Communicated on 24 February 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 17969/10
Janina Gelena SELINA
against Lithuania
lodged on 24 March 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Janina Gelena Selina, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1950 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.
In 1992 the applicant’s mother asked the Lithuanian authorities to restore her rights to the land of the father of her husband.
On 7 July 1998 the Vilnius County Administration (hereafter “the VCA”) adopted a decision to restore 1.1021 ha of land under the house where the applicant lived.
On 28 July 2003 the VCA sent a letter to the Vilnius municipality stating that the applicant was entitled to 1.1021 ha of land and that she wanted the restitution in natura.
On 3 December 2003 the Vilnius City mayor sent a letter stating that the plot of land would be delimited.
On 30 May 2006 the Director of the Vilnius City Municipality Administration adopted the order stating that the plot of land of 6,857 sq. m. would be delimited.
On 1 March 2007 the applicant received a letter from the Vilnius City Land Reform Office stating that the plot of land in question was in the Turniškės landscape reserve and therefore could not be returned in natura. The applicant was also informed that the order of the Director of Vilnius City Municipality Administration was in breach of a domestic regulation and that the land would not be returned to her in natura as long as this order was not amended.
The applicant then sent several requests to the Director of Vilnius City Municipality Administration (dated 8 May and 15 June 2007) but received no reply. She then addressed the Representative of the Government in Vilnius County, who examined her request and started court proceedings asking to oblige the Director of Vilnius City Municipality Administration to amend his order. The applicant also started court proceedings on 12 September 2007 asking the court to oblige the Director of Vilnius City Municipality Administration to adopt the decision on the restitution of 6,857 sq. m. of land. These proceedings were suspended until the decision in the proceedings started by the Representative of the Government in Vilnius County was adopted.
On 3 December 2007 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court adopted a decision obliging the Director of Vilnius City Municipality Administration to amend his order which stated that the plot of land of 6,857 sq. m. would be delimited to state that the plot of land of 1,819 sq. m. would be delimited instead. The applicant appealed but on 11 September 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania adopted a decision dismissing her complaint.
After that, the proceedings in the case brought by the applicant were renewed. On 30 October 2008 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed her complaint asking the court to oblige the Director of Vilnius City Municipality Administration to adopt the decision on restitution of 6,857 sq. m. of land. The court stated that the final decision in other proceedings obliged the Director of Vilnius City Municipality Administration to amend his order, therefore, there were no legal grounds to oblige him to adopt the decision on restitution of 6,857 sq. m. of land. The court also stated that the applicant could have applied to the Director of Vilnius City Municipality Administration requesting to form a plot of land of 1,819 sq. m. The applicant appealed and on 12 October 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania dismissed her complaint.
The applicant also requested the Vilnius City municipality to delimit two separate plots of land on 19 November 2008, but received a response on 12 December 2008 that a broadening of the road was planned and the broadened road would cross the territory where the applicant’s house stood, therefore the house would have to be demolished.
B. Relevant domestic law
The Law on the Procedure and Conditions for the Restoration of Citizens’ Ownership Rights to Existing Real Property (Įstatymas „Dėl piliečių nuosavybės teisių į išlikusį nekilnojamąjį turtą atstatymo tvarkos ir sąlygų“), enacted on 18 June 1991 and amended on numerous occasions, provided for two forms of restitution – the return of the property in natura or compensation for it if its physical return was not possible.
Article 12 (12) 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 land shall be purchased by the State from the citizens ... and it shall be compensated for ... if it lies within the territories of state parks and state reserves which are especially valuable ecologically, archeologically and recreationally.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that she was deprived of peaceful enjoyment of her possessions as the State authorities refused to restore her property rights to a plot of land of 6,857 sq. m. because that land was within the territory of a State reserve and therefore was redeemable by the State.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, on account of the applicant not being able to have a plot of land of 6.857 sq. m. returned in natura?
The parties are requested to inform the Court about any further developments regarding the applicants’ situation. In particular, the Government is requested to inform the Court whether the order of 30 May 2006 of the Director of Vilnius City Municipality Administration was amended and whether the applicant’s property rights were restored.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy