CASE OF BEINAROVIČ AND OTHERS 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);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano
6. The first applicant was born in 1915 and lived in Vilnius. The second applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Vilnius. The third applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Pagiriai in the Vilnius Region. The fourth applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Vilnius. 7. On various dates in 1991 the applicants or their relatives applied for restoration of their property rights to land which had been nationalised by the Soviet regime. 8. On 8 September 1992 the Vilnius District Court acknowledged that I.B. (the first applicant’s husband and the second applicant’s father) had a right to have his property rights to a plot of land in the village of Kryžiokai, near Vilnius, restored. 9. On 8 July 1993 the same court acknowledged that the fourth applicant had a right to have her property rights to a plot of land in Kryžiokai restored. 10. On 24 April 1996 the Seimas passed a law amending the administrative boundaries of certain municipal areas. Under that law, certain villages around Vilnius, including Kryžiokai and Vaidotai, became part of the Vilnius city municipality. 11. On 21 May 1998 the administrative authorities acknowledged that the third applicant had a right to have her property rights to a plot of land in Vaidotai restored. 12. On 20 December 2002 the Government approved a plan of forests of national importance (valstybinės reikšmės miškai) covering the whole country. It included forests situated in the former villages of Kryžiokai and Vaidotai. 13. On 7 May 2003 the Vilnius County Administration (hereinafter “the VCA”) restored I.B.’s property rights (see paragraph 8 above) by giving him 5.40 hectares of land in Kryžiokai. As he had died in 1992, the first applicant was issued a certificate of inheritance in respect of the plot on 27 June 2003. On 16 October 2003 she gifted it to the second applicant. 14. On 28 July 2008 the prosecutor of the Vilnius Region (hereinafter “the prosecutor”) lodged a claim with the Vilnius Regional Court, seeking to have I.B.’s property rights to 0.25 of the 5.40 hectares given to him annulled (see paragraph 13 above). The prosecutor submitted that, according to the data provided by the State Forest Management Service (Valstybinė miškotvarkos tarnyba), 0.25 hectares of the plot was covered by forest. Since that forest was situated in a city (see paragraph 10 above), it was considered a forest of national importance and could therefore only be owned by the State (see paragraphs 86, 88 and 89 below). The prosecutor noted that the forest had been included in the plan of forests of national importance adopted by the Government in 2002 (see paragraph 12 above), that is before the VCA had adopted its decision to give that land to I.B. In view of the circumstances, the VCA’s decision had to be declared unlawful and its effects annulled. The prosecutor asked that after annulling I.B.’s property rights to that part of the land, the first and second applicants’ property rights to it also be annulled. 15. The applicants disputed the prosecutor’s claim. They submitted that I.B. had acquired property rights in good faith, having lawfully participated in the restitution process carried out by the authorities, and their annulment many years later would be contrary to the principle of legal certainty. The applicants further submitted that Kryžiokai had been a rural area until 1996 (see paragraph 10 above) and the restoration of property rights had complied with the regulations concerning rural areas. They also submitted that, according to the Real Estate Register (Nekilnojamojo turto registras), their land was classified as agricultural and not forest, and the data of that Register had to be considered accurate until proven otherwise. 16. The VCA also disputed the prosecutor’s claim. It submitted that I.B.’s property rights had been restored in accordance with Government regulations adopted in 1998 and 2000 which had set out the rules of land reform in rural areas. The VCA argued that restoration of property rights was a continuous process and thus had to be carried out in accordance with the legislation in force when it began and not that which was adopted later. The VCA also submitted that the decision to restore I.B.’s property rights had been taken in coordination with other authorities, including the Vilnius Forest Authority (Vilniaus miškų urėdija), and they had not presented any objections. 17. The Ministry of Environment, which was a third party in the proceedings, asked the court to allow the prosecutor’s claim. It argued that the VCA’s decision to restore I.B.’s property rights had been contrary to mandatory statutory provisions stating that urban forests could only be owned by the State, and thus had to be annulled. 18. On 17 September 2009 the Vilnius Regional Court allowed the prosecutor’s claim. The court observed that the Constitution and other legislation established that forests of national importance could only be owned by the State (see paragraphs 86, 88 and 89 below). It quoted at length case-law of the Constitutional Court which emphasised the importance of forests to the environment and the obligation of the State to protect them in the public interest (see paragraphs 99-102 below). 