CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 mai 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 11 May 2020 Published on 8 June 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 39344/19 Marija BUTKEVIČ against Lithuania lodged on 19 July 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns delivery of an administrative decision. In January 2018 the National Land Service (hereinafter “the NLS”) adopted a decision to restore the applicant’s property rights by paying her monetary compensation. That decision could be appealed against within thirty days. In November 2018 the applicant asked the courts to renew the time-limit for lodging an appeal. She submitted that the NLS decision had not been delivered to her in good time – her lawyer had been informed about it only in October 2018 and she herself had received its copy in November 2018. The courts refused to renew the time-limit, finding that the applicant had not proved that she had received the decision too late. The NLS submitted that the decision had been handed over to the post office and sent to the applicant by registered post in January 2018. Even though the post office could not present any proof that the decision had been delivered to her, there was no indication that it had come back undelivered. The courts concluded that the applicant must have received the decision in February 2018 at the latest and that she had missed the time-limit because of her own inactivity. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   13 of the Convention that she did not receive the decision in good time and that she was denied a possibility to appeal against it.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was it demonstrated in the domestic proceedings that the decision of the National Land Service, against which the applicant wished to appeal, was delivered to her in good time (see, mutatis mutandis , Fridman v. Lithuania , no.   40947/11, §§ 26-28, 24   January 2017, and the cases cited therein)?