THE SYNOD COLLEGE OF THE EVANGELICAL REFORMED CHURCH OF LITHUANIA v. LITHUANIA

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 44548/98
by  THE SYNOD COLLEGE OF THE EVANGELICAL REFORMED CHURCH OF LITHUANIA
against Lithuania

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting
on 5 December 2002 as a Chamber composed of

MrG. Ress, President,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrP. Kūris,
MrR. Türmen,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
MrsH.S. Greve, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 February 1998,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant church, the Synod College of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania, is based in Vilnius. It was represented before the Court by Mr K. Stungys, a lawyer practising in Vilnius. The respondent Government were represented by Mr G. Švedas, Agent of the Government.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

Since 1889 the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania had owned an apartment building of 1,795.63 square metres in the centre of Vilnius (“the building”). In 1940, following the Soviet invasion in Lithuania, the building was nationalised. In 1990 the independence of Lithuania was re-established.

During the period from March 1992 to March 1993 the Vilnius Naujamiestis Municipal Council (seniūnija) transferred ownership rights of 12 apartments in the building to the tenants of those flats under the Privatisation of Flats Act. 

1. Decisions of the Vilnius City Council of 8 and 20 December 1993

On 8 December 1993 the Vilnius City Council (valdyba) adopted a decision to return the building to the Vilnius Community of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania based on the Restitution of Church Property Act 1990.

On 20 December 1993 an executive branch of the Vilnius City Council took a decision to hand over the building to the Vilnius Community of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania.

On 27 December 1993 the necessary formalities were finalised whereby the Vilnius Community of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania was handed over the control of the building.

2. Annulment of the decisions of 8 and 20 December 1993

The tenants brought court proceedings to quash the administrative decisions of 8 and 20 December 1993. The Vilnius Community of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania filed a counter-claim, asking the court to declare null and void the contracts of privatisation of the flats between the Naujamiestis Municipal Council and the tenants.

On 9 January 1996 the Vilnius City Second District Court satisfied the claim of the tenants. The court quashed the decisions of 8 and 20 December 1993, holding that the Restitution of Church Property Act 1990 had required the local authority to provide the former tenants with appropriate housing when deciding to restore property rights of the former owner. The court also held that, pursuant to the Restitution of Church Property Act 1995, houses and apartments that had leasehold tenants could not be returned to former owners. The Vilnius Community of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania and the Vilnius City Council appealed against this decision.

By a decision of 18 January 1996 the Vilnius Community of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania transferred the rights to the building and the claims thereto to the Synod College of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania. 

On 14 August 1996 the Vilnius Regional Court quashed the judgment of the District Court and dismissed the tenants’ claims. The Regional Court found that the Restitution of Church Property Act 1990 nullified the relevant Soviet regulation of 1948 under which churches and other property of religious communities had been nationalised. The court held that since the adoption of the law in 1990 the State had had no property right to the building in question, and that the flats therein could not be privatised. Accordingly, the contracts of privatisation between the Naujamiestis Municipal Council and the tenants had been null and void. The Regional Court confirmed the validity of the decisions of 8 and 20 December 1993.    

The tenants lodged a cassation appeal against the above decision, alleging that the flats in question were in fact their property.

On 14 October 1997 the Court of Appeal examined the case acting as a court of cassation. It agreed with the tenants, reversing the decision of the Regional Court and upholding the judgment of the first-instance court.

The Court of Appeal noted that the nationalisation of the building had been based on a Soviet regulation of 1940, and not by that of 1948 as it had been stated by the Regional Court. Accordingly, the Restitution of Church Property Act 1990 could not apply in the instant case.

The Court of Appeal recalled the decision of the Constitutional Court of 27 May 1994, stating that only from the moment of the decision of a competent authority to return the property in kind or to compensate therefor did the former owner acquire a property right.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the right of the Vilnius Community of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania to control the building had been restored by the decision of the Vilnius City Council of 8 December 1993, that is, after the tenants had bought the flats in accordance with the Privatisation of Flats Act. Therefore the Vilnius City Council, at the time when it had decided to return the building to the former owner, had no longer had ownership rights of the 12 flats constituting part of the building. The Vilnius City Council had not therefore had the right to return the building in its entirety to the former owner. The Court of Appeal also noted that the Privatisation of Flats Act had not barred privatisation of flats in a building formerly owned by a religious community. The Court of Appeal quashed the decisions of 8 and 20 December 1993 and confirmed the tenants as the lawful owners of the flats.

