S.M.’s estate, and rejected her claim.
The applicant lodged an appeal, but on 19 January 2012 the Kaunas Regional Court upheld the decision of the first-instance court.
2. Proceedings regarding the annulment of decisions of the national authorities, the obligation to act and damages
The applicant started court proceedings, asking the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court to: annul the decisions of the national authorities not to issue her with a document confirming her grandmother’s property rights in respect of a plot of land of 0.225 ha; oblige the national authorities to issue her with that document within three months; and award her 10,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 2,896 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage, and EUR 28,962 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicant claimed that the domestic authorities were refusing to issue her with the document confirming her property rights in respect of a plot of land of 0.225 ha, and that they were stating that S.M. had not paid for the land. The applicant also claimed that the national authorities were asking her to pay EUR 12,743 for the land.
On 10 September 2012 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s claim. The court held that S.M. had submitted a request to buy a plot of land of 0.225 ha. After that, the national authorities had issued her with a document specifying that the price of the land was RUR 3,119 and she had to pay an additional RUR 300 for the preparation and official registration of the relevant documents. The court also held that the draft purchase agreement had been prepared, but the permission to purchase the land, which was obligatory under the domestic law, had never been issued. It also observed that the purchase agreement had had to be approved by a notary and registered in the relevant register, and this had not been done. The court therefore concluded that, although the procedure to purchase a plot of land of 0.225 ha had been started, the national authorities had not expressed their willingness to sell the land, and thus the purchase agreement had not been concluded.
The applicant lodged an appeal, and on 4 March 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the first-instance court. The court observed that, although the land purchase agreement between S.M. and the national authorities was not marked as a draft agreement, it was actually no more than that. The mere fact that the applicant’s grandmother had signed and paid for the land only represented her willingness to conclude the agreement, and did not prove that the land purchase agreement had actually been concluded.
The applicant asked the Supreme Administrative Court to reopen the proceedings, and on 5 June 2013 it rejected her application. The court held that reopening proceedings was only possible in the event that a gross violation of the provisions of domestic law had been made. The court observed that no such violation had been made, and thus the applicant’s application was rejected as unfounded.
3. Civil proceedings for damages
The applicant lodged a civil claim, asking to be awarded EUR 7,008 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 28,962 in respect of non-pecuniary damage for illegal actions committed by the domestic courts in refusing to establish as a legal fact that S.M. had owned 0.225 ha of land. On 1 April 2014 the Vilnius City District Court rejected the applicant’s claim because she had not provided any evidence about unlawful actions of the domestic courts, nor had she justified the amount of damages claimed.
The applicant lodged an appeal. On 3 December 2014 the Vilnius Regional Court upheld the decision of the Vilnius City District Court of 1 April 2014.
On 19 January 2015 the applicant’s appeal on points of law was rejected because it had been submitted by email rather than by a lawyer, and on 13 February 2015 it was rejected because it had not been submitted by a lawyer and had other procedural shortcomings. Finally, on 3 March 2015 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law.
4. Administrative proceedings for damages
The applicant started administrative proceedings against the national authorities for EUR 28,962 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and for recognition of her right to compensation for pecuniary damage. She complained that, although during the proceedings to establish a legal fact, officials had claimed that she would be issued with the property documents when she provided the original receipts, they had kept refusing her requests. The applicant also claimed that the national authorities were falsely stating that her grandmother had not paid for the land.
On 20 April 2015 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court established that S.M. had paid RUR 3,119 for a plot of land of 0.225 ha and RUR 74.80 for redemarcation of the land. The court also held that it had already been established in the other proceedings that the mere fact that the money had been paid was not sufficient grounds to establish that S.M. and the national authorities had concluded the land purchase agreement. The court observed that, even though the officials’ statements had been irresponsible during the proceedings to establish a legal fact, there was no evidence confirming that the land purchase procedure had not been finalised as a result of unlawful actions by the national authorities. Consequently, the examination of the part of the applicant’s claim concerning the acknowledgement of her right to compensation for pecuniary damage was terminated, and the other part of the application was dismissed.
The applicant lodged an appeal, and on 17 December 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court of 20 April 2015.
B. Relevant domestic law
Article 6 § 3 of the Law on Land Reform, in force at the material time, provided that land could be purchased to establish a private farm, or for other farming activities, individual enterprises, individual houses, plots for gardening or other activities not prohibited by law.
Government Order No. 89 of 7 February 1992 (hereinafter “the Order”), in force at the material time, provided that a person who had the right to and was willing to purchase a plot of land for his or her individual use had to ask the municipal (regional) land service to purchase that plot, a plan of the plot and other documents. The Order also provided that the municipal (regional) land service had to prepare a legal document determining the price of the land and a draft purchase agreement within a month of receiving a person’s request. The signature of a person willing to purchase the land meant that he or she had accepted the conditions established in the draft purchase agreement and legal document determining the price of the land. After that, the municipal (regional) land service had to submit the signed documents to the municipal (regional) authority, which had to publish a decree allowing the person to purchase the land. The Order also provided that a buyer had to pay for the land before signing the land purchase agreement. In the absence of important reasons, if a person did not pay the money or come to sign the purchase agreement, the land purchase agreement was not concluded. The land purchase agreement had to be approved by a notary and registered by the municipal (regional) land service. If those actions were not performed, the land purchase agreement would be null and void.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention that she is unable to inherit her grandmother’s land. She contends that, although her grandmother paid for the land in 1992, the national authorities and domestic courts concluded that the land purchase agreement had not been finalised and refused to issue her with a document confirming her grandmother’s property rights to a land. The applicant also complains under Article 13 that she did not have an effective remedy, because the domestic authorities and courts failed to recognise that her grandmother owned a plot of land of 0.225 ha.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Does the present case concern existing possessions or a legitimate expectation of acquiring possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, for example, Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004‑IX, and Guta Tudor Teodorescu v. Romania, no. 33751/05, § 40, 5 April 2016)?
2. If so, has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions?
3. Was the interference justified under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, taking into account that the applicant’s grandmother paid for the land but the applicant could not obtain documents confirming ownership allowing her to inherit that land, was the applicant obliged to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden within the meaning of the Court’s case-law (see, for example and mutatis mutandis, Matczyński v. Poland, no. 32794/07, §§ 104-115, 15 December 2015, and Valle Pierimpiè Società Agricola S.P.A. v. Italy, no. 46154/11, §§ 64-77, 23 September 2014)?
4. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy