CASE OF PAPLAUSKIENĖ v. LITHUANIA
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens
5. The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Vilnius. 6. By a decision of 18 June 2002 the Vilnius Region Administration restored the applicant’s property rights to 0.23 hectares of land in the context of restitution of property rights which had been violated by the unlawful nationalisation during the Soviet regime. Subsequently, the plot of land was registered in the land registry in her name. 7. On 15 July 2002 the applicant sold the plot of land for 76,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL; approximately 22,000 euros (EUR)) to two private buyers, E.T. and D.Z., who became the owners of the plot. 8. In August 2003 the Vilnius Region Administration found that a mistake had been made in granting the plot of land to the applicant and notified her and, later, the public prosecutor. 9. In June 2004 the public prosecutor initiated civil proceedings to have the decision of 18 June 2002 and sale contract annulled on the ground that in 1993 part of the same plot of land had already been sold by the State to a private buyer, R.G. Moreover, the plot was situated in a community garden (sodininkų bendrija) and therefore the former owner’s rights to it could not be restored under the Law on the Restoration of Citizens’ Rights of Ownership to Existing Real Property (Piliečių nuosavybės teisių į išlikusį nekilnojamąjį turtą atkūrimo įstatymas – hereinafter “Law on Restitution”). 10. At the same time criminal proceedings had been instituted into possible forgery of the documents. However, suspicions with regard to the applicant were not confirmed, and the proceedings were discontinued in July 2006. 11. The Vilnius Region Administration acknowledged that the plot of land had been assigned to the applicant unlawfully. 12. On 20 August 2004 assets belonging to the applicant amounting in value to LTL 76,000, including bank deposits and her pension, were seized to ensure satisfaction of the prosecutor’s civil claim. 13. On 5 May 2005 the Vilnius 1st City District Court granted the prosecutor’s claim. The transfer of title involving the plot of land was annulled. Ownership was awarded to R.G. and the applicant was ordered to pay LTL 76,000 to E.T. and D.Z. The applicant did, however, reserve the right to have her ownership rights to a plot of land restored. 14. On 15 September 2005 the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant. 15. By a final decision of 22 March 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts. 16. On 30 May 2006 the order requiring the applicant to pay LTL 76,000 was enforced by a bailiff. 17. According to information submitted by the applicant, she had to borrow money to comply with the order to pay LTL 76,000 and to cover other legal expenses. She also alleged that the unlawful actions of the authorities and the related court proceedings had caused her health to deteriorate significantly, as she had suffered stress and later become disabled. 18. In November 2005, after receiving a refusal from the Vilnius Region Administration to compensate her for her loss, the applicant brought a claim against the State before the administrative courts for LTL 90,479 (about EUR 26,200) in pecuniary damage and LTL 300,000 (about EUR 87,000) in non-pecuniary damage. 19. By a final decision of 15 November 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the first instance court and granted the applicant’s claim in part awarding her LTL 838 (approximately EUR 240) for pecuniary (part of her legal costs and expenses) and LTL 2,000 (approximately EUR 580) for non-pecuniary damage. The court also concluded that the unlawful actions of the national authorities had violated the applicant’s legitimate expectations and had had an impact on her health, given her old age. However, the court dismissed most of the applicant’s claims to have reimbursed the pecuniary loss she had allegedly sustained as a result of the annulment of the transfer of title to the plot and the court proceedings she had had to undergo. In that connection, the courts noted that the applicant had no legal grounds to claim compensation for pecuniary damage, given that she had unlawfully had her ownership rights to the disputed plot restored. 20. Later, by a decision of 9 April 2009 the Vilnius Region Administration restored the applicant’s property rights by granting her a new plot of land of 0.23 hectare.