19. The Vilnius Regional Court noted that the former village of Kryžiokai had become part of the Vilnius city municipality in 1996 (see paragraph 10 above). Therefore, in line with the Law on Forests, any forest in that area was urban forest (see paragraph 89 below). The court further noted that in 2002 the forest situated on the plot given to I.B. had been included in a Governmentapproved list of forests of national importance. Accordingly, when the VCA had adopted the decision to give that plot to I.B. (see paragraph 13 above), the forest situated on it had already been recognised as a forest of national importance. Therefore, the restitution had not been carried out in accordance with the law. The court held that, in such circumstances, I.B.’s and the applicants’ property rights could not take priority over the public interest and had to be annulled. 20. However, the court observed that, according to the Real Estate Register, the area covered by forest on the applicants’ plot amounted to 0.187 hectares and not 0.25 hectares as claimed by the prosecutor, and the data of that Register had to be considered accurate until proven otherwise. It therefore annulled I.B.’s property rights to 0.187 hectares of land, as well as the applicants’ rights to that part of the plot. 21. The prosecutor lodged an appeal against that decision and submitted that when determining the area covered by forest, the court should have relied on the data provided by the State Forest Management Service and not the Real Estate Register. The Ministry of Environment lodged a similar appeal. 22. The applicants and the VCA also lodged appeals. They argued that the VCA’s decision had complied with all the relevant legislation in force when it had been adopted, so it had to be considered lawful. They also submitted that the court had not addressed the argument that in the process of restoration of property rights Kryžiokai had to be regarded as a rural area and not a city. The applicants also submitted that the annulment of their property rights and the requirement for them to return the land to the State would cause them serious difficulties and should therefore not be implemented (see paragraph 95 below). 23. On 25 February 2010 the Court of Appeal upheld the appeals lodged by the prosecutor and the Ministry of Environment and dismissed those lodged by the applicants and the VCA. It reiterated that the Constitution and several laws prohibited the transfer of forests of national importance from the State into private ownership on any basis whatsoever, including restoration of property rights (see paragraphs 86 and 8891 below). Accordingly, it was immaterial that, as submitted by the VCA, its decision complied with certain regulations adopted during the restitution process. The Court of Appeal considered that the first-instance court had correctly found that the forest on the plot given to I.B. was urban forest and therefore a forest of national importance, and thus property rights in respect of that part had to be annulled. However, it stated that when determining the area covered by forest the information had to be taken not from the Real Estate Register but from the Register of Forests (Miškų kadastras), which was administered by the State Forest Management Service. According to the latter, the plot given to I.B. included 0.25 hectares of forest. The Court of Appeal therefore partly amended the decision and annulled I.B.’s property rights to 0.25 hectares of land, as well as the applicants’ rights to that part of the plot. It dismissed as unfounded the applicants’ argument that such a decision would cause them serious difficulties. The Court of Appeal ordered the applicants and the VCA to pay the State’s legal costs. 24. The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law. On 25 May 2010 the Supreme Court refused to accept it for examination on the grounds that it raised no important legal issues. 25. On 1 September 2008 the prosecutor lodged a further claim with the Vilnius Regional Court, seeking to have I.B.’s property rights to another 1.73 hectares of the 5.40 hectares given to him annulled (see paragraph 13 above), on the grounds that it was covered by a forest of national importance, as well as to have the applicants’ property rights to that part of the plot annulled. The prosecutor presented similar arguments as in the previous proceedings (see paragraph 14 above). The applicants, the VCA and the Ministry of Environment also submitted essentially the same arguments as in the previous proceedings (see paragraphs 15-17 above). 26. On 13 May 2009 the Vilnius Regional Court allowed the prosecutor’s claim. It noted that the presence of forest on the plot of land given to I.B. had been confirmed by the data in the Register of Forests. It also noted that that forest was included in the list of forests of national importance created in 2002 (see paragraph 12 above). The court observed that even though restoration of property rights was a continuous process and included the preparation of various documents, the final decision to restore property rights had to comply with the law in force at the time of the adoption of that decision. It concluded that the VCA’s decision to give the plot to I.B. (see paragraph 13 above) had been contrary to the Constitution and other legislation providing that forests of national importance could only be owned by the State (see paragraphs 86, 88 and 89 below). Accordingly, it annulled I.B.’s property rights to 1.73 hectares of the land, as well as the applicants’ rights to that part of the plot. The court observed that there was no dispute that I.B. had retained the right to restoration of his property rights, and the State was thus under an obligation to restore his rights to 1.73 hectares of land. 27. The applicants and the VCA lodged appeals against that decision. They argued that the VCA’s decision had been based on various administrative and procedural acts according to which the forest on the applicants’ plot had not been considered a forest of national importance, and thus had been lawful. The prosecutor and the Ministry of Environment contested the appeals. 