The Court of Appeal found that the Vilnius Community of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania was entitled to restitution of its property rights in respect of the building in accordance with the Restitution of Church Property Act 1995. Under the above law, however, no return of the whole building was possible. The Court of Appeal noted in the reasoning part of the judgment that the Vilnius City Council will have to decide newly with the question of the property rights of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania in accordance with the applicable domestic legislation (also see the ‘Relevant domestic law and practice part’ below). The Court of Appeal did not order the local authority to conduct any specific actions in this connection.   

3. Proceedings concerning the charges for heating

On an unspecified date in 1998 a communal services company of the local authorities (“the company”) brought a court action against the Synod College of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania, claiming that the applicant church had not paid for heating of the building during a period from  1997 to 1998. On 16 November 1999 the Vilnius City Second District Court rejected the action as unsubstantiated.

On 28 December 1999 the Vilnius Regional Court quashed the decision, accepting the company’s action and awarding damages against the applicant church for the unpaid charges for heating during the period from
2 February 1997 until 14 May 1998. The court found that on 27 December 1993 the control over the building had been handed over to the Vilnius Community of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania. It was further established that on 14 May 1998, in view of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 14 October 1997, the control over the building had been transferred back to the local authorities. The court found that the applicant church had entered into a contract with the company to pay for heating of the building, and that they had breached their contractual obligations. It was established that during the period from 27 December 1993 until
14 May 1998 the applicant church had controlled the use of the building and that it had, through a subsidiary unit, executed the functions of managing the building, of renovation, and of payment for communal services. The court found inter alia that the applicant church had the right to enter into sub-contracts with the tenants in order to act on their behalf in managing the payment of communal charges for the building. It stressed that the outcome of the proceedings concerning the validity of the decisions to restore the applicant church’s property rights had no bearing on the obligation for the applicant church to perform its contractual duties.

The applicant church did not state that it appealed against this decision. 

4. Administrative proceedings

On an unspecified date in 2001 the Synod College of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania filed an administrative action against the Government, claiming damages in the amount of 5 million litai (LTL) in connection with the failure of the Government to prevent the privatisation of the 12 flats and the authorities’ refusal to return the whole building to the applicant church.

On 20 November 2001 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court rejected the action as unsubstantiated. On 31 January 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. It found inter alia that the lawfulness of the privatisation of the flats had been established by the final judgment of the Court of Appeal of 14 October 1997. No fault was attributed to the Government. The Supreme Administrative Court also noted that the applicant church had been entitled to file a civil action against a State authority if it considered that it had been prevented from making its property claims under the applicable domestic legislation.   

B.  Relevant domestic law and practice

The Restitution of Church Property Act 1990 provides for return to religious communities of property nationalised by a specific Soviet regulation of 1948.

The Restitution of Church Property Act 1995 deals with instances of nationalisation of church property other than those  specified in the 1990 Act. The 1995 Act provides for two forms of “restitution of property rights” (nuosavybės teisių atkūrimas): 1) return of property in certain circumstances; 2) compensation in others; compensation can be made in money or alternative items. The 1995 Act specifically bars a return in kind of buildings having tenants or owners of flats (paragraphs 1 and 4). Under Article 12 of the Act, an appropriate form of compensation should be chosen by the former owner if the property cannot be returned in kind.

The Privatisation of Flats Act 1991 specifies the conditions for tenants to privatise flats in apartments and houses in the State possession.   

On 27 May 1994 the Constitutional Court examined the issue of compatibility of the Constitution with the domestic laws on restitution of property rights. In its decision the Constitutional Court held inter alia that possessions which had been nationalised by the Soviet authorities since 1940 should be considered as “property under the de facto control of the State”. The Constitutional Court also stated: “The rights of a former owner to particular property have not been restored until the property is returned or appropriate compensation is paid. The law does not itself provide any rights while it is not applied to a concrete person in respect of a specific property item. In this situation the decision of a competent authority to return the property or to compensate therefor has such a legal effect that only from that moment does the former owner obtain property rights to a specific property item.” The Constitutional Court also held that fair compensation for property which could not be returned was compatible with the principle of the protection of property.

