CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 septembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 13 September 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 67412/14 Libė BRITANIŠKINA against Lithuania lodged on 9 October 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Libė Britaniškina, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1930 and lives in Vilnius. She is represented before the Court by Mr   M. Kazlauskas, a lawyer practising in Vilnius. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 2001 the applicant’s husband asked the national authorities to restore his property rights to a house and a plot of land in Vilnius which had belonged to his grandfather. On 27 October 2003 the applicant’s husband was given premises of 56.62   sq. m. worth 23,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL). On 28 November 2003 the Vilnius City First District Court adopted a decision and established as a legal fact that the grandmother of the applicant’s husband had owned a plot of land in Vilnius measuring 362   square “fathoms” ( sieksnis – 1 fathom equals 1.82 m). On 12 March 2004 the national authorities informed the applicant’s husband that a plot of land measuring 0.1638 hectares would be returned to him in natura . On 16 May 2007 the applicant’s husband died and the applicant inherited his rights. On 24 July 2009 the national authorities decided to restore the applicant’s rights to a plot of land of 0.0362 hectares in natura and to compensate her for a plot of land of 0.1286 hectares worth LTL 6,172 with Government bonds. On an unspecified date the applicant started court proceedings claiming that the compensation established by the national authorities was unjust and asking to recalculate the value of the land. After this matter has been referred to the Constitutional Court, the applicant’s claim was rejected on 4   November 2013 by the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court. It was also stated that the relevant domestic law no longer allowed compensation to be paid in Government bonds for State redeemable land and thus the applicant had to choose the means of compensation. However, as the applicant had not done so before 1 July 2013, she was included on the list of persons to get a new plot of land. The applicant appealed and on 29 May 2014 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court of 4   November 2013. The applicant has not received a new plot of land or a monetary compensation. 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 titles to existing real property which have been bought by the State, as well as for titles which existed prior to 1 August 1991 but subsequently were annulled 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 property which is given in kind as compensation for the property acquired by the State. On 8 November 2012, Article 16(9)(3) of the Law was annulled and it became impossible to pay monetary compensations for the State redeemable land. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that after it had been established that she would be given a new plot of land of equal value, she did not receive it and her property rights have not been restored. She also complains about the overall delays in the restitution process. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in view of the failure of the national authorities to restore to the applicant a new plot of land, and the overall delays in the restitution process?