28. On 6 April 2010 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals submitted by the applicants and the VCA and upheld the decision of the first-instance court in its entirety. It stated that the first-instance court had been correct in finding that the forest on the applicants’ plot was a forest of national importance and could thus only belong to the State. 29. The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law. On 9 July 2010 the Supreme Court refused to accept it for examination on the grounds that it raised no important legal issues. 30. According to the Government, on 11 May 2010 the VCA informed the applicants that there was no possibility of restitution in kind because there was no vacant land in the relevant area. According to the applicants, on 19 October 2010 they sent a letter to the National Land Service (the institution which took over the relevant functions of the VCA after an administrative reform hereinafter “the NLS”) stating that they were of advanced age and did not “have the energy or state of health to look for vacant land in the Vilnius area”. Copies of the VCA’s and the applicants’ letters have not been submitted to the Court. 31. On 23 February 2012 the applicants received a letter from the NLS confirming that, after the courts had annulled I.B.’s property rights to 1.98 hectares of land, he had retained the right to have those property rights restored. It also stated that there was no more vacant land in the former village of Kryžiokai and that I.B.’s property rights could be restored by: (i) assigning a plot of land or forest equal in value to the land held previously; (ii) providing securities; (iii) discharging liabilities to the State; (iv) transferring, free of charge, a new plot of land equal in value to the land held previously for the construction of an individual home in the city or rural area where the previously held land was situated; or (v) providing monetary compensation (see paragraph 92 below). The applicants, as I.B.’s heirs, were asked to inform the authorities of their choice as to the form of restitution. It is unclear whether the applicants replied to this letter. 32. On 24 July 2012 the applicants received another letter from the NLS which again confirmed that, after the courts had annulled I.B.’s property rights to 1.98 hectares of land, he had retained the right to have those property rights restored. It stated that there was a possibility for the applicants to receive a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in the Vilnius city area but as there were 4,806 other candidates waiting to receive plots in the area, the restitution process would take a long time. The applicants were asked to consider an alternative form of restitution, such as a plot of land in a rural area, a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in a different city, or monetary compensation (see paragraph 92 below). They were also informed that there remained about 0.10 hectares of vacant land in the former village of Kryžiokai, so if they wished to receive a plot in that area, their request would be considered when the land plan was being prepared. 33. On 21 August 2012 the applicants sent a letter to the NLS. They submitted that the annulment of their property rights to 1.98 hectares of land had caused them pecuniary damage in the amount of 331,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL approximately 95,900 euros (EUR)), according to an assessment of the value of the land carried out in May 2012. In the applicants’ view, being put on the list with 4,806 other candidates and being made to wait for an undetermined period of time for restitution was unacceptable. The applicants asked to be allocated a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in Vilnius in the order of priority, and if that was not possible, to be informed how many plots were available in Vilnius and when they might expect to receive one. They also stated that they would agree to receive a plot of land in Kryžiokai but would first want to know its exact location. The applicants stated that they did not wish to choose any other form of restitution. 34. On 14 December 2012 the NLS approved the list of candidates to receive plots of land in several areas around Vilnius. The applicants were included in that list as candidates to receive 1.98 hectares of land. On 31 December 2012 the NLS held a meeting in which candidates were offered plots in the relevant areas. The second applicant took part in that meeting and chose three plots, measuring a total of 0.3627 hectares. She was offered more plots but refused them because there were electricity installations on them. The minutes of the meeting, approved by the NLS, stated that the next meeting of candidates would be held on 16 April 2013 and those who had not chosen their plots yet, including the second applicant, would be invited to participate. The Court was not provided with any information as to whether that meeting took place, whether the applicants were invited to attend and whether they did so. 35. On 21 August 2014 the NLS adopted a land plan of the aforementioned areas around Vilnius, as well as the list of individuals who would be allocated plots in those areas. The applicants were included in the list and were entitled to receive four plots of land, measuring a total of 0.4035 hectares. 36. On 7 October 2015 the first applicant died. The second applicant was issued a certificate of inheritance on 3 August 2016. 37. On 29 January 2016 the NLS adopted a decision to restore I.B.’s property rights by giving him five plots of agricultural land, measuring a total of 0.7883 hectares. The decision stated that the rights to the remaining 1.1917 hectares would be restored later. 38. On 26 April 2016 the NLS approved the list of candidates to receive plots of land in several other areas around Vilnius. I.B. was included in that list as a candidate to receive 1.1917 hectares of land. On 18 May 2016 the NLS held a meeting in which candidates were offered plots in those areas. The second applicant took part in that meeting and chose two plots, measuring a total of 0.18 hectares. It does not appear that she was offered any more plots in that meeting. 39. On 31 August 2017 the NLS adopted a land plan of several areas around Vilnius, as well as the list of individuals who would be allocated plots in those areas. I.B. was included in the list and was entitled to receive two plots of land, amounting to a total of 0.18 hectares. 40. According to the latest information provided to the Court, the first and second applicants’ property rights to 1.1917 hectares of land have still not been restored. 41. On 6 April 2004 the VCA restored the third applicant’s property rights by giving her and another candidate, G.D., joint ownership of 0.52 hectares of agricultural land and 2.12 hectares of forest in Vaidotai. The third applicant’s share of the jointly owned forest was one hectare. 42. On 9 April 2009 the prosecutor lodged a claim with the Vilnius City Second District Court, seeking to have the applicant’s and G.D.’s property rights to the 2.12 hectares of forest annulled (see paragraph 41 above). The prosecutor submitted that the forest was situated in a city (see paragraph 10 above) and was thus considered a forest of national importance which could only be owned by the State (see paragraphs 86, 88 and 89 below). The prosecutor noted that the forest in question had been included in the plan of forests of national importance adopted by the Government in 2002 (see paragraph 12 above), that is before the VCA had adopted its decision to give that forest to the applicant and G.D. Accordingly, the VCA’s decision had to be declared unlawful and its effects annulled. 43. The applicant disputed the prosecutor’s claim. She submitted that the VCA’s decision to give the forest to her and G.D. had been taken in line with the law in force at the material time and in coordination with the relevant authorities, including the Vilnius Forest Authority. The applicant also argued that, in line with the case-law of the Constitutional Court, forests which belonged to private individuals and were subsequently declared to be of national importance did not have to be taken into State ownership, as owners’ rights could be restricted in order to protect the forest. She therefore asked the court to protect her property rights. 44. The VCA also disputed the prosecutor’s claim. It submitted that the restoration of property rights to the land in the former village of Vaidotai had been carried out in line with the regulations applicable to rural areas. It also submitted that the decision to give the forest in question to the applicant and G.D. had been based on several administrative acts adopted in 2000, and so the decision could not be annulled as long as those acts remained in force. 45. The Ministry of Environment, which was a third party in the proceedings, asked the court to allow the prosecutor’s claim. It argued that at the time when the VCA had adopted the decision to give the forest to the applicant and G.D., the forest had officially been urban forest (see paragraph 10 above) and had been included in the list of forests of national importance (see paragraph 12 above). Accordingly, the VCA’s decision had been contrary to mandatory statutory provisions (see paragraphs 86, 88 and 89 below) and had to be annulled. 46. On 4 March 2009 the Vilnius City Second District Court allowed the prosecutor’s claim. It reiterated that, in line with the Constitution and the Law on Forests, urban forests were considered forests of national importance and could only belong to the State (see paragraphs 86, 88 and 89 below). The court also emphasised the importance of forests to the environment and the obligation of the State to protect them in the public interest. It then noted that the former village of Vaidotai had become part of the Vilnius city municipality in 1996 (see paragraph 10 above), so any forests within that area were urban forests. The court also observed that the forest given to the applicant and G.D. had been included in the list of forests of national importance approved by the Government in 2002 (see paragraph 12 above). Accordingly, the VCA’s decision to give that forest to the applicant and G.D. had been adopted after the forest had already become a forest of national importance (see paragraph 41 above). The court held that it was immaterial whether other administrative acts on which the VCA’s decision had been based remained valid (see paragraph 44 above) because property rights had been restored to the applicant and G.D. by that decision and not by any other acts. The court therefore annulled the applicant’s and G.D.’s property rights to the 2.12 hectares of forest. 47. The applicant and the VCA lodged appeals against that decision, raising essentially the same arguments as before (see paragraphs 43 and 44 above). In addition, the applicant submitted that her property rights to the forest in question had been challenged four years after it had been given to her, and thus she had lost the opportunity to have her property rights restored because there was almost no vacant land left in Vilnius or the surrounding area. 48. On 13 August 2009 the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the first-instance court’s decision in its entirety. It considered that that court had been correct in finding that the forest in question was a forest of national importance and that the VCA’s decision had thus been contrary to mandatory statutory provisions prohibiting the transfer of such forests into the ownership of private individuals. In response to the applicant’s argument that she had lost the opportunity to have her property rights restored (see paragraph 47 above), the Vilnius Regional Court stated that Lithuanian law provided for partial restitution, and that where it was impossible to restore property rights in natura, it could be done in other ways, including by monetary compensation (see paragraphs 92 and 97 below). Therefore, the court considered that the applicant had retained the right to have her property rights restored in one of the forms provided for by law. 49. The applicant and the VCA lodged appeals on points of law, relying on essentially the same arguments as before (see paragraphs 43, 44 and 47 above). In addition, the applicant submitted that she had acquired the property in good faith and that ordering her to return it to the State would cause her serious difficulties (see paragraph 95 below). She argued that she could no longer receive a plot in the same area because there was no more vacant land there and that she would not receive fair compensation either because property prices had decreased. The applicant submitted that the public interest to protect forests could be achieved in other ways, such as by imposing on her special conditions for use of the forest. 50. On 5 February 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals on points of law and upheld the findings of the lower courts. It observed that restoring property rights to forests in valuable areas had been prohibited since the beginning of the restitution process in Lithuania. Accordingly, individuals could not have a legitimate expectation to acquire property rights to such forests. It also stated that the VCA, as the institution in charge of restoration of property rights, was under an obligation to ensure that its decisions complied with all relevant legislation adopted throughout the entirety of the restitution process. 51. The Supreme Court reiterated that when a transaction was annulled, the parties had to return to one another everything that they had received from that transaction (see paragraph 94 below). It stated that the lower courts had not identified any exceptional circumstances why that rule should not be applied in the present case, nor had the applicant pointed to any such circumstances. The Supreme Court noted that the applicant had retained the right to have her property rights restored in accordance with the law, so her argument that she would experience serious difficulties (see paragraph 49 above) had to be dismissed as unfounded. 52. On 7 April 2010 the applicant sent a letter to the VCA seeking to be given a plot of land in the former village of Vaidotai. On 11 May 2010 the VCA informed the applicant that there was no vacant land in Vaidotai and asked her to choose another form of restitution (see paragraph 92 below). 53. On 29 October 2010 the applicant sent a letter to the NLS stating that she was 78 years old and did not “have the energy or the state of health to participate in the complicated restitution process for a second time”. The applicant stated that she had lost her property because of the unlawful actions of the VCA, therefore the NLS, as the VCA’s successor, had to compensate her for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage which she had sustained. She asked the NLS to provide her with a list of plots of land equal in value in the Vilnius city area to which her property rights could be restored. 54. On 13 December 2010 the NLS informed the applicant that, in accordance with the law, her property rights could be restored by assigning her a plot of land equal in value to the land held previously or by providing securities, but that there was no possibility of her receiving a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in a city. The letter provided the address of a website on which the applicant could find information about vacant plots of land, and she was asked to submit a request to the municipal authorities indicating the area in which she wished to receive a plot equal in value. It was also stated that if she was dissatisfied with the response given, she could lodge a complaint with the director of the NLS. 55. On 16 December 2011 the applicant sent a request to the NLS for compensation in securities. On 1 February 2012 she received a reply informing her that compensation in the form of securities was temporarily unavailable. 56. On 6 March 2012 the applicant submitted a request for a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in the town of Trakai. On 30 May 2012 in a letter to the NLS she reiterated her wish to receive a plot in Trakai and stated that she also wished to receive a plot of land in Vilnius, but did not wish to have her property rights restored by monetary compensation. 57. On 23 July 2012 the NLS sent a letter to the applicant confirming that, after the courts had annulled her property rights to one hectare of land (see paragraph 41 above), she had retained the right to have those property rights restored. She could be given a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in Vilnius or Trakai, but there were many other candidates waiting to receive plots in those areas (4,806 and 94 respectively, and the land plan for Trakai had not been prepared yet), therefore the restitution process would take a long time. She was asked to consider an alternative form of restitution, such as a plot of land in a rural area, a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in a different city or monetary compensation. She was also informed that there remained some vacant land in the former village of Vaidotai, so if she wished to receive a plot in that area, her request would be considered when the land plan was being prepared. It is unclear whether the applicant replied to that letter or submitted any requests concerning the form of restoration of her property rights. 