In decisions of 15 June and 19 October 1994 the Constitutional Court  emphasised that the notion of restitution of property rights in Lithuania essentially denoted partial reparation. In this respect the Constitutional Court noted that the authorities of Lithuania as a re-established State in 1990 were not responsible for the Soviet occupation half a century ago, nor were they responsible for the consequences of that occupation. The Constitutional Court held that since the 1940s many private persons had bought, in accordance with the legislation applicable at the material time, various property items which had been previously nationalised. The denial of these factual and legal aspects was impossible, and the domestic legislation on restitution of property rights duly took into account not only the interests of the former owners, but also the interests of private persons who had occupied or purchased the property under lawful contracts.

On 20 June 1995 the Constitutional Court also said that the choice by the Parliament of the partial reparation principle was influenced by the difficult political and social conditions in that “new generations had grown, new proprietary and other socio-economic relations had been formed during the 50 years of occupation, which could not be ignored in deciding the question of restitution of property”.  

COMPLAINTS

The applicant church complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, about the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 14 October 1997 quashing the decisions of the Vilnius City Council of 8 and 20 December 1993. In this respect the applicant church also complained that it was thereafter unable to recover the whole building in kind or to be properly compensated therefor. It further complained that it could not claim damages from the Government by way of an administrative action for the allegedly improper handling of the restitution case. Finally, under these provisions the applicant church complained about the proceedings whereby costs were ordered against it for the charges for heating of the building.

By a letter of 23 August 2000 the applicant church also presented a complaint under Article 6 of the Convention, stating that on
14 October 1997 the Court of Appeal had wrongly decided the case.

THE LAW

1.  The Court notes first that the present case was brought by the Synod College of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania. On the facts of the case it was a different subject, namely, the Vilnius Community of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania, which participated in the first set of domestic proceedings at issue, namely those concerning the annulment of the decisions of 8 and 20 December 1993. The question arises therefore whether the applicant church, i.e. the Synod College of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania, can be considered as a ”victim” of a violation of the Convention or its Protocols within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention in respect of the proceedings involving the Vilnius Community of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania.

It is noted in this respect that on 18 January 1996 the Vilnius Community of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania transferred the rights to the building and the claims thereto to the applicant church. Thereafter the applicant church participated in stead of the Vilnius Community of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania in two further sets of domestic proceedings regarding the same building.

The Court considers therefore that the applicant church is entitled under Article 34 of the Convention to complain in the present application about the proceedings involving the Vilnius Community of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania.

2.  The applicant church complained that the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 14 October 1997 quashing the decisions of 8 and
20 December 1993 and the subsequent failure of the authorities to return the whole building in kind or to properly compensate the applicant church amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which provides as follows:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

The applicant church also alleged in this respect that it had been discriminated against in breach of Article 14 of the Convention.

The Government stated that the applicant church was not a victim of a violation of the Convention or its Protocols within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention in regard to the claim to have the whole building returned in kind because the applicant church had not been an owner of the building following the date of the entry into force of the Convention with regard to Lithuania. Furthermore, the applicant church’s claim to have the whole building returned in kind had no basis in domestic law, and as such was incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 

The Government also stated that there was no interference with the applicant church’s property rights within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the extent that, in accordance with the Restitution of Church Property Act 1995, the applicant church had the right to “have its property rights restored” in regard to the whole building, that is to return in kind part of the building excluding the 12 flats privatised by the tenants, and to claim compensation in money or alternative items for the privatised flats. According to the Government, in this respect the applicant church was required to apply to the Vilnius City Council with a request under Article 12 of the Restitution of Church Property Act 1995. However, the applicant church had not done so, with the result that the application was inadmissible. 

