Communicated on 5 September 2016

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 32997/14 Birutė PALEVIČIŪTĖ and Ona DZIDZEVIČIENĖ against Lithuania lodged on 25 April 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Ms Birutė Palevičiūtė and Ms Ona Dzidzevičienė , are both Lithuanian nationals who were born in 1949 and 1950 respectively and live in Vilnius and Varėna .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 23 May 1996 the national authorities adopted a decision to restore the applicants ’ father ’ s property rights in respect of a plot of land measuring 9.87 ha. Following their father ’ s death on 23 December 1995, the applicants inherited his property on 27 June 1996. Two plots of land measuring 8.93 ha and 0.94 ha respectively were returned to them in natura .

On 5 July 2001 J.P. bought a house and a storehouse. He did not buy the land on which the house stood. On 4 August 2005 A.P. had her property rights restored, and was given 0.51 ha of land on the plot where J.P. ’ s house was. J.P., as A.P. ’ s heir, asked for this plot of land to be entered into the registry in his name, however, his request was refused by the national authorities, because this plot overlapped the applicants ’ land.

On 16 April 2007 the national authorities asked the applicants to come and discuss the possibility of reassessing the borders of their land, but the applicants refused.

A special commission, set up on 12 June 2007 found that some mistakes had been made in the process of restoring the applicants ’ father ’ s rights in respect of the land, because he had been given land which lay under buildings which he did not own. The commission also found that mistakes had been made in the process of restoring A.P. ’ s property rights. The commission explained to the applicants that, if there was no argument, it was possible to give them a new plot of land. The applicants refused.

On 23 January 2009 the national authorities annulled the decision to restore A.P. ’ s property rights.

A prosecutor started court proceedings, asking to annul part of the decision of the national authorities of 23 May 1996 to restore the property rights of the applicants ’ father in respect of 0.4863 ha of land, and the relevant part of the succession document issued to the applicants. On 21 April 2009 the Varėna District Court allowed the prosecutor ’ s application and held that a plot of land of 0.51 ha had to be demarcated for J.P.

The applicants appealed, and on 4 November 2009 the Vilnius Regional Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance.

The applicants submitted an appeal on points of law, and on 19 April 2010 the Supreme Court sent the case back to the Court of Appeal for fresh examination, stating that the lower courts had not examined the factual circumstances regarding how big the plot of land had to be in order to use the buildings. The Supreme Court also held that the Vilnius Regional Court should assess the fact that no plot of land under the buildings had been demarcated at the time the applicants ’ father ’ s property rights had been restored.

On 2 February 2011 the Vilnius Regional Court sent the case back to the court of first instance for fresh examination, stating that the substance of the case had not been examined thoroughly. The court held that the conclusion of the Varėna District Court that J.P. was entitled to a demarcated plot of land measuring 0.51 ha was unfounded. The court observed that mistakes had been made in the process of restoring both J.P. ’ s and the applicants ’ property rights. Finally, the Vilnius Regional Court obliged the parties to the proceedings to provide documents proving how big the plot of land had to be in order to use J.P. ’ s buildings.

On 20 February 2012 the Varėna District Court established that J.P. ’ s buildings were in the plot of land measuring 0.51 ha. The court also held that J.P. was using the exact plot which had been measured for him, and the plan of the land had been signed by the applicants. The court considered that the person who had measured the land for the applicants had not marked the house in that area, and had not taken any actions to find out who the owner of the house was; therefore he was the person who had made a mistake. The court noted that, although the 0.4863 ha of land had to be taken away from the applicants, their property rights had to be protected by providing them with a new plot of land of equivalent value in another place.

The applicants appealed, and on 24 July 2013 the Vilnius Regional Court upheld the decision of the VarÄ—na District Court of 20 February 2012.

The applicants submitted numerous appeals on points of law, but they were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 5 September 2013, 7 October 2013, 25 October 2013 and 10 December 2013 as not raising important legal issues.

On 27 January 2014 the National Land Service sent a letter to the applicants explaining that the legal registration in respect of their plot of land of 0.4863 ha had been annulled following the decisions of the domestic courts, and asked them to choose the means of restoring their property rights in respect of the 0.4863 ha of land. The Court has not been informed whether the applicants responded to this letter, but on 7 July 2016 received additional information that they had not received a new plot of land.

B. Relevant domestic law

For the relevant domestic law, see Pyrantienė v. Lithuania (no. 45092/07, §§ 16-17, 12 November 2013).

With regard to the land underneath buildings, Article 9 § 2 of the Law on Land Reform provides that, in the absence of official documents, if no land boundaries have been demarcated, the land can be sold to the owner of those buildings.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the plot of land of 0.4863 ha has been taken away from them, and that they have not received an equivalent plot of land.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in view of the failure of the national authorities to give the applicants a new plot of land in respect of the restoration of their property rights?

The parties are requested to inform the Court about any further developments regarding the restoration of the applicants ’ property rights.