Communicated on 24 February 2016

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 2657/10 AdelÄ— VALANÄŒIENÄ– against Lithuania lodged on 17 December 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Adelė Valančienė , is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1940 and lives in Plungė .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The father of the applicant ’ s husband had a plot of land of 9.24 ha which is now in Truikiai village, Telšiai Region. The property was nationalised in the 1940s.

In 1991 the brother of applicant ’ s husband asked the Lithuanian authorities to restore his and his brothers ’ rights to their father ’s land. In 1993 the brothers divided the land among themselves and the applicant ’ s husband (and after his death the applicant) was entitled to 3.08 ha of land. The applicant wanted the return of land in natura .

By a letter of 27 July 2003 the Telšiai County Administration (hereafter “the TCA”) informed the applicant ’ s husband that the original plot of land was already being used by other persons and asked him to choose other means to restore his property, however, neither the applicant ’ s husband, nor the applicant chose the means to restore the property.

From March 2006 to May 2008 the applicant wrote numerous requests to the TCA asking to restore the property. On 13 April 2006 the TCA informed the applicant that restitution of the original plot was impossible and explained that she had a right to choose another plot of land (the TCA sent similar letters on several occasions – 13 April 2006, 27 December 2006 and 5 February 2007). In the meantime, several plots of land were suggested to the applicant but she refused to take them stating that they were not of equal value compared to the original plot.

On 11 October 2006, 20 November 2006, 27 December 2006, 5 February 2007, 15 June 2007 and 10 July 2007 PlungÄ— Region Land Reform Office informed the applicant that the document on transfer of land, forest, water pool was prepared and asked the applicant to sign it. However, the applicant stated that she would only sign the document after the plot of land of equal value or the original plot was assigned to her. She was further informed that the laws of the Republic of Lithuania did not allow for such a possibility.

On 13 May 2008 the TCA adopted a decision restoring the applicant ’ s rights to 3.08 ha of land, to be compensated by the payment of the sum of 3,437 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 995 euros (EUR)).

On 9 June 2008 the applicant started court proceedings asking to annul the TCA decision of 13 May 2008. She claimed that she had asked the property rights to be restored by giving her a plot of land of equal value compared to the original plot but the TCA adopted the decision to compensate her with an inadequate amount of money.

By a decision of 29 September 2008 the Å iauliai Regional Administrative Court dismissed the claim as unfounded. The first instance court stated that the applicant had not clearly expressed her will when she refused to accept the plots of land of equal value. Accordingly, the national authorities, pursuant to the Law on Restitution 1997, decided that the applicant had to be paid monetary compensation.

On 21 September 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court stating that the applicant ’ s husband wanted to have his property rights restored in natura and until the term indicated in the Law on Restitution had not change d his will. The Supreme Administrative Court also stated that the value of the p r operty was assessed in accordance with the Resolution of the Government of 24 February 1999 , No. 205 regarding assessment of the price of land.

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 16 of the Law on the Restoration of Citizens ’ Ownership Rights to Existing Real Property ( Piliečių nuosavybės teisių į išlikusį nekilnojamąjį turtą atkūrimo įstatymas ) provides that the State shall compensate citizens for existing real property which is bought out by the State, as well as for real property which existed prior to 1 August 1991 but subsequently ceased to exist as a result of decisions adopted by the State or local authorities. When the State compensates citizens for real property which, in accordance with this Law, is not returned in natura , the principle of equal value shall be applied to both the property that is not returned and other property which is transferred instead of it as compensation for the property bought out by the State.

Article 21 of that Law provides that a citizen could, prior to 1 April 2003, express or change his or her wish regarding the form in which the ownership rights to the real property were restored, provided that a final decision on the restoration of the ownership rights had not been taken. Should he or she fail to make a choice, it was for the authorities to choose the form of restitution.

Resolution of Government of 29 September 1997 , No. 1057 on the Procedure and Conditions of Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property ( Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės nutarimas „ Dėl Lietuvos Respublikos piliečių nuosavybės teisių į išlikusį nekilnojamąjį turtą atkūrimo įstatymo įgyvendinimo tvarkos ir sąlygų “ ) provides that a citizen could, prior 1 April 2003, change his or her wish regarding the form in which the ownership rights to the real property were restored. If he or she failed to make a choice, it was for the authorities to choose the form of restitution.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the national authorities unlawfully chose the form of restitution to be monetary compensation and inadequately calculated the value of the restored land. She further complains of the overall delay in finalising the restitution process.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. 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 ?

2. If so, was that interference justified under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention ? In particular, was the compensation for land adequate and proportionate?

3. Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in view of the overall delay in finalising the restitution process?

The parties are requested to inform the Court about any further developments regarding the applicants ’ situation.

The applicant is requested to provide copies of her lawsuit and appeal submitted to the administrative courts.