The applicant church complained that its property rights had been violated in that it had not been returned the whole building which had been owned by the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania before the nationalisation in 1940. According to the applicant church, the unlawfulness of the Soviet occupation of Lithuania and the nationalisation of their property in 1940 required that the former owners be returned their property after re-establishment of the Lithuanian State in 1990. While the applicant church admitted that the possibility to obtain compensation for the building existed in 1995, in its view no adequate compensation was possible under Lithuanian law. The applicant church also submitted that the unsuccessful outcome of the proceedings concerning the unpaid charges for heating and the administrative action for damages against the Government confirmed the allegation of the violation of its property rights in this case.  

The Court considers that in this part of the application the applicant church complained about six different episodes. Firstly, it complained about the nationalisation of the building by the Soviet authorities in the 1940s. Secondly, it complained about the judgment of the Court of Appeal of
14 October 1997 quashing the decisions of 8 and 20 December 1993 to return the building to the Vilnius Community of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania. Thirdly, the applicant church complained about its current inability to recover the whole building. Fourthly, it complained about being unable to obtain “adequate” compensation for the building. The applicant church complained next about the unsuccessful outcome of the administrative proceedings concerning its action against the Government for the allegedly improper handing of the restitution case. Finally, the applicant church complained about the civil proceedings whereby damages were ordered against it for the unpaid charges for heating of the building. The Court will examine each of these complaints separately. 

a) Nationalisation of the building

To the extent that the applicant church complains about the nationalisation of the building by the Soviet authorities in the 1940s, the Court points out that is has no competence ratione temporis to examine this part of the application as it relates to the events prior to 20 June 1995, that is, the date of the entry into force of the Convention with regard to Lithuania, and 24 May 1996, i.e. the date of the entry into force of Protocol No. 1 with regard to Lithuania.

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention and its Protocols, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.   

b) Annulment of the decisions of 8 and 20 December 1993

The Court will next examine the applicant church’s complaint about the annulment of the decisions of the Vilnius City Council of 8 and
20 December 1993 to return the building to the Vilnius Community of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania. 

(i) Applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

As the Court has stated on a number of occasions, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 comprises three distinct rules: the first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is of a general nature and enunciates the principle of the peaceful enjoyment of property; the second rule, contained in the second sentence of the first paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and subjects it to certain conditions; the third rule, stated in the second paragraph, recognises that the Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest. The three rules are not, however, ‘distinct’ in the sense of being unconnected. The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (see, among many other authorities, Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, 5.1.2000, § 98, ECHR 2000-I).

The Court notes that the parties disagreed as to whether the applicant church had a property interest eligible for protection under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Accordingly, the Court must determine whether the applicant church’s legal position in regard to the building was such as to attract the application of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

The Government was of the opinion that the applicant church had not been recognised as owner of the building, and that consequently it had no “possessions” in regard to the building. In that connection the Court points out that the concept of “possessions” in the first part of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has an autonomous meaning which is not limited to ownership of physical goods and is independent from the formal classification in domestic law: certain other rights and interests constituting assets can also be regarded as “property rights”, and thus as “possessions” for the purposes of this provision (loc. cit., § 100).

The Court also recalls that the Convention does not guarantee, as such, the right to restitution of property. “Possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can be either “existing possessions” or assets, including claims, in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a “legitimate expectation” that they will be realised. The hope that a long-extinguished property right may be revived cannot be regarded as a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; nor can a conditional claim which has lapsed as a result of the failure to fulfil the condition (see, as a recent authority, the Polacek and Polackova v. the Czech Republic decision [GC], no. 38645/97, 10.7.2002, § 62).

The issue that needs to be examined is whether the circumstances of the instant case, considered as a whole, conferred on the applicant church a title to a substantive interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court considers that that approach requires it to take account of the following points of law and of fact.

The Court observes that the Vilnius City Council ordered return of the building to the Vilnius Community of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania by the decisions of 8 and 20 December 1993. Thereafter the Vilnius Community of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania had been involved with the tenants of 12 flats in the building in a legal dispute concerning the validity of the decisions of 8 and 20 December 1993. The final decision in that case was taken on 14 October 1997 by the Court of Appeal whereby the above decisions were quashed and the 12 flats were recognised as the tenants’ property.

