Communicated on 11 May 2020 Published on 2 June 2020

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 31838/19 Margarita MAKARÄŒEVA against Lithuania lodged on 5 June 2019

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant was in a relationship with J.B. from 1993 until 2013. They did not marry but lived together in an apartment owned by J.B. He also owned another apartment and some shares. In May 2013 J.B. died without leaving a will. In accordance with domestic law, unmarried partners were not entitled to inherit their partner ’ s property in the absence of a will.

The applicant lodged a claim with courts, asking them to recognise that the apartments and the shares had been her and J.B. ’ s joint property. The courts acknowledged that the applicant and J.B. had led a de facto family life and had shared a common household. However, they held that, in accordance with domestic case-law, personal property of one of the unmarried partners could be recognised as joint property only if the other partner had “substantially improved” it. The courts considered that the applicant had not proved that that threshold had been met.

Since J.B. did not have any heirs, his property was inherited by the State. The applicant was ordered to move out of the apartment in which she had lived with J.B.

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that she was unable to inherit J.B. ’ s property because they were not married. She points out that in Lithuania there is no possibility to register a civil partnership.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for her home, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, in view of the fact that she was unable to have her property rights recognised to the apartment in which she had lived with J.B. and was ordered to move out (see Winterstein and Others v. France , no. 27013/07 , § 141, 17 October 2013, and Yevgeniy Zakharov v. Russia , no. 66610/10, §§ 35-36, 14 March 2017 ) ?

2. Did the impugned interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for her home pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in a democratic society, in view of the fact that J.B. had no other heirs and the apartment in which he and the applicant had lived was inherited by the State (see, mutatis mutandis , Šidlauskas v. Lithuania , no. 51755/10, § 47, 11 July 2017, and the cases cited therein )?

3. Has there been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 8 or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis , Şerife Yiğit v. Turkey [GC], no. 3976/05, §§ 67-72, 2 November 2010, and Muñoz Díaz v. Spain , no. 49151/07, § 70, ECHR 2009) in view of:

(a) the fact that the applicant, as an unmarried partner, had to prove that she had substantially improved J.B. ’ s property in order to obtain property rights to it;

(b) the fact that the applicant, as an unmarried partner, was not able to inherit J.B. ’ s property in the absence of a will?

The parties are requested to inform the Court of any further developments in the case, in particular as concerns the applicant ’ s eviction.