CASE OF ŠIMAITIENĖ v. LITHUANIA
No 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;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
5. The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Kaunas. 6. In 1991 the applicant asked the authorities to return to her some buildings and a plot of land owned by her father before nationalisation in 1940. In November 1995 the applicant wrote to the authorities to ask why the buildings and the land had been sold to other persons in 1992. The authorities replied in December 1995 that the applicant had given an incorrect address for the buildings when submitting her request for her property rights to be restored and the buildings in question had already been privatised. 7. On 22 October 1996, upon their own initiative, the authorities suggested to the applicant that she submit a request to be paid monetary compensation for the buildings, if she did not have any objections to such a form of restitution. On 4 November 1996 the authorities indicated that the documents submitted by the applicant did not prove that her father had owned the buildings in question and asked her to provide additional documents or – if she did not have those documents in her possession – to ask the domestic courts to establish as a legal fact that her father had owned those buildings. 8. On 27 April 1999 the applicant lodged a claim with the Kaunas District Court, asking it to establish as a legal fact that before the 1940 nationalisation her father had owned the buildings and a plot of land. On 18 August 1999 the Kaunas District Court stated that there was a dispute about the applicable law and left the applicant’s claim unexamined. The court also suggested to the applicant that she submit her claim in accordance with the rules governing contentious proceedings (as opposed to the rules applicable to the procedure for the establishment of a legal fact). 9. On 28 May 2003 the Kaunas District Court established as a legal fact that the applicant’s father had owned the buildings before the 1940 nationalisation. 10. On 4 July 2003 the applicant indicated that she wanted to receive compensation in the form of securities. The authorities asked the Centre of Registers (a State enterprise) to assess the value of the buildings, which was set on 14 July 2003 at 36,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 10,426 euros (EUR)). On 18 September 2003 the authorities recommended that applicant’s and her sister’s property rights to their father’s property be restored by paying them compensation in securities. 11. On 9 October 2003 the authorities adopted a decision to restore the applicant’s and her sister’s property rights by paying them LTL 36,000 (approximately EUR 10,426) in total in securities. 12. On 10 June 2004, the applicant lodged a claim with the Kaunas District Court, requesting the annulment of the valuation of the buildings made by the Centre of Registers on 14 July 2003 (see paragraph 10 above) and the appointment of independent experts to assess the market value of the buildings because she considered that the value set for the buildings was too low. The applicant’s claim contained deficiencies, which she failed to eliminate within the time-limit set by the Kaunas District Court; accordingly, on 13 July 2004, the court decided to rule that the applicant’s claim had not been lodged. 13. The applicant lodged a separate complaint, where she claimed that the authorities assessed the value of the buildings incorrectly, and complaining that the assessment of the value of the buildings had been made before the decision to restore her property rights had been taken. On 23 August 2004 the Kaunas Regional Court held that the Kaunas District Court had made procedural mistakes and returned the case for fresh examination to the Kaunas District Court. 14. The applicant lodged a modified claim with the Kaunas District Court, complaining that the assessment of the value of the buildings had been made three or four months before the decision to restore her property rights had been taken. On 2 February 2005 the Kaunas District Court held that although there were no provisions in the domestic law indicating how soon after the assessment of value the decision to restore property rights had to be taken, in the present case the time between the assessment and the decision had not been excessively long. The court therefore dismissed the applicant’s complaint. 15. The applicant appealed raising the same complaints as she did before the Kaunas District Court (see paragraph 14 above), and on 13 June 2005 the Kaunas Regional Court held that the assessment of value of the buildings had been based on several methods of calculation and in accordance with the provisions of the domestic law. It therefore dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 16. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, and on 14 December 2005 the Supreme Court decided that the case had to be examined before the administrative rather than civil courts and referred the case for examination to the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court. 17. On 23 March 2006, during the hearing before the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court, the applicant asked for the examination of the case to be postponed that she might have time to eliminate deficiencies in her claim. She also claimed that she was not aware of the fact that she had to submit a request to renew the time-limit for lodging a complaint separately, and asked the court to provide her with an opportunity to do that. Her requests were granted and the examination of the case was postponed until 9 May 2006. On 19 April 2006 the applicant lodged a modified claim in which, inter alia, she asked the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court to (i) annul the assessment of the value of the buildings made by the Centre of Registers, (ii) to annul that part of the order of the authorities for her property rights to be restored in which the value of the buildings was indicated and (iii) to renew the time-limit for lodging a complaint. On 9 May 2006, during the hearing at the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court, the applicant asked for the appointment of an expert to determine the market value of the buildings. On 6 June 2006 the court suspended the proceedings, appointed an expert and asked the expert (i) what the market value of the buildings had been on 14 July 2003 and (ii) what the market value of the buildings had been today, i. e. when the expert had been appointed. In April 2007 the expert stated that on 14 July 2003 the market value of the buildings had been LTL 56,850 (approximately EUR 16,465) and that the market value of the buildings at the time that the examination of the case had started had been LTL 164,900 (approximately EUR 47,758). Subsequently the court proceedings were resumed, and on 21 September 2007 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court held that the new assessment of value of the buildings was more accurate and decided to annul the assessment of value of 14 July 2003 by the Centre of Registers and that part of the decision of 9 October 2003 to restore the applicant’s property rights in which the value of the buildings was set at LTL 36,000 (approximately EUR 10,426) (see paragraphs 10 and 11 above). The applicant did not appeal and the decision became final on 5 October 2007. 18. On an unspecified date, the applicant lodged a claim with the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court, asking, inter alia, for the authorities to be obliged to urgently re-issue the annulled part of the decision of 9 October 2003 (see paragraph 11 above). On 12 December 2007 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court allowed the applicant’s claim. 19. On 18 May 2009 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court examined and then rejected a claim by the applicant seeking for the Kaunas Municipality to be obliged to pay her LTL 82,450 (approximately EUR 23,879) for the buildings and to award her LTL 96,370 (approximately EUR 27,911) in damages. The court held that the assessment of value in itself did not give rise to any legal consequences for the applicant. The court concluded that the decision of the authorities of 9 October 2003 was still in force and that the question of the amount of the compensation was a matter for the public authorities and that it was not within the court’s power to give instructions to them. 20. The applicant appealed, but on 26 July 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed her appeal. The court held that the applicant’s request had been for the value of the buildings to be set at what their value had been at the moment when the expert valuation had been carried out in 2007 (see paragraph 17 above). The court also observed that the amendment of the decision of 9 October 2003 to restore the applicant’s property rights had not yet been adopted and it was not clear how the applicant’s rights were being breached. The court also held that the applicant had repeatedly raised the issue of the assessment of the value of the buildings, which had already been resolved. The court upheld the conclusion of the court of first instance that public authorities’ functions did not fall within the jurisdiction of the domestic courts (see paragraph 19 above). 21. The applicant requested that the proceedings be reopened. On 17 December 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court refused her request. 22. In October 2007 the relevant authorities were informed that an additional assessment of the value of the buildings had to be made and then the Kaunas Municipality Administration asked the Centre of Registers to urgently assess their value. As no response was received, in February 2008 the Kaunas Municipality Administration again asked the Centre of Registers to assess the value of the buildings. The assessment was made on 17 March 2008 and the value of the buildings was set at LTL 57,000 (approximately EUR 16,508) in total, of which the applicant’s part was LTL 28,500 (approximately EUR 8,254). This valuation was officially approved by the authorities on 5 June 2009, when they amended the annulled part of the decision of 9 October 2003 to restore the applicant’s and her sister’s property rights. 23. On 16 August 2010 the applicant submitted a request to be compensated in securities of a State-owned enterprise. On 27 January 2011 the applicant was sent a document of acceptance in respect of 11,875 units of securities, the nominal value of each unit being LTL 1 (approximately EUR 0.29). The State Property Fund asked the applicant to sign the document of acceptance and indicated that the nominal value of one security was LTL 1 (approximately EUR 0.29) but that the real value was LTL 2.4 (approximately EUR 0.7). It meant that the real total value of the shares was LTL 28,500 (approximately EUR 8,254), which was the applicant’s part of the compensation (see paragraph 22 above). The transfer of the securities was finalised on 1 February 2011. 24. On 12 December 2012 the applicant asked the authorities to set the value of the buildings at the value that they had as of January 2011 and to pay her additional compensation. In February 2013 the authorities replied that there were no grounds for re-examining and deciding on questions regarding the restoration of property rights to the applicant because the procedure had already been finalised. 25. The applicant lodged a claim with the domestic courts, asking, inter alia, that the decision of the authorities of 5 June 2009 by which the annulled part of the decision of 9 October 2003 had been amended (see paragraph 22 above) be quashed. She also requested the annulment of the assessment of value of the buildings at LTL 57,000 (approximately EUR 16,508) made by the Centre of Registers on 17 March 2008. The applicant’s claim had several deficiencies and she was asked several times to eliminate them. However, the applicant failed to do so in an acceptable manner and on 25 October 2010 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court declined to examine her claim. The court stated that the applicant had asked it to oblige the authorities to provide one of the original copies of the decision of 5 June 2009; however, it observed that the applicant already had an original copy. It was suggested by the court that the applicant contest the order of 5 June 2009, because it was that document which had legal consequences for her. This, according to the information in the Court’s possession, she never did.