From the analysis of the domestic legislation it appears that property rights are considered restored upon the moment of a decision of the competent authority (see in particular the decision of the Constitutional Court of 27 May 1994, also see the statements of the Court of Appeal in the judgment of 14 October 1997). It has not been alleged that the Vilnius City Council lacked statutory authority to decide on the restitution of the  church’s property rights. It is true that the decisions of 8 and
20 December 1993 were taken subsequently to the decisions of another local authority on the privatisation by the tenants of the 12 flats constituting part of the building. The contradiction of the local authorities’ decisions in their returning the building to the previous owners, on the one hand, and transferring ownership rights to the tenants of the 12 flats, on the other hand, gave rise to the above court dispute. However, it has not been established that the court proceedings had a suspensive effect on the validity of the decisions of 8 and 20 December 1993 before the final decision of the Court of Appeal was taken. Indeed, the fact remains, that from 27 December 1993 until at least 14 May 1998, the applicant church had exercised the control of the building on the basis of the decisions of 8 and 20 December 1993 (as confirmed by the civil proceedings concerning the charges for heating, see the ‘Facts’ part above).

In the Court’s view, those factors prove that the applicant church had a certain proprietary interest recognised under Lithuanian law from the time the decisions of 8 and 20 December 1993 were taken until they were quashed on 14 October 1997. This interest therefore constituted a “possession” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, the Beyeler case cited above, § 105). That provision is therefore applicable in regard to this part of the application.

Having regard to the foregoing, the Court does not consider it necessary to rule on whether the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applies in this case. The complexity of the factual and legal position prevents its being classified in a precise category. In any event, the situation envisaged in the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 is only a particular instance of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property as guaranteed by the general rule set forth in the first sentence (loc. cit., § 106). The Court therefore considers that it should examine the situation complained of in the light of that general rule.

(ii) Compliance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

In the light of the foregoing conclusions, the Court considers that the measure complained of, namely the judgment of the Court of Appeal of
14 October 1997 quashing the decisions of 8 and 20 December 1993, amounted to an interference with the applicant church’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. In order to be compatible with the general rule set forth in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1, such an interference must strike a “fair balance” between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. Furthermore, the issue of whether a fair balance has been struck “becomes relevant only once it has been established that the interference in question satisfied the requirement of lawfulness and was not arbitrary” (loc. cit., § 107).

The Court reiterates that an essential condition for an interference to be deemed compatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is that it should be lawful. The Court has limited power, however, to review compliance with domestic law, especially as there is nothing in the instant case from which it can conclude that the Court of Appeal applied the domestic legal provisions in question manifestly erroneously or so as to reach arbitrary conclusions. The Court of Appeal annulled the decisions of 8 and 20 December 1993 because they had been taken under the Restitution of Church Property Act 1990 which could not have been applied in regard to the building. It was also found that the 12 flats in the building had been privatised prior to the decisions of 8 and 20 December 1993 in accordance with the Privatisation of Flats Act. Finally, the Court of Appeal noted that the Vilnius Community of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania was entitled to exercise its property claims under the Restitution of Church Property Act 1995. It has not been alleged that these domestic provisions which served as a basis for the interference were not sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable (see, mutatis mutandis, Hentrich v. France, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, pp. 19-20, § 42). The Court is therefore satisfied that the interference was lawful.

Any interference with the enjoyment of a right or freedom recognised by the Convention must pursue a legitimate aim. In the present case, the State sought the protection of the rights of the tenants living in the building, and the proper regulation of the conditions and procedures for restitution of property rights of former owners. The Court also points out in this respect that the national authorities enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in determining what is in the general interest of the community (see, for example, mutatis mutandis, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, p. 32, § 46). The Court is satisfied that the domestic legislation applied in this case pursued the legitimate interests in accordance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 

The concern to achieve a “fair balance” between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights is reflected in the structure of Article 1 as a whole and entails the need for a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see, among many other authorities, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 23, § 38).

In this respect the Court reiterates that the decisions of 8 and
20 December 1993 were quashed as the Vilnius City Council had erred in law in returning the building to the Vilnius Community of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania. 

