MAROZAITĖ v. LITHUANIA
Inadmissible
Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani
1. The applicant, Ms Rūta Marozaitė, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Kaunas. She was represented before the Court by Ms A.O. Meilutytė, her mother, a lawyer by profession. 2. The Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, represented by their Agent, Ms K. Bubnytė. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. In March 1992 the applicant’s grandmother, S.M., asked the authorities to transfer ownership of a plot of land of 0.225 hectares located under a private residential building to her. 5. On 8 July 1992 a purchase agreement was signed between S.M. and a representative of the management board of the Kaunas Region, in which it was stated that S.M. was purchasing the plot of land of 0.225 hectares for 3,119 Russian roubles (RUR). S.M. paid the money on 23 July 1992, and a note about payment appeared in the purchase agreement. S.M. also paid RUR 300 and RUR 74.80 respectively for the land documents to be prepared and for the land to be redemarcated. The procedure that had to be followed in order to finalise the purchase agreement was laid down in the domestic law (see paragraph 35 below). 6. On 2 April 2009 S.M. died and, following her written will, the applicant became entitled to inherit her property. The notary requested that the applicant submit documentary evidence confirming the property rights in respect of S.M.’s estate, in order to prepare documents relating to the inheritance. 7. In July 2011 the applicant asked the Kaunas Region Land Service to prepare S.M.’s ownership documents in respect of the plot of land. She stated that she had already delivered to the Kaunas Region Land Service the receipt confirming that S.M. had paid for the land. 8. In August 2011 the Kaunas Region Land Service replied to the applicant, saying that she had delivered only a copy of the payment notice, which had not been confirmed by the bank, and that the document confirming the payment for the land would be issued when she delivered the original receipt. The applicant was further informed that the plot of land in question belonged to the State, and that if she wanted to purchase the plot of land which she had been using then she had to provide the authorities with a plan of the land and a document confirming the legal registration of the buildings on that land. 9. In August 2011 the applicant wrote a letter to the Kaunas Region Land Service and stated that she had not asked to be issued with a document confirming the payment for the land; she had asked the authorities to issue her with the documents confirming S.M.’s ownership of the land. The applicant also wrote that she was not willing to purchase the land because her grandmother had already purchased it. The Kaunas Region Land Service replied that S.M. had not concluded the purchase agreement in respect of the plot of land of 0.225 hectares, and the only document that the National Land Service could issue was the document for the notary confirming that S.M. had paid for the land. After the notary issued the document of inheritance in respect of the payments and the buildings on the land, the land purchase agreement could be concluded with the applicant, and the process of privatising the land, started by S.M., could be finished. 10. In April 2011 the applicant started court proceedings and asked the Kaunas District Court to establish as a legal fact that S.M. had owned a house, a storehouse with buildings around a courtyard, and a plot of land in the Kaunas Region measuring 25 ares (equivalent to 2,500 square metres or 0.25 hectares). 11. On 23 September 2011 the Kaunas District Court established that on 31 March 1992 S.M. had asked the national authorities to give her permission to buy the plot of land of 0.225 hectares. The court also held that there were two receipts dated 8 July 1992 and 23 July 1992 confirming that S.M. had paid RUR 74.80 for redemarcation of the land and RUR 3,119 for the plot of land of 0.225 hectares. The court also observed that on 7 July 1992 S.M. had signed a purchase agreement in respect of the plot of land of 0.225 hectares. The court held that, in accordance with the provisions of domestic law, it was entitled to establish legal facts only when applicants could not obtain documents confirming such facts in any other manner. The court held that a representative of the National Land Service had confirmed that when the applicant provided all the necessary documents regarding the payments for the land, the plot of land would be measured and documents relating to it would be drawn up, and then it would be registered and the ownership documents would be issued. The court concluded that when the applicant provided the authorities with the receipts of the payments S.M. had made, the obstacles to her receiving the ownership documents would be removed. 12. The applicant lodged an appeal, but on 19 January 2012 the Kaunas Regional Court upheld the decision of the first-instance court. 13. In February 2012 the applicant’s representative asked the National Land Service to issue her with the ownership documents in respect of S.M.’s land. She referred to the decision of the Kaunas District Court of 23 September 2011, where it had been established that the applicant would receive documents confirming S.M.’s ownership of the plot of land of 0.225 hectares when she presented the authorities with the original receipts (see paragraph 11 above). The applicant’s representative also stated that the notary would not issue her with the inheritance document with regard to the RUR 3,119 paid, because the notary could only issue inheritance documents with regard to deposits in banks. In March 2012 the Kaunas Region Land Service reiterated that the applicant had to provide the authorities with an original receipt for the payments S.M. had made. It further stated that the applicant had not submitted a request to purchase the plot of land in question, registration documents for the buildings situated on the land, a copy of her identity document, or a plan of the plot. If a plan of the plot had not been provided because the plot of land had not been measured and the documents relating to the plot had not been drawn up, the person asking to purchase the land had to be informed about the necessity to prepare the territorial planning document and the plan of the plot. The Kaunas Region Land Service stated that it had never been obliged by the domestic courts to issue the applicant with the documents confirming S.M.’s property rights to the land. 14. It appears that the applicant wrote a letter to the Chamber of Notaries. She received a response in March 2012, where it was indicated that the document of inheritance could only be issued with regard to property and property rights, and it could not be issued with regard to the money the deceased had paid. The Chamber of Notaries invited the applicant to address the National Land Service with regard to the privatisation of the land. 15. In May 2012 the National Land Service examined the applicant’s complaint regarding the plot of land. It stated that the house, the garage, the storehouse and the buildings around a courtyard had been registered in the Centre of Registers in April 2012. It was indicated that these buildings had been used by S.M. However, the rights to the property in question had not been registered. The National Land Service further stated that there was a document confirming that S.M. had paid RUR 300 for the preparation of documents, but there was no evidence that she had paid RUR 3,119 for the land. The National Land Service also explained what the valid procedure for acquiring ownership rights over land had been in 1992. A person had to ask to purchase a plot of land and provide a document confirming the grounds on which he or she had been using that plot and a plan of the plot. The relevant land service then had to estimate the price of the land and prepare a draft purchase agreement, and the person had to be presented with that agreement. The person then had to confirm that he or she agreed with the price and other conditions set out in the purchase agreement, by signing it. After that, the person had to pay the price indicated in the draft purchase agreement and come and sign the agreement, presenting the authorities with a receipt confirming payment. The purchase agreement had to be approved by a notary and registered with the municipal (regional) land service within a month. It was only possible to inherit such land after the purchase agreement had been confirmed by the notary. The purchase agreement could be signed and registered at the same time. The National Land Service thus decided that the purchase agreement which S.M. had signed was merely a draft agreement. Because the purchase agreement regarding the 0.225 hectares of land had not been concluded, the privatisation documents regarding that plot had to be prepared in accordance with the legal acts in force at the time. The National Land Service stated that because the applicant had inherited S.M.’s buildings, she could, but was not obliged to, buy the plot of land in question under and around the buildings. The price of the land would be calculated in accordance with the prices valid at the material time, and the amount which S.M. had paid could be deducted from the total price of the land. 16. The applicant started court proceedings, asking the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court to: annul the decisions of the national authorities not to issue her with a document confirming her grandmother’s property rights in respect of the plot of land of 0.225 hectares; oblige the national authorities to issue her with that document within three months; and award her 10,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 2,896 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage, and EUR 28,962 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicant claimed that the domestic authorities were refusing to issue her with the document confirming her property rights in respect of the plot of land of 0.225 hectares, and that they were stating that S.M. had not paid for the land. The applicant also claimed that the national authorities were asking her to pay EUR 12,743 for the land, when the land had already been paid for. 17. On 10 September 2012 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s claim. The court held that S.M. had submitted a request to buy the plot of land of 0.225 hectares. After that, the national authorities had issued her with a document specifying that the price of the land was RUR 3,119 and she had to pay an additional RUR 300 for the preparation and official registration of the relevant documents. The court also held that the draft purchase agreement had been prepared, but permission to purchase the land, which was obligatory under domestic law, had never been issued. It also observed that the purchase agreement had to be approved by a notary and registered in the relevant register, and this had not been done. The court therefore concluded that, although the procedure to purchase the plot of land of 0.225 ha had been started, the national authorities had not expressed their willingness to sell the land, and thus the purchase agreement had not been concluded. As the National Land Service had not acted unlawfully, compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage could not be awarded to the applicant. 18. The applicant lodged an appeal, and on 4 March 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the first-instance court. The court reiterated what the privatisation procedure in force in 1992 had been (see paragraph 35 below). The court observed that, although the land purchase agreement between S.M. and the national authorities had not been marked as a draft agreement, it was actually no more than that. The mere fact that the applicant’s grandmother had signed and paid for the land only represented her willingness to conclude the agreement, and did not prove that the land purchase agreement had actually been concluded. The draft had been prepared on 8 July 1992, and this draft also contained additional information from 23 July 1992 confirming that S.M. had paid RUR 3,119 for the land. This information had been included in the draft agreement after it had been prepared. The court held that that information had to be assessed as proof that, after S.M. had paid for the land, she had presented the authorities with the receipt which had been included in the draft. The fact that the agreement was merely a draft was supported by the circumstance that it had not met the requirements of domestic law that purchase agreements had to be approved by a notary and registered by the municipal (regional) land service. Moreover, certain lines in the draft had not been filled in. Lastly, between 1992 and 2009 S.M. had not asked the authorities to conclude a purchase agreement based on the provisions of the draft purchase agreement which she had signed, thus it could not be concluded that the purchase of the land had not been concluded due to unlawful actions of the authorities. 19. On 3 June 2013 the notary issued the applicant with a document of inheritance regarding S.M.’s house, the buildings around the courtyard, the garage and the storehouse. 20. The applicant asked the Supreme Administrative Court to reopen the proceedings, and on 5 June 2013 it rejected her application. The court held that reopening proceedings was only possible in the event that a gross violation of the provisions of domestic law had been made. The court observed that no such violation had been made, and thus the applicant’s application was rejected as unfounded. 21. In July 2013 the Kaunas Region Land Service sent a document to the notary confirming that S.M. had paid RUR 3,119 for 0.225 hectares of land on 27 July 1992. 22. The applicant lodged a civil claim, asking to be awarded EUR 7,008 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 28,962 in respect of non-pecuniary damage for illegal actions committed by the domestic courts in their refusing to establish as a legal fact that S.M. had owned some buildings and 0.225 hectares of land. On 1 April 2014 the Vilnius City District Court rejected the applicant’s claim because she had not provided any evidence about unlawful actions of the domestic courts, nor had she justified the amount of damages claimed. 23. The applicant lodged an appeal. On 3 December 2014 the Vilnius Regional Court upheld the decision of the Vilnius City District Court of 1 April 2014. 24. On 19 January 2015 an appeal on points of law by the applicant was rejected because it had been submitted by email and she had not proved her legal qualifications, and on 13 February 2015 that appeal was rejected because it had not been submitted by a lawyer and had other procedural shortcomings. Lastly, on 3 March 2015 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law as not raising important legal issues. 25. On 14 May 2014 the Kaunas Region Land Service approved the list of candidates who were to receive plots of land. The applicant was included on that list. 26. In July 2014 the applicant was asked to pay LTL 566.28 (approximately EUR 164) for the plot of land of 0.225 hectares to be measured and for documents relating to it to be drawn up. The applicant paid the money on 31 December 2014. 27. In December 2014 the National Land Service informed the applicant that in July 2014 she had signed the agreement regarding the payment which was necessary in order for a plot of land to be measured and for documents relating to it to be drawn up. The National Land Service also stated that after the applicant had paid the money, she would have to address relevant institutions to make cadastral measurements. Moreover, the applicant had to provide the authorities with a document of inheritance issued by the notary, proving that S.M. had paid for the plot of land of 0.225 hectares. A purchase agreement would then be prepared, deducting the money which S.M. had paid from the final price of the land. The remaining amount to be paid by the applicant would be determined in accordance with the rules set by the Government. 28. The applicant started administrative proceedings against the national authorities for EUR 28,962 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and for recognition of her right to compensation for pecuniary damage. She complained that, although during the proceedings to establish a legal fact, officials had claimed that she would be issued with the property documents when she provided the original receipts, they had kept refusing her requests. The applicant also claimed that the national authorities were falsely stating that her grandmother had not paid for the land. 29. On 20 April 2015 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court established that S.M. had paid RUR 3,119 for the plot of land of 0.225 hectares and RUR 74.80 for redemarcation of the land. The court also held that it had already been established in the other proceedings that the mere fact that the money had been paid did not constitute sufficient grounds to establish that S.M. and the national authorities had concluded the land purchase agreement. The court observed that, even though the officials’ statements had been irresponsible during the proceedings to establish a legal fact (see paragraph 11 above), there was no evidence confirming that the land purchase procedure had not been finalised as a result of unlawful actions by the national authorities. Consequently, the examination of the part of the applicant’s claim concerning the acknowledgement of her right to compensation for pecuniary damage was terminated, and the other part of the application was dismissed. 30. The applicant lodged an appeal, and on 17 December 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court of 20 April 2015. 31. The applicant started administrative proceedings against the national authorities for EUR 164 in respect of pecuniary damage. The applicant claimed that, although her grandmother had paid for the plot of land of 0.225 hectares, the authorities were requiring her to purchase the same land again and ordering her to pay EUR 164 for a plan of the land. Although the applicant had paid the money, she thought that such a requirement was unlawful. 32. On 11 January 2016 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court held that it had already been established that S.M. had not completed the purchase agreement, thus the National Land Service could not issue the applicant with the land ownership documents. The purchase documents had to be prepared in accordance with the domestic law applicable at the present time. The court observed that the purchase of plots of land was regulated by the rules approved by the Government (see paragraphs 36 and 37 below). The National Land Service was not obliged to pay for the plans of land reform projects prepared in order to transfer land into private ownership. There were no exceptions to this rule. It was also impossible to deduct from the price of the land the payments of RUR 300 and RUR 74.80 which S.M. had made for the preparation of documents and redemarcation of the land in 1992. These payments had not resulted in any legal consequences, because the purchase agreement had not been concluded. Documents relating to the plot of land in question had just been drawn up as part of the land reform project, and the applicant had to pay EUR 164 for the measurements. The applicant was indicating that this specific amount was pecuniary damage. However, she had failed to prove the unlawful actions of the authorities. 