Communicated on 26 August 2019

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 58179/18 Matilda MILAÅ AUSKIENÄ– against Lithuania lodged on 4 December 2018

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns legal recognition of property rights. In 1972 the applicant ’ s husband, Z.M., built a summer house on land belonging to the State. The family used the summer house and Z.M. paid rent to the State but he did not have any official documents certifying his ownership.

In 2013 Z.M. applied for the summer house to be registered in the Real Estate Register. His request was refused on the grounds that a summer house was considered a temporary construction and thus not subject to such registration. In 2014 Z.M. lodged a repeated request, but it was refused on the grounds that he had not provided sufficient documents proving that the construction had been lawful and that he had acquired property rights to the summer house.

In 2015 Z.M. asked courts of general competence to establish facts of legal significance that the summer house was immovable property which was subject to registration in the Real Estate Register and that he had acquired property rights to it. The first-instance court allowed his request, relying on the forensic examination carried out by a court-appointed expert, which had concluded, inter alia , that the summer house was not a temporary building and that it had been built in accordance with the legal requirements valid at the material time. However, the appellate court and the Supreme Court reversed that decision. They ruled that the question whether a building was subject to registration in the Real Estate Register could only be established in administrative proceedings; therefore, after the Real Estate Register had refused to register the summer house, Z.M. should have lodged an appeal before administrative courts. They furthermore held that Z.M. had not proved that the summer house had been built in accordance with the legal requirements valid at the material time.

In October 2018 Z.M. died and the applicant became his heir.

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that she has been unable to inherit the summer house because her late husband had been precluded from having his property rights officially recognised.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Can the applicant be considered a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Boacă and Others v. Romania , no. 40355/11 , § 45, 12 January 2016, and Streltsov and other “Novocherkassk military pensioners” cases v. Russia , nos. 8549/06 and 86 others, § 39, 29 July 2010 )?

2. Did the applicant ’ s husband have a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC] , nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12 , §§ 142-43, 20 March 2018, and the cases cited therein )?

3. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in view of her late husband ’ s inability to have his property rights to the summer house officially recognised?