CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 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 } .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 8 October 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 63748/17 Jurijus GRIŠKA and Others against Lithuania lodged on 25 August 2017 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Mr Jurijus Griška (“the first applicant”), Mr   Valdemaras Griška (“the second applicant”) and Mr Zenon Baranovskij (“the third applicant”), are Lithuanian nationals, who were born in 1970, 1965 and 1955 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. In July 2005 the Vilnius County Administration (hereinafter “the VCA”) restored the third applicant’s father’s property rights by giving him 7.03   hectares of land in the Vilnius Region. In August 2005 he sold 4.28   hectares of that land jointly to the first and second applicants. The sale agreement was certified by a notary. In 2010 the third applicant’s father died and the third applicant became his sole heir. On 12 April 2013 the prosecutor of the Vilnius Region (hereinafter “the prosecutor”) lodged a claim with the courts, seeking to have the third applicant’s father’s property rights and the sale agreement between him and the first and second applicants annulled. The prosecutor submitted that 0.08   hectares of that land was covered by a forest which, being situated in a city, was considered a forest of national importance and could thus only be owned by the State. The prosecutor asked the court to apply interim measures and to restrict the first and second applicants’ rights to 0.08 hectares of their land. It appears that such measures were authorised; however, the relevant 0.08   hectares were not in fact delimited from the rest of the plot. According to the first and second applicants, their rights to the entire plot of 4.28   hectares were restricted as a result. The three applicants and the National Land Service (the institution which took over the relevant functions of the VCA after an administrative reform – hereinafter “the NLS”) were the defendants in the proceedings. The first and second applicants disputed the prosecutor’s claim. They submitted that property rights had been restored to the third applicant’s father by the public authorities in line with the relevant legal instruments and there had been no indication of the presence of a forest on that land. They therefore argued that they had acquired the land in good faith and in accordance with the law. They also submitted that the part of the plot allegedly covered by a forest was very small (0.08   hectares) and insignificant to the public interest, whereas the annulment of their property rights would cause them serious harm and would thus be disproportionate. The third applicant submitted that he had no interest in the outcome of the proceedings and thus should not have the status of a defendant. He submitted that the land had belonged to his father who had managed it on his own and had used the money received from the sale for his personal needs. The NLS disputed the prosecutor’s claim. It submitted that at the time when the decision to restore the third applicant’s father’s property rights had been adopted, relevant public registers had not indicated the presence of a forest on that land. The Ministry of Environment, which was a third party in the proceedings, asked the court to allow the prosecutor’s claim. It argued that the VCA’s decision to restore the third applicant’s father’s property rights had been contrary to mandatory statutory provisions stating that urban forests could only be owned by the State, and thus had to be annulled. On 12 November 2015 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court allowed the prosecutor’s claim. The court observed that the Constitution and other legislation established that forests of national importance could only be owned by the State. It noted that the data in the Register of Forests confirmed the presence of a forest on the plot of land given to the third applicant’s father at the time when the VCA’s decision to restore his property rights had been adopted. Accordingly, that decision had not been in accordance with the law and it, as well as the subsequent sale agreement, had to be annulled. The court annulled the VCA’s decision in its entirety and the sale agreement in respect of the part concerning 0.08 hectares covered by a forest. The first and second applicants were ordered to return those 0.08   hectares to the State. The third applicant was ordered to pay each of the first and second applicants 230 euros (EUR) which they had paid to his late father for that part of the land. The NLS lodged an appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court. It submitted that there were no grounds to annul the VCA’s decision in its entirety, and not only in respect of the part concerning 0.08 hectares covered by a forest. It also argued that the forest occupied only a small part of the plot and was of minor significance to the public interest, and therefore the court should have assessed the individual circumstances of the case, rather than take a formalistic approach. The three applicants asked the Supreme Administrative Court to dismiss the appeal lodged by the NLS. The first and second applicants submitted that because of interim measures ordered with respect to 0.08   hectares, they had been unable to fully exercise their rights to the entire plot because the part covered by a forest had not been delimited from the remaining land and could not be so delimited until the court’s decision became final. They submitted that they intended to sell the plot and the lengthy court proceedings were causing them financial loss. They therefore wished for the proceedings to end as soon as possible and for that reason had not lodged an appeal. However, if the court decided to examine the appeal lodged by the NLS, the three applicants stated that they supported the arguments presented therein. The prosecutor and the Ministry of Environment contested the appeal. On 28 February 2017 the Supreme Administrative Court partly amended the lower court’s decision. It upheld the findings concerning the presence of a forest on the plot and reiterated that, according to domestic law, urban forests could only be owned by the State. However, it considered that there were no grounds to annul the VCA’s decision in its entirety, since by that decision the third applicant’s father had been given 7.03 hectares of land, whereas the dispute concerned only 0.08 hectares. The Supreme Administrative Court therefore amended that part of the lower court’s decision and annulled the VCA’s decision only in respect of 0.08   hectares covered by a forest. The court further observed that the prosecutor, when lodging his claim with respect to 0.08 hectares covered by a forest, had not presented a land plan in which that part was delimited from the rest of the first and second applicants’ plot. In the court’s view, such omission on the prosecutor’s part was an obstacle for solving the case and constituted grounds for remitting it for fresh examination. However, taking account of the fact that the proceedings had already lasted for more than three years, the court considered that a fresh examination of the case would breach the parties’ right to a speedy process. It therefore ordered the NLS to prepare a land plan for delimiting the 0.08 hectares covered by a forest from the rest of the first and second applicants’ plot within three months. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice For relevant domestic law and practice, see Beinarovič and Others v.   Lithuania (nos. 170520/10 and 2 others, §§ 84-103, 12 June 2018). COMPLAINTS 1.     The first and second applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention that although the forest occupied only a minor part of the plot (0.08 hectares), during the proceedings their rights to the entire plot of 4.28 hectares were restricted because the forest was not delimited from the rest of the plot. 2.     The third applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the order for him to pay back the first and second applicants the money which they had paid to his late father was unlawful and unjustified. He submits that he was not a party to the sale agreement and did not receive any money from it. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the first and second applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in view of the fact that while the proceedings concerning the annulment of their title to 0.08 hectares were ongoing, they were unable to fully exercise their rights to the entire plot of 4.28   hectares?   2.     Did the first and second applicants exhaust available domestic remedies with respect to the above complaint?   3.     Has there been a violation of the third applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in view of the fact that he had to pay back the first and second applicants what his father had received from them under the land sale agreement? In particular, was that in accordance with domestic law (see Beinarovič and Others v. Lithuania , nos. 170520/10 and 2 others, §§   103 and 134, 12 June 2018)?   4.     Has the third applicant received fair compensation for the amount which he had to pay to the first and second applicants (ibid., § 142, and the cases cited therein)?   The parties are requested to inform the Court whether – and if so, when – the 0.08 hectares covered by a forest were delimited from the rest of the first and second applicants’ plot.   The Government are also requested to clarify when cases concerning annulment of restoration of property rights are decided by administrative courts and when by courts of general jurisdiction. They are also requested to clarify whether those two branches of courts follow the same principles, in particular concerning the consequences of such annulment in cases where the persons to whom property rights had been restored later sold that property to third parties (ibid., § 103).