Communicated on 7 March 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 55056/10
Birutė ŠIMAITIENĖ
against Lithuania
lodged on 1 September 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Birutė Šimaitienė, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Kaunas. She is represented before the Court by Mr A. Šimaitis, a lawyer practising in Kaunas.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 23 December 1991 the applicant and her sister asked the Lithuanian authorities to restore their property rights to two houses and some other buildings in Kaunas which belonged to their father.
On 22 October 1995 the Kaunas city management board informed the applicant that she will be given a partial compensation.
On 15 December 1995 the authorities informed the applicant that she indicated the previous address of the houses, the numbering has changed and because of that those particular houses in the meantime were privatised.
On 20 December 1995 the applicant agreed to be paid compensation for the houses as she could not restore her rights in natura.
On 4 November 1996 the authorities asked the applicant to submit additional documents. It was also stated that if the applicant did not have such documents, she should apply to the domestic courts to have the legal fact that her father was the owner of the property established.
On 28 May 2003 the Kaunas District Court adopted a decision establishing legal fact that the applicant’s father owned two houses and some other buildings in Kaunas.
On 9 October 2003 the authorities adopted a decision to restore property rights of the applicant and her sister to the property and to pay each of them 36,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 10,426 euros (EUR)) of compensation in Lithuanian Government bonds.
On 10 June 2004 the applicant started court proceedings asking to assess the market value of the property.
On 6 June 2006 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court appointed an expertise to establish the market value of the property. An expert assessed the value at LTL 164,900 (EUR 47,758), the applicant’s part was LTL 82,450 (EUR 23,879).
On 21 September 2007 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court annulled the point of the decision of 9 October 2003 where the value of the property assigned to the applicant was assessed at LTL 36,000 (EUR 10,426).
On 12 December 2007 the applicant started court proceedings asking to oblige the authorities to adopt a decision establishing that the applicant was entitled to LTL 82,450 (EUR 23,879) of compensation, she also asked to be awarded with pecuniary damage of LTL 61,270 (EUR 17,745) and non-pecuniary damage of LTL 35,000 (EUR 10,136). The applicant complained of the length of restitution proceedings as well. On 18 May 2009 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court dismissed her request stating that on 21 September 2007 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court only annulled the report on assessment of market value of the buildings and not the decision of the authorities itself.
The applicant appealed and on 26 July 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court also dismissed her request stating that the annulled point of the decision of 9 October 2003 where the value of the property assigned to the applicant was assessed at LTL 36,000 (EUR 10,426) was still not amended. The court also held that such an order did not exist and it was not clear how the applicant’s rights were breached. As for the damages, the Supreme Administrative Court stated that there were no grounds to award the applicant with the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
B. Relevant domestic law
Article 18 § 5 of the Law on the Restoration of Citizens’ Ownership Rights to Existing Real Property (Piliečių nuosavybės teisių į išlikusį nekilnojamąjį turtą atkūrimo įstatymas) of 1997 established that the decision to restore property rights must indicate the value of the property which is to be bought by the State.
Article 6.271 of the Civil Code provides that damage caused by unlawful acts by institutions of public authority must be compensated for by the State, irrespective of the fault of a particular public servant or other employee of the public authority institution.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that she could not use her property and could not even obtain a compensation for it. In her application she also complains that the authorities delayed the payment of compensation for nineteen years.
The applicant also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of court proceedings that took about eleven years.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of:
(a) the fact that the applicant was not paid compensation for the buildings;
(b) the overall delay in finalising restitution process?
2. Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in view of the overall length of the court proceedings regarding applicant’s right to obtain the compensation?
The parties are requested to inform the Court about any further developments regarding the applicant’s situation, in particular, whether the applicant was paid any compensation for the buildings and if so, what was the size of the compensation.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy