CASE OF UZKURELIENE AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA
No violation of Art. 6-1;No violation of P1-1
David Thór Björgvinsson
8. The first applicant is Mrs Eugenija Užkurėlienė, born in 1939 and living in Vilnius. The second applicant is Mr Povilas Čyžius, born in 1936 and living in the Kupiškis area in the Panevėžys region. The third applicant is Mr Stanislovas Čyžius, born in 1938 and living in Panevėžys. The fourth applicant is Ms Janina Čyžiutė, born in 1932 and living in the Kupiškis area. 9. The applicants are brothers and sisters. Before the Soviet occupation of Lithuania in 1940 the applicants' father owned 33.87 hectares of land (“the original land”). The land was nationalised by the Soviet authorities in the 1940s. Following the restoration of Lithuanian independence in 1990, the applicants became entitled to a claim in regard to their late father's land under the Restitution of Property Act (“the Act”). 10. On 25 September 1991 the applicants requested that compensation in land be given to them in accordance with the Act. 11. On 10 December 1993 the applicants changed their position, requesting that the original land be returned to them in kind. By letter of the administrative authorities of 31 January 1994 the applicants were informed that part of the original land (8.74 hectares) had already been allocated to a third person, FS, by decision of the Ministry of Agriculture of 30 December 1992. The applicants were informed that that part of the land could thus not be returned to them. 12. On 15 February 1994 the applicants applied to a court, requesting that the decision of 30 December 1992 be quashed. On 20 June 1994 the Vilnius City First District Court rejected the applicants' action. On 18 July 1994 the Supreme Court rejected the applicants' appeal against that judgment. 13. On 22 March 1995 the Supreme Court refused to grant leave for a cassation appeal. 14. On 4 October 1996 the applicants brought a fresh court action, requesting the return of the original land. On 29 June 1998 the Kupiškis District Court rejected the applicants' action. On 15 September 1998 the Panevėžys Regional Court rejected the applicants' appeal against that decision. The applicants submitted a cassation appeal to the Court of Appeal. 15. On 3 May 1999 the Court of Appeal quashed the lower decisions, returning the case for a fresh examination at first instance. 16. On 28 October 1999 the Kupiškis District Court again rejected the applicants' action. On 21 December 1999 the Panevėžys Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment. The applicants submitted a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court. 17. On 22 May 2000 the Supreme Court adopted a final judgment whereby it quashed the decisions of 28 October and 21 December 1999. The Supreme Court concluded that the authorities and the lower courts had been responsible for the delays in restoring the applicants' rights under the Act. It held inter alia: “From the material in possession it appears that the plaintiffs submitted a request to restore their property rights on 25 September 1991. Pursuant to Article 19 [of the Act], a decision on the request must have been adopted within three months from that date. ... [The] plaintiffs' right to an effective remedy was [therefore] violated. ... The plaintiffs had submitted enough evidence [enabling the administrative authorities] to adopt a decision on restitution of their property rights, even more so as the case-file contains no evidence that other persons claim restitution of property rights in regard to the land which belonged to the plaintiffs' father. ... Having regard to the fact that the plaintiffs' property rights have not been restored since 1991 ... [further litigation] would breach the plaintiffs' rights guaranteed by Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention ... ” 18. In the judgment of 22 May 2000 the Supreme Court ordered that the Panevėžys regional administration “take a decision to restore the [applicants'] property rights to the land which belonged to [their father] prior to the nationalisation”. 19. With respect to the applicants' claim about the allocation of part of the original land (8.74 hectares) to FS, the Supreme Court noted that in their original application for restitution of their property rights the applicants had asked for compensation, not for return of the original land, and that they had changed their claim only on 10 December 1993, i.e. almost a year following the authorities' decision of 30 December 1992 to allocate the impugned portion of land to FS. The Supreme Court concluded that thus the applicants could not have this part of the original land returned to them. It also noted however that the applicants were entitled to compensation for the impugned portion of land in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 20. On 20 March 2002 the Panevėžys regional administration made an offer to the first applicant to afford her compensation in land for 5.36 hectares of her late father's former land that could not be returned in kind. The necessary formalities for the transfer of property rights to the first applicant have not yet been finalised as she did not reply to a number of the administration's letters requesting her to sign the relevant papers. 21. By a decision of the regional administration of 30 August 2002, the second and third applicants were returned in kind 16.08 hectares of the original land. 22. On the same date the administration allotted the fourth applicant 3.67 hectares of land in compensation for the equivalent part of the original land that could not be returned in kind. 23. On 9 July 2002 the regional administration made an offer for the fourth applicant to be allotted a further 1.69 hectares of land in compensation. On 17 December 2002 and 5 July 2004 the regional administration made an offer to compensate the fourth applicant for a further 1.22 hectares of her father's former land. The formalities for the transfer of property rights to her in this respect have not yet been finalised as she did not reply to a number of the administration's letters requesting her to sign the relevant papers. 24. On 17 December 2002 the regional administration made an offer to the second applicant to compensate in land for 0.78 hectares of the original land that could not be returned to him. The formalities for the transfer of property rights to him have not yet been finalised as he did not reply to a number of the administration's letters to sign the relevant documents. 25. On 12 February 2004 all four applicants were returned jointly a further 3.51 hectares of the original land. 26. On 19 July 2004 the regional administration afforded the first and the third applicant a further compensation in land for 1.56 hectares of the original land that could not be returned in kind. 27. The Restitution of Property Act (Nuosavybės teisių ... atkūrimo įstatymas) (of 1991, amended on numerous occasions) provides for two forms of restitution: 1) the return of the property in certain circumstances, 2) compensation in other cases (compensation can be made in land or money). On 27 May 1994 the Constitutional Court examined the issue of compatibility of the Constitution with the domestic laws on restitution of property rights. In its decision the Constitutional Court held inter alia that possessions which had been nationalised by the Soviet authorities since 1940 should be considered as “property under the de facto control of the State”. The Constitutional Court also stated: “The rights of a former owner to particular property have not been restored until the property is returned or appropriate compensation is afforded. The law does not itself provide any rights while it is not applied to a concrete person in respect of a specific property item. In this situation the decision of a competent authority to return the property or to compensate has such a legal effect that only from that moment does the former owner obtain property rights to a specific property item.” The Constitutional Court also held that fair compensation for property which could not be returned was compatible with the principle of the protection of property. In decisions of 15 June and 19 October 1994 the Constitutional Court emphasised that the notion of restitution of property rights in Lithuania essentially denoted partial reparation. In this respect the Constitutional Court noted that the authorities of Lithuania as a re-established State in 1990 were not responsible for the Soviet occupation half a century ago, nor were they responsible for the consequences of that occupation. The Constitutional Court held that since the 1940s many private persons had bought, in accordance with the legislation applicable at the material time, various property items which had been previously nationalised. The denial of these factual and legal aspects was impossible, and the domestic legislation on restitution of property rights duly took into account not only the interests of the former owners, but also the interests of private persons who had occupied or purchased the property under lawful contracts. On 20 June 1995 the Constitutional Court also said that the choice by the Parliament of the partial reparation principle was influenced by the difficult political and social conditions in that “new generations had grown, new proprietary and other socio-economic relations had been formed during the 50 years of occupation, which could not be ignored in deciding the question of restitution of property”. On 8 March 1995 the Constitutional Court ruled that a person who qualifies for compensation for property which cannot be returned is entitled to choose the form of compensation (land or money) by giving written permission for the authorities to proceed with the decision. The Constitutional Court also held that the executive authorities have discretion to decide on appropriate compensation in each case, but that a person is entitled to contest that compensation by way of a court action. Under Article 18 of the Restitution of Property Act (all versions until 1999), the authorities were required to obtain the written permission of the person concerned before they determined the actual compensation for the property which could not be returned. Pursuant to the version of the Restitution of Property Act as amended from 2 June 1999, the executive authorities are now entitled to decide the question of compensation without the person's approval. That decision can be appealed to a court in accordance with the procedure established in Article 19 of the Act. No stamp duty is required to file such an action.