THIRD SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 62988/00 by Eugenija UŽKURĖLIENĖ and Others against Lithuania

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8 January 2004 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr G. Ress , President ,

Mr I. Cabral Barreto ,

Mr L. Caflisch ,

Mr B. Zupančič ,

Mr J. Hedigan , Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,

Mr K. Traja , judges ,

and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 October 2000,

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

Having regard to the appointment of Mr G. Ress to sit in respect of Lithuania,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The first applicant is Mrs Eugenija Užkurėlienė, born in 1939 and living in Vilnius. The second applicant is Mr Povilas Čyžius, born in 1936 and living in the Kupiškis area in the Panevėžys region. The third applicant is Mr Stanislovas Čyžius, born in 1938 and living in Panevėžys. The fourth applicant is Ms Janina Čyžiutė, born in 1932 and living in the Kupiškis area. The applicants are represented by Mr Mačiulaitis , lawyer practising in Vilnius.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

Before the Soviet occupation of Lithuania in 1940 the applicants’ father owned 30.75 hectares of land (“the original land”). The land was nationalised by the Soviet authorities in the 1940s. Following restoration of Lithuanian independence in 1990, the applicants became entitled to a claim in regard to their late father’s land under the Restitution of Property Act (“the Act”).

On 25 September 1991 the applicants requested that compensation in land be given to them in accordance with the Act.

On 10 December 1993 the applicants changed their position, requesting that the original land be returned to them in kind. By letter of the administrative authorities of 31 January 1994 the applicants were informed that part of the original land (8.74 hectares) had already been allocated to a third person, FS, by decision of the Ministry of Agriculture of 30 December 1992. The applicants were informed that that part of the land could thus not be returned to them.

On 15 February 1994 the applicants applied to a court, requesting that the decision of 30 December 1992 be quashed. On 20 June 1994 the Vilnius City First District Court rejected the applicants’ action. On 18 July 1994 the Supreme Court rejected the applicants’ appeal against that judgment. On 22 March 1995 the Supreme Court refused to grant leave for a cassation appeal.

On 4 October 1996 the applicants brought a fresh court action, requesting the return of the original land. On 29 June 1998 the Kupiškis District Court rejected the applicants’ action. On 15 September 1998 the Panevėžys Regional Court rejected the applicants’ appeal against that decision. The applicants submitted a cassation appeal to the Court of Appeal. On 3 May 1999 the Court of Appeal quashed the lower decisions, returning the case for a fresh examination at first instance.

On 28 October 1999 the Kupiškis District Court again rejected the applicants’ action. On 21 December 1999 the Panevėžys Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment. The applicants submitted a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court.

On 22 May 2000 the Supreme Court adopted a final judgment whereby it quashed the decisions of 28 October and 21 December 1999. The Supreme Court concluded that the authorities and the lower courts had been responsible for the delays in restoring the applicants’ rights under the Act. It held inter alia :

“From the material in possession it appears that the plaintiffs submitted a request to restore their property rights on 25 September 1991. Pursuant to Article 19 [of the Act], a decision on the request must have been adopted within three months from that date. ... . [The] plaintiffs’ right to an effective remedy was [therefore] violated. ... .

The plaintiffs had submitted enough evidence [enabling the administrative authorities] to adopt a decision on restitution of their property rights, even more so as the case-file contains no evidence that other persons claim restitution of property rights in regard to the land which belonged to the plaintiffs’ father. ... .

Having regard to the fact that the plaintiffs’ property rights have not been restored since 1991 ... [further litigation] would breach the plaintiffs’ rights guaranteed by Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention ... .”       

The Supreme Court ordered that the Panevėžys regional administration “take a decision to restore the [applicants’] property rights to the land which belonged to [their father] prior to the nationalisation”.  

With respect to the applicants’ claim about the allocation of part of the original land (8.74 hectares) to FS, the Supreme Court noted that in their original application for restitution of their property rights the applicants had asked for compensation, not for return of the original land, and that they had changed their claim only on 10 December 1993, i.e. almost a year following the authorities’ decision of 30 December 1992 to allocate the impugned portion of land to FS. The Supreme Court concluded that thus the applicants could not have this part of the original land returned to them. It also noted however that the applicants were entitled to compensation for the impugned portion of land in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 

On 14 June 2000 the Panevėžys regional administration received the judgment of the Supreme Court of 22 May 2000. On 15 June 2000 the judgment was sent to a Kupiškis local authority for execution to be carried out.

On 30 June 2000 the Kupiškis local authority sent registered letters to the applicants, requesting them to present themselves in order to carry out the necessary formalities for the original land to be returned to them.

The respondent Government submit that the applicants did not reply to the authority’s letter.

According to the Government, on 21 January 2002 the first applicant sent a request to the Kupiškis local authority, asking that compensation by way of offering her a plot of land in the Vilnius region be given to her in return for her part of the original land. On 20 March 2000 the Kupiškis local authority sent the relevant papers to the Vilnius regional administration, requesting that the first applicant’s claim be granted and a plot of land be offered to her in Vilnius region.

The first applicant denies this allegation, claiming that she has submitted no such request.

