CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 mars 2018

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 29 March 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 66803/17 Kęstas MOZERIS and EUGENIJOS IR LEONIDO PIMONOVŲ ALZHEIMERIO LIGOS PARAMOS FONDAS against Lithuania lodged on 6 September 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns restitution of property. In 1996 L.P. asked the authorities to have his property rights restored to 16.51 hectares of land in Vilnius. He asked for restitution in natura as well as for restitution by being given a plot of land of equal value and for monetary compensation. After L.P.’s death in 2000, the applicants became entitled to inherit L.P.’s property. In 2007 L.P.’s property rights were restored to 1.8232 hectares of land and it was decided to restore his property rights to the remaining part at a later stage. In 2015 L.P.’s property rights were restored to 14.5668   hectares of land by paying monetary compensation of 51,989 euros. It was stated that property rights to the remaining part would be restored later. It appears that the property rights to the remaining 0.12   hectares have not yet been restored. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the overall delays in completing the restitution process (see Kavaliauskas and Others v. Lithuania , no. 51752/10, § 61, 14   March 2017 and the case-law cited therein)?   2.     As regards the applicants’ claim about the overall delays in completing the restitution process, did they have an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Savickas and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 66365/09 and 5 others, §§   86-88, 15   October 2013)? If an effective domestic remedy did exist, have the applicants exhausted it?   The parties are requested to provide examples of recent domestic case ‑ law as to the effectiveness of the domestic remedies in respect of the complaints about the overall delays in completing the restitution process.