Communicated on 24 June 2016

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 36184/13 KRISTIANA Ltd . against Lithuania lodged on 27 May 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Kristiana Ltd., is a company registered in Vilnius. It is represented before the Court by Mr U. Pėdnyčia , a lawyer practising in Vilnius.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant company purchased some buildings from the State in 2000 following an approval decision by the privatisation commission. The buildings are located in Neringa , the Juodkrant ė settlement and also in the Curonian Spit ( Kuršių Nerija ) National Park . The State obliged the applicant company to lease the land under the buildings even though it was not registered in the Centre of Registers. The applicant company paid 138,415 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 40,088 euros (EUR)) in rent for the period 2000 to 2012.

On 6 June 2012 the Government adopted a management plan for the Curonian Spit National Park and announced that the applicant company ’ s property would be expropriated and demolished. The plan did not contain any further details about the procedure or the plans for compensation.

The applicant company started court proceedings asking to set aside the part of the Government ’ s order of 6 June 2012 stating that its property would be expropriated and demolished. It also asked the court to oblige the domestic authorities to organise the procedure for amending the management plan for the Curonian Spit National Park. On 23 July 2012 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court stated that the complaint was not subject to examination by the courts dealing with administrative procedure because it involved the examination of the lawfulness of an order of Government, which was the competence of the Constitutional Court.

On 28 November 2012 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first-instance court ’ s decision and on 3 April 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a request by the applicant company to reopen the proceedings.

In a letter dated 12 January 2016 the applicant company informed the Court that neither the procedures for expropriation of the property nor the mechanism for compensation had yet been adopted and that it was still prevented from using the buildings.

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 16 § 2 of the Law on Administrative Proceedings provides that i nvestigation of the activities of the President, Parliament, members of Parliament, the Prime Minister, the Government (as a collegial body), judges of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, the procedural actions of judges of other courts and of prosecutors, investigators, bailiffs and Parliamentary Ombudspersons, related to the administration of justice or investigation of a case and the enforcement of decisions, is outside the competence of the administrative courts.

Article 37 § 2 (1) provides that the chairman of the administrative court or the judge must, by an order, refuse to accept a complaint if it is not subject to examination by the courts dealing with administrative procedure.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant company complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that it was deprived of a fair hearing and did not have an effective remedy because the domestic courts refused to accept its complaint, stating that it was under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. Moreover, it is impossible under domestic law to address the Constitutional Court directly. The applicant company also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that it cannot peacefully enjoy its possessions because the Government adopted an order to expropriate and demolish its property but no specific action has been taken.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant company have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its complaint under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, was the domestic courts ’ decision not to accept the complaints by the applicant company for examination for being outside of the scope of jurisdiction of the administrative courts in line with Article 13 of the Convention?

3. Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention because of the fact that the applicant company has been prevented from using its property and no specific decision regarding expropriation and compensation for it has been taken?