CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 septembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s53E9AB06 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s96D82958 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify }   Published on 14 October 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 25875/23 Alfonsas DARAŠKA against Lithuania lodged on 10 June 2023 communicated on 24 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns allegedly inadequate reasoning of the domestic courts in proceedings concerning an obligation for the applicant to return previously received financial aid. In 2018 the applicant took over a grant of financial aid which had been previously awarded to other persons in order to plant a forest on a certain plot of land. In 2021 the National Paying Agency under the Ministry of Agriculture ordered him to return approximately 41,395 euros of the previously received financial aid. The Agency stated that he had not met the goal for which the aid had been granted, since the density of the trees had not complied with the requirements established under domestic law. The applicant challenged the above-mentioned decision before the administrative courts. In particular, he argued that the trees had been planted in 2013 as required and some had later been replanted. However, in 2017 and 2018 floods and droughts had affected the condition of the trees, and therefore, the required density of the forest could not have been reached regardless of his efforts. He submitted that, at the relevant time, the authorities had acknowledged that the weather conditions had been extreme and had announced that beneficiaries of financial aid had not been required to take any additional action, but that relevant specialists would record the condition of the land. On 6 January 2022 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. By a final ruling of 8 March 2023, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld that decision. The courts held that the forest at issue had not met the density requirements and there was no evidence that, as required by the domestic law, the applicant had contacted the relevant authorities and informed them that he would be unable to meet his obligations because of the meteorological conditions. As submitted by the applicant, the courts did not address his arguments that the situation had been caused by meteorological conditions and that, taking into consideration the publicly announced information, he had not been required to inform the authorities about those conditions. The applicant complains that the domestic courts failed to properly address his arguments regarding the cause of the death of the trees and the absence of an obligation for him to notify the authorities, and that their decisions were based on general and abstract reasoning. He relies on Article   6   §   1 of the Convention and Article   13 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the administrative courts provide specific and explicit replies to the applicant’s arguments which were decisive for the outcome of those proceedings (see Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos.   55391/13 and 2 others, §§   185-86, 6   November 2018, and Tarvydas v.   Lithuania , no. 36098/19, §§ 47-53, 23 November 2021)? In this connection, the Court refers, in particular, to the following arguments raised by the applicant in the domestic proceedings: (a)     that the required density of the forest was not achieved because of meteorological conditions; (b)     that, according to the information which was publicly announced by the authorities and the instructions issued by those authorities, he was not required to inform them about his inability to comply with his obligations as a result of meteorological conditions.