Communicated on 7 March 2016

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 51752/10 Kristupas KAVALIAUSKAS and others against Lithuania lodged on 3 August 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The first and the second applicants are heirs of the L. N. who was originally entitled to restore her property rights.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 5 November 1991 L. N., the third and the fourth applicants asked the Lithuanian authorities to restore their property rights to a house in Kaunas.

On 11 April 1995 the national authorities adopted a decision to restore property rights of L. N., the third and the fourth applicants to part of the house in Kaunas and the other part was promised to them after the tenants of the house were provided with other premises or it was stated that compensation would be provided to L. N., the thir d and the fourth applicants.

On 8 October 1996 the Kaunas City Municipality adopted a decision stating that the other part of the house will not be returned to L. N., the third and the fourth applicants in natura but they will be paid a partial compensation amounting to approximately 79,730 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 23,091 euros (EUR)). L. N., the third and the fourth applicants were paid that sum in 1996. The decision also indicated that the remaining part of the compensation would be calculated at a later stage in accordance with the value of the house at market price.

On 19 March 2008 the Kaunas City Municipality adopted a decision ordering that the remaining part of the compensation would be paid. It was calculated at market prices of 1996 and amounted to approximately LTL 615,809 (EUR 178,350).

On 13 June 2008 the applicants instituted court proceedings asking to annul the decision of 19 March 2008 and oblige the authorities to calculate the value of the house at the market price of 2008. On 9 March 2009 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court partly satisfied applicants ’ request and obliged the authorities to recalculate the compensation to the remaining part of the house but dismissed a part of the request to award the applicants with pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The applicants appealed and on 29 March 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court overturned the decision of the lower court and stated that in order to avoid unjust enrichment, the market value of the house had to be established when the decision was adopted in 1996. The Supreme Administrative Court also stated that although the authorities did not take any actions to calculate the remaining part of the compensation (from 22 October 1996 to 28 April 2008) , it was not a ground to acknowledge that the decision itself was unlawful. Therefore, the applicants ’ request was dismissed.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

T he Law on the Procedure and Conditions for the Restoration of Citizens ’ Ownership Rights to Existing Real Property ( Įstatymas „ Dėl piliečių nuosavybės teisių į išlikusį nekilnojamąjį turtą atstatymo tvarkos ir sąlygų “), enacted on 18 June 1991 and amended on numerous occasions, provided for two forms of restitution – the return of the property in natura or compensation for it if its physical return was not possible. The Law also stipulated that when the State buys out the existing real property, the amount of one-time compensation was determined according to the actual value of the property at the time of the buy-out.

By a ruling of 23 August 2005 the Constitutional Court held that the decision of national authorities to return the property in natura or to pay compensation for it means that from the moment of such decision the former owner becomes entitled to the property rights.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the Convention that the State has not paid them a fair compensation for the part of the house. They further complain about the overall delay in finalising the restitution process.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in view of:

(a) the calculation of the compensation paid to the applicants for the part of the house;

(b) the overall delay in finalising the restitution process?

In this respect the Government is requested to inform the Court about the market value of the house in question in 2008 and provide information about any other developments regarding the applicants ’ situation.

Appendix