Secondly, the decision of the Court of Appeal to quash the decisions
of 8 and 20 December 1993 was based on the fact that the 12 flats constituting part of the building had been privatised by the tenants prior to the decisions returning the building to the Vilnius Community of the Evangelical Reformed Church of Lithuania. The Court is satisfied that in this instance the Court of Appeal resolved the apparent inconsistency of the concurrent decisions of the local authorities on privatisation and restitution while adequately protecting the interests of the individuals who had lawfully purchased flats in the building.

Finally, the interference in the present case has not prevented the applicant church from exercising its rights in regard to the building under the applicable domestic legislation, namely, the Restitution of Church Property Act 1995. The applicant church has not argued that it is open to it under the law to request compensation for the 12 privatised flats, and return in kind the remainder of the building. Nor has it been disputed that in this respect the applicant church has the right to apply to the local authorities. The Court is therefore satisfied that adequate procedural safeguards exist for the applicant church to implement its property claims in accordance with the Restitution of Church Property Act 1995. 

Having regard to all the foregoing factors, the Court concludes that the applicant church did not have to bear a disproportionate or excessive burden as a result of the annulment of the decisions of 8 and 20 December 1993. There has therefore been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in this respect.

In the light of these conclusions, the Court can detect no violation of Article 14 of the Convention. 

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. Consequently, it must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 thereof.

c) The applicant church’s inability to recover title to the whole building

The applicant church also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14 of the Convention that they were currently unable to recover the title to the whole building. 

In this regard the Court reiterates that the Convention does not guarantee, as such, the right to restitution of property (see above). On the basis of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 14 October 1997 it is clear that the applicant church has no “legitimate expectation” to be recognised as the owner of the whole building in accordance with the applicable domestic legislation. The applicant church cannot rely on the erroneous decisions
of 8 and 20 December 1993 - even if those decisions had temporarily created certain rights and obligations until being quashed - in order to justify their claim for the title of the whole building (see above, also see, mutatis mutandis, the Polacek and Polackova decision cited above,
§§ 61-70, also see above). It follows that the applicant church has no “possessions” in regard to this claim, and this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.

Having regard to the fact that Article 14 of the Convention is not autonomous and to the conclusion that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is not applicable, the Court considers that Article 14 cannot apply in the instant case (ibid.). Consequently, this part of the application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

d) The applicant church’s inability to obtain “adequate” compensation for the building 

To the extent that the applicant church alleges inability to obtain an “adequate” compensation for the building, the Court reiterates the finding that the applicant church has the right to apply to the local authorities, to  request compensation for the 12 privatised flats, and to claim return in kind of the remainder of the building, in accordance with the Restitution of Church Property Act 1995. However, the applicant church has not availed itself of those rights.

It follows that in this respect the applicant church has not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Consequently, this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 thereof.

e) Administrative proceedings

To the extent that the applicant church complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 14 of the Convention about the unsuccessful outcome of the administrative action against the Government for the allegedly inappropriate handling of the restitution case, the Court recalls its finding above that the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 14 October 1997 quashing the decisions of 8 and 20 December 1993 was compatible with these provisions. Furthermore, it is recalled that the applicant church is entitled to claim compensation in accordance with the Restitution of Church Property Act 1995, and that it has not exhausted domestic remedies in this respect (see above). There is thus no evidence that the dismissal of the applicant church’s administrative action against the Government amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Nor can the Court detect a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in this respect.

Hence, this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. Consequently, it must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 thereof.

f) Proceedings concerning the charges for heating

To the extent that the applicant church complains about the proceedings for the unpaid charges for heating, it appears that it did not appeal against the decision of the Vilnius Regional Court of 28 December 1999. It follows that in regard to this part of the application the applicant church has not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Accordingly, this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 thereof.

3.  By a letter of 23 August 2000 the applicant church also complained under Article 6 of the Convention which guarantees the right to a fair hearing by a tribunal, that on 14 October 1997 the Court of Appeal had wrongly decided the case.

The Court notes however that this complaint was submitted more than six months after the final decision of 14 October 1997. By virtue of Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention, the Court is not required to examine this part of the application as it was submitted out of time. It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, by a majority,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy