CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 août 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 31 August 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 25545/14 Donatas TUMELIS and Renata TUMELIENĖ against Lithuania lodged on 25 March 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Mr Donatas Tumelis and Ms Renata Tumelienė, are Lithuanian nationals who were born in 1968 and 1972 respectively, and live in Vilnius. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 28 May 2003 L.G. sold a plot of forest land measuring 0.48 hectares to the applicants. On 20 October 2004 special conditions on use of the plot were determined and on 17 February 2005 it was established that 0.18 hectares of the plot consisted of a public right of way in order to access a lake. On 22 September 2005 the Molėtai District Court established as a legal fact that there used to be some buildings (a cattle-shed and a storehouse) on the 0.48-hectare plot. On 5 December 2005 the national authorities gave the applicants permission to build a house for rural tourism on the 0.48-hectare plot. On 2   April 2007 the house was registered in the Centre of Registers as 97%   finished. On 5 August 2011 the prosecutor instituted court proceedings seeking to have the permission to build the house annulled and the house demolished. The prosecutor claimed that the building permission could not have been issued in accordance with the relevant provisions of domestic law and practice. On 4 June 2012 the Molėtai District Court rejected the prosecutor’s complaint, considering that the building permission had been issued in 2005 in accordance with the relevant domestic law in force at that time. The prosecutor appealed and on 4 December 2012 the Panevėžys Regional Court granted the prosecutor’s request and ordered the demolition of the house at the expense of the applicants and the national authorities. The court stated that the building permission had been issued in violation of the domestic law, which did not provide for any exceptions to the regulations on building houses in forests. The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law and on 27 September 2013 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Panevėžys Regional Court. It held that in accordance with the relevant legislation, only forest ‑ related buildings were permitted on such a plot. A document was issued instructing the bailiff to execute the decision of the Panevėžys Regional Court. The bailiff asked the Molėtai District Court to clarify the order of execution of that decision. On 12 February 2014 the Molėtai District Court dismissed her request. The Court has not been informed whether the decision of 4 December 2012 of the Panevėžys Regional Court was executed. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice Article 2 § 3 of the Law on Forests and Article 26 § 1(3) of the Law on Land provides that forest land may include plots occupied by timber storehouses and other objects related to the forest. Paragraph 3 of the Regulation on Construction on Private Land, approved by Government resolution no. 1608 of 22 December 1995, allowed the building of new houses, the reconstruction of existing houses built on forest land, as well as the building of storehouses. Article 20 § 3(4) of the Law on Protected Areas provides that in protected zones with bodies of surface water it is prohibited to alter existing construction lines by reconstructing or rebuilding structures on existing and former homesteads (when there are remnants of former structures and/or gardens or when the homesteads are marked on site plans or other plans, also establishing the legal facts), with the exception of cases provided for in territorial planning documents. Article 28 1 § 2 of the Law on Construction provides that if the courts find that building permission has been issued unlawfully, they will oblige the owner to demolish the building at the expense of the guilty parties. On 16 March 2006 the Constitutional Court held that to the extent that paragraph 2 of the Regulation on Construction on Private Land permitted the construction of not only timber storehouses and facilities related to the forest but also other buildings, it was in conflict with the Law on Forests and the Law on Land, as well as with the Constitution. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they were deprived of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions when they were ordered to demolish their house. They also complain under Article 6 § 1 that the order to demolish the house breached their right to legal certainty, as they could not have foreseen that decision being adopted.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the principle of legal certainty, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, been respected with regard to the order of the domestic courts to demolish the applicants’ house?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   3.     If so, was that interference necessary in order to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest?   The parties are requested to inform the Court about any further developments regarding the applicants’ situation, namely, whether the decision of the Panevėžys Regional Court of 4 December 2012 was executed and if so, the date of the execution.