Communicated on 24 June 2016

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 67544/13 Zuzana Agota BARTULIENÄ– against Lithuania lodged on 10 October 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Zuzana Agota BartulienÄ— , is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Kaunas.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 16 March 1993, by a decision of the national authorities, the applicant ’ s property rights to 3.40 hectares of land were restored.

On 27 December 1993 the authorities decided to give the applicant 0.66 hectares of land consisting of eleven plots each measuring 0.06 hectares.

On 27 March 2003 the applicant asked the authorities to pay her monetary compensation “in a convertible currency at world market prices” ( konvertuojama valiuta pasaulin ėmis kainomis ) for the remaining 2.74 hectares of land, but did not receive a reply.

On 18 January 2007 she repeatedly asked the authorities to pay her monetary compensation or to restore her property rights in natura . The reply she received was that three plots of land would be given to her.

On 26 November 2008 the applicant asked the authorities not to give her any land that would be burdened by any kind of easement, such as by underground telecommunications.

On 8 January 2009 the applicant signed the cadastral plans.

On 3 July 2009, 4 October 2010 and 7 December 2010 the national authorities informed the applicant that the land was unoccupied.

On 24 August 2009 the applicant informed the authorities that if the land returned was burdened by any kind of easement, the authorities would have to pay her compensation at the full market value for her inability to use it.

On 21 October 2009 the applicant ’ s property rights to 0.19 hectares of land were restored, when she was given two plots of land measuring 0.08 hectares and 0.11 hectares respectively.

On 4 October 2010 the national authorities informed the applicant that the remaining land to be returned measured 2.55 hectares and was State redeemable. She was asked to choose the means of compensation – either Government bonds or land of equal value in an agricultural area. She asked to be paid monetary compensation plus 15% interest.

On 13 March 2013 and on 20 June 2013 the applicant brought a claim and an amended claim for 30,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 8,688 euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the length of the restitution proceedings, and to oblige the authorities to restore her property rights or pay her monetary compensation.

On 7 October 2013 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court held that there was no argument that the applicant ’ s rights to 2.55 hectares had not been restored. However, it also held that her request for damages could only have been satisfied if the State had acted unlawfully. The court stated that the national authorities had taken various steps; they had provided data about unoccupied land and had asked the applicant to decide on the means of having her property rights restored. The court found that because of the applicant ’ s inactivity, her property rights had not been restored. As regards her request to oblige the authorities to restore her property rights within one month, the court noted that she had to use an out of court procedure and left that complaint unexamined.

The applicant appealed, and on 24 July 2014 the Supreme Administrative Court held that the first-instance court had been obliged to examine her request to have her property rights restored but had not examined all the documents submitted. It therefore returned the case to the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court for re-examination.

On 7 October 2013 it held that the national authorities had been under an obligation to decide on the means of restoring the applicant ’ s property rights but had not done so within the required six- month time-limit, and that this amounted to an illegal act. The court also held that applicant ’ s right to have her property rights to 2.55 hectares restored had not been denied and decided to award her EUR 600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

On 10 July 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court held that the remaining land could not have been returned in natura because it was already occupied. The court also held that the national authorities had not acted unlawfully because they had acted diligently. However, the applicant had at first stated that she had wanted to have her property rights restored in natura and had later requested compensation. The national authorities had informed her that monetary compensation had not been possible under domestic law and kept sending her requests to choose another means of restitution. The court found that applicant ’ s property rights had not been restored because she had not been diligent enough. It decided to revoke the decision of the court of first instance and reject her complaint.

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 21 (3) of the Law on the Restoration of Citizens ’ Ownership Rights to Existing Real Property ( Piliečių nuosavybės teisių į išlikusį nekilnojamąjį turtą atkūrimo įstatymas ) provides th at if citizens have not chosen a means of having their property rights restored, have not declared that their intentions have changed or if there are no possibilities of restoring their property rights in the way they have chosen, property rights are restored by compensation.

Article 16 ( 3) of the Law provides that the compensation is calculated in accordance with a Government-approved method, taking into account the actual value of the property at the time of compensation.

Article 6.271 of the Civil Code provides that damage caused by unlawful acts by institutions of public authority must be compensated by the State, irrespective of any fault on the part of a particular public servant or other employee of the public authority institution.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that her property rights to 2.55 hectares of land have not been restored, that she has not received any compensation for it and that the restitution proceedings were lengthy.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of:

a) the fact that the applicant ’ s land measuring 2.55 hectares has not been returned and she has not been paid any compensation for it;

b) the overall delays in completing the restitution process?