Published on 4 July 2022

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 59065/21 Jurgis BERNOTAS against Lithuania lodged on 18 November 2021 communicated on 15 June 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

In 2010 the applicant seriously injured Ž.K. in a hunting accident. He was convicted of causing bodily injury by negligence and was ordered to pay Ž.K. 10,725 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicant paid that amount.

The investigating authorities found that, as a result of the accident, Ž.K.’s working capacity had been significantly diminished and that he was entitled to a social allowance.

As from 2011, the local branch of the State Social Insurance Fund (hereinafter “the SSIF”) regularly lodged civil claims against the applicant, requesting him to reimburse to the SSIF the amount which it had paid to Ž.K. as a social allowance for his diminished working capacity. The SSIF relied on, inter alia , Article 6.290 § 3 of the Civil Code, which stipulated that, when a person was entitled to receive a social allowance because of a death or an injury, the social insurance authorities which paid the said allowance had the right to claim its reimbursement from the person who had caused the death or injury in question.

On each occasion, the courts allowed the SSIF’s claim against the applicant. In the latest set of proceedings, concluded in 2021, the applicant was ordered to pay approximately EUR 5,600 to the SSIF for the allowances paid to Ž.K. from February 2017 to September 2019. The courts held, inter alia , that the amount awarded from the applicant to Ž.K. in the criminal proceedings had been aimed at compensating for the damage which had been caused to Ž.K. by the accident, whereas the subsequent payments, in the form of social allowance, sought to mitigate the damage which had occurred after the accident – that is to say, Ž.K.’s diminished capacity to work. Thus, contrary to the applicant’s claim, he had not yet fully compensated Ž.K. for the damage caused by his unlawful actions.

The applicant complains about the obligation for him to reimburse to the authorities the social allowance paid to Ž.K. He submits that the question of compensation was resolved in the criminal proceedings and that he paid the amount which had been awarded to Ž.K. in those proceedings. The applicant considers that the requirement for him to make any further payments amounts to a second punishment for the same crime. He also contends that it constitutes a disproportionate interference with his property rights, in view of the fact that he will be obliged to pay for the consequences of the accident for as long as Ž.K. is alive. The applicant raises these complaints under Articles 6, 7, 8 and 14 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in view of the requirement for him to fully reimburse the social allowances paid to the victim of the accident? In particular, has the applicant had to bear an excessive individual burden and have the domestic authorities struck a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the applicant’s fundamental rights (see, mutatis mutandis , Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, §§ 115-16, 13 December 2016; Boljević v. Croatia , no. 43492/11, § 44, 31 January 2017; and Šeiko v. Lithuania , no. 82968/17, § 32, 11 February 2020)?

The parties are asked to provide to the Court copies of all the claims lodged against the applicant by the authorities regarding the reimbursement of the social allowances paid to Ž.K. and copies of the court decisions taken in respect of those claims.