33. The applicant appealed. On 30 May 2017 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The court held that the amount of EUR 164 could only be returned to the applicant if she refused to purchase or rent the land indicated in the land reform project. The applicant had agreed in writing to pay the money, and she had not refused to purchase or rent the land. The applicant also claimed that S.M. had already paid for the preparation of documents in 1992. The court referred to the domestic legislation and observed that if a person was an owner of a building sited on State land, and the person had paid for the land but the purchase agreement had not been concluded, the payments made could be deducted from the final price of the land if a right to deduct these payments was also transferred together with a property right to the buildings (see paragraph 36 below). If a person had acquired property rights to a building situated on State land before 1 February 2010, and a person had paid for the land but the purchase agreement had not been concluded, the payments made could be deducted from the final price of the land if such a right was transferred to a buyer by a document approved by the notary. The applicant thus had to follow these rules. 34. Article 30 § 10 of the Law on Land provides that if a building that is transferred into private ownership is sited on a plot of State land for which a person has paid, but where the purchase agreement in respect of that land has not been concluded, such a person acquires a right to purchase the land necessary to use the buildings. The person transferring an ownership right to a building can also transfer the right to deduct payments for the land that have already been made. 35. Government Resolution No. 89 of 7 February 1992 “On the sale and rent of plots of land for non-agricultural purposes and community gardens” (Dėl žemės sklypų ne žemės ūkio veiklai bei sodininkų bendrijų narių sodų sklypų pardavimo ir nuomos tvarkos – hereinafter “the Order”), in force at the material time, provided that a person who had the right to and was willing to purchase a plot of land for his or her individual use had to ask the municipal (regional) land service if he or she could purchase that plot, and provide a plan of the plot and other documents (Point 4). The Order also provided that the municipal (regional) land service had to prepare a legal document determining the price of the land and a draft purchase agreement within a month of receiving a person’s request. The signature of a person willing to purchase the land meant that he or she had accepted the conditions established in the draft purchase agreement and legal document determining the price of the land (Point 6). After that, the municipal (regional) land service had to submit the signed documents to the municipal (regional) authority, which had to publish a decree allowing the person to purchase the land (Point 8). The Order further provided that after the city (regional) administration had published a decree allowing the person to purchase the land, it had to send a notice to the buyer indicating the amount he or she had to pay for the land, and had to instruct an engineer to give orders to the relevant authorities to mark out the land and clarify the cartographic and cadastral documents. These actions had to be performed before the signing of the purchase agreement. The period between the issuing of the decree and the signing of the land purchase agreement could not be longer than one month (Point 9). The Order also provided that when a buyer received the notice from the authorities, he or she had to pay for the land before signing the land purchase agreement and come to the authorities to sign the purchase agreement, bringing a document confirming the payment. In the absence of important reasons, if a person had not paid the money or had not come to sign the purchase agreement, the land purchase agreement was not concluded. The land purchase agreement had to be approved by a notary and registered by the municipal (regional) land service. If those actions were not performed, the land purchase agreement would be null and void. Once the purchase agreement was approved by the notary, there was a right to inherit the land. The purchase agreement could be signed and registered at the same time (Point 10). Once the purchase agreement was registered, the city (regional) administration issued the buyer with the ownership act, which was a document confirming a right to use the plot of land in accordance with the law (Point 11). 36. At the material time, Government Resolution No. 260 of 9 March 1999 “On the sale and rent of plots of State land for other purposes” (Dėl naudojamų kitos paskirties valstybinės žemės sklypų ir nuomos) provided that if a person who acquired the ownership right to a building situated on a plot of State land had paid for that plot, but the purchase agreement regarding that plot of land had not been concluded, the amounts paid for the land had to be deducted from the final price of the land (Point 2.6). 37. At the material time, Government Resolution No. 260 of 9 March 1999, by which rules “On the sale and rent of plots of State land for other purposes” (Naudojamų kitos paskirties valstybinės žemės sklypų ir nuomos taisyklės) were approved, provided that a person who wanted to purchase a plot of State land which he or she had been using had to provide the authorities with a request to purchase the land; an approved copy of his or her identity document; and a copy of a plan of the land, with the buildings marked (Point 12). If the plan of the land was not included because it had not been measured and documents relating to it had not been drawn up, a person had to be informed about the necessity to prepare a territorial planning document and a plan of the land (Point 14).