On 27 June 2002 the second, third, and fourth applicants were again requested by the KupiÅ¡kis local authority to present themselves for plots of land to be delimited on the territory of the original land. The latter applicants refused to come on the ground that the first applicant had not been invited to the procedure, and that the plots of land offered by the authorities had allegedly been inadequate. All applicants also stated the above complaints in a letter to the local authorities of 10 July 2002.   

By letter of 2 July 2002 the fourth applicant also requested the executive authorities that an alternative parcel of land be given to her in compensation in that she did not want to recover her part of the original land. The fourth applicant states however that the above letter was written by her as a result of “harassment and intimidation” by the local authorities.

It appears that to date no formal decisions have been taken in regard to the claims of the applicants.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Jasiūnienė v. Lithuania judgment (no. 41510/98, 6.3.2003, §§ 22-23).

COMPLAINTS

Under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicants complained that since 1991 they had been unable to realise their claims under the domestic legislation on restitution of property rights. According to the applicants, since no term had been specified in the judgment of the Supreme Court of 22 May 2000 ordering the regional administration to return the original land, execution of that judgment had been delayed and no land had been returned to the applicants. Under the above provisions the applicants also complained about the nationalisation of the original land and the outcome of the proceedings whereby they had unsuccessfully claimed annulment of the decision of 30 December 1992 by which part of the original land had been allocated to a third person.

THE LAW

1 . The applicants alleged violations of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention in regard to the non-execution of the Supreme Court judgment of 22 May 2000.   

Article 6 provides, insofar as relevant, as follows:

“1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair hearing ... by a[n] tribunal ... .”

Article 13 states:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

The Government stated that the applicants had themselves precluded any execution of the impugned judgment in that they had refused or ignored all offers of land made by the executive authorities. Without the applicants’ consent, the executive authorities could not finalise registration procedures and take the decisions required by the Supreme Court judgment. The Government also stated that the applicants had changed their mind in that they no longer intended to recover parts of the original land; subsequently to the Supreme Court judgment the applicants had asked to be given compensation in land in other areas of Lithuania, not be returned parts of the original land.

The applicants denied the Government’s allegations as unsubstantiated, claiming that they had been unable to recover the original land regardless of the Supreme Court’s finding in their favour.

The applicants claimed that the Government’s statements were unsubstantiated.  

The Court considers that the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention raise complex questions of fact and law, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits. This part of the application cannot therefore be regarded as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.

At the same time, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the same complaints under Article 13 of the Convention because Article 6 is lex specialis with respect to this part of the application (see JasiÅ«nienÄ— above mentioned, § 32). It follows that this part of the application, insofar as it has been submitted under Article 13 of the Convention, should be declared inadmissible under Articles 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

2 . The applicants also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in regard to their inability to realise their claims for their late father’s property.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 reads:

“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 Court considers that in this part of the application the applicants complained about three different episodes. Firstly, they complained about the nationalisation of the land that had originally belonged to their father. Secondly, they complained about the proceedings whereby they contested allocation of part of the original land to a third person in 1992. Thirdly, they complained about the non-execution of the Supreme Court judgment of 22 May 2000 whereby the executive authorities had been ordered to decide on the applicants’ claims vis-à-vis the original land under the domestic legislation on restitution of property rights. The Court will examine each of these aspects separately.

a. Nationalisation of the original land

To the extent that the applicants complained about the nationalisation of the original land 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 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 this country. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention and its Protocols (see JasiÅ«nienÄ— above mentioned, §§ 38-39). It follows that this part of the application should be declared inadmissible under Articles 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

b. The proceedings concerning the validity of the allocation of part of the original land to a third person

To the extent that the applicants complained about the proceedings concerning the validity of the allocation of part of the original land to a third person, the Court notes that on 18 July 1994 the Supreme Court rejected the applicants’ appeal against the judgment of 20 June 1994 in the above proceedings, and on 22 March 1995 the Supreme Court refused to grant the applicants leave for cassation appeal. Hence, this part of the application also relates to events prior to the date of the entry into force of the Convention and Protocol No. 1 with regard to Lithuania.

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention, and it should be declared inadmissible under Articles 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

c. Non-execution of the judgment of the Supreme Court of 22 May 2000

The Government stated that the applicants had themselves precluded any execution of the impugned judgment in that they had refused or ignored all offers of land made by the executive authorities. Without the applicants’ consent, the executive authorities could not take decisions required by the Supreme Court judgment. The Government also stated that the applicants had changed their mind in that they no longer intended to recover the original land - in view of their requests made subsequently to the Supreme Court judgment in which the applicants had asked to be given compensation in land in other areas of Lithuania, not on the territory of the original land.

The applicants denied the Government’s allegations as unsubstantiated, claiming that they had been unable to recover the original land regardless of the Supreme Court’s finding in their favour.

In view of the parties’ observations, the Court considers that this part of the application raises complex questions of fact and law, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits. These complaints cannot therefore be regarded as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring them inadmissible has been established.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares admissible, without prejudging the merits, the applicants’ complaints about the non-execution of the Supreme Court judgment of 22 May 2000;

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Vincent Berger Georg Ress Registrar President