CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 septembre 2024

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }   Published on 14 October 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 38781/23 Tomas VALENTA against Lithuania lodged on 13 October 2023 communicated on 23 September 2024   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns expropriation of property. The applicant is a farmer, he raises and breeds sheep (165 sheep), bees, and as of 2007 has been engaged in ecological farming. In 2013 the Seimas passed a resolution whereby constructing a Via Baltica transport corridor was given State importance status. In 2019 the Government approved the plan for laying down the Via Baltica highway, and, on the basis of the Law on Expropriation of the Land, started expropriating land for its construction. As a result, several plots of land belonging to the applicant and his wife, where the applicant pursued sheep raising activity, were expropriated; the applicant was paid pecuniary compensation for the expropriated land. The applicant initiated administrative proceedings, arguing that his remaining plots of land had become separated by a highway, rendering it impossible for the sheep to move from one plot to another without crossing the highway, which   was fenced out. He also maintained that no animals could be herded over the highway. The applicant thus sought pecuniary compensation of EUR   17,787 for a livestock transport vehicle, and EUR   14,794 for costs of operating that vehicle for the next 29   years, when he would reach retirement age. On 25   November 2021 the regional administrative court dismissed the applicant’s claim having held, among other, that the applicant should have adapted to the changed conditions and, as a farmer, chosen another activity. It was also uncertain whether the applicant would have been able to pursue his farming activity until his retirement age. By a final ruling of 21   June 2023, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s decision. Under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention the applicant complains about the authorities’ decision not to compensate him for the loss he experienced as a farmer, and in particular to award him compensation for sheep transportation expenses.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in the public interest (see Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], no.   25701/94, §   87, ECHR 2000-XII), and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law (see Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no.   71243/01, §§   95-98, 25   October 2012, with further references), within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant on account of the authorities’ decision not to compensate the applicant for the loss he experienced as a farmer (see Ouzounoglou v. Greece , no.   32730/03, §   30, 24   November 2005, Bistrović v. Croatia , no. 25774/05, §   42, 31   May 2007, and Vistiņš and Perepjolkins , cited above, §   108)?