58. On 7 October 2013 the NLS approved the list of candidates to receive plots of land in several areas around Vilnius. The applicant was included in that list as a candidate to receive 1.12 hectares of land. On 9 October 2013 she was sent an invitation to attend a meeting of candidates on 22 October 2013. She did not take part in that meeting. On 24 October 2013 she was sent an invitation to attend a meeting of candidates on 6 November 2013. She did not take part. The applicant submitted to the Court that she had not been informed of those meetings. 59. On 5 April 2016 the NLS approved the list of candidates to receive plots of land in several other areas around Vilnius. The applicant was included in that list as a candidate to receive 1.12 hectares of land. On 22 April 2016 the NLS held a meeting of candidates to receive plots of land in those areas. Her representative took part in the meeting but did not provide a form of authority. 60. On 17 May 2016 the NLS held another meeting of candidates to receive plots of land in the aforementioned areas. The applicant participated in that meeting but did not choose any of the plots offered to her. The minutes of the meeting do not indicate the reasons for her refusal. The applicant submitted to the Court that the plots offered to her had had electricity installations on them and had therefore been “worthless”. 61. According to the latest information provided to the Court, the third applicant’s property rights to one hectare of land have still not been restored. 62. On 10 December 2003 the VCA restored the fourth applicant’s property rights by giving her 2.67 hectares of land in the villages of Kryžiokai and Naujaneriai. On 25 April 2005 she sold 1.5 hectares of the land given to her in Kryžiokai to another individual, J.S., for LTL 495,000 (approximately EUR 143,400). The sale agreement was certified by a notary. 63. On 15 December 2008 the prosecutor lodged a claim with the Vilnius Regional Court, seeking to have the applicant’s property rights to 0.15 of the 2.67 hectares given to her annulled (see paragraph 62 above). The prosecutor submitted that, according to the data provided by the State Forest Management Service, the 0.15 hectares were covered by forest. Since it was situated in a city (see paragraph 10 above), it was considered a forest of national importance and could thus only be owned by the State (see paragraphs 86, 88 and 89 below). The prosecutor asked that after annulling the applicant’s property rights, the sale agreement between her and J.S. be annulled in respect of that part of the land. 64. The applicant disputed the prosecutor’s claim. She submitted that there had not been any forest on the land before its nationalisation, and if a forest had grown there afterwards, that should not preclude the restoration of her property rights. She also submitted that she had not acted unlawfully, so the property could not be taken from her. The applicant argued that if authorities or officials had acted unlawfully, the State should have to buy the land from her, and that the public interest should be protected without prejudice to her rights. 65. The VCA also disputed the claim. It argued that the applicant’s property rights had been restored in accordance with the legislation in force at the material time, and that the decision had been taken in coordination with various authorities, including the Ministry of Environment and the Vilnius Forest Authority, which had not presented any objections. 66. The Ministry of Environment, which was a third party in the proceedings, supported the prosecutor’s claim. 67. On 29 March 2010 the Vilnius Regional Court allowed the prosecutor’s claim. It observed that even though the Real Estate Register did not contain information about the presence of forest on the applicant’s land, it had been proven by the data provided by the State Forest Management Service. The court reiterated that forests of national importance could only be owned by the State (see paragraphs 86, 88 and 89 below), and that forests situated in cities were considered forests of national importance, irrespective of whether they had been officially designated as such (see paragraph 102 below). It observed that the former village of Kryžiokai had become part of the Vilnius city municipality in 1996 (see paragraph 10 above). Accordingly, the court held that the VCA’s decision to restore the applicant’s property rights had been unlawful and had to be annulled. 68. Finding that the applicant had not had a right to acquire the 0.15 hectares of land in question, the Vilnius Regional Court held that, consequently, she had had no right to sell the land, and thus the sale agreement between her and J.S. in the relevant part also had to be annulled. In accordance with the Civil Code, J.S. was ordered to return 0.15 hectares of land to the State, and the applicant was ordered to return LTL 49,500 (approximately EUR 14,340) to J.S. (see paragraph 94 below). The court noted that the applicant had retained the right to restoration of her property rights, and that the restitution process had to be “continued at the expense of the VCA or its successor, by finalising (and not starting afresh), in the same order of priority, the restitution process that had already begun”. It accepted the applicant’s argument that she might face financial difficulties as a result of having to return money to J.S. because she no longer had the necessary amount. The court gave the applicant six months from the date on which the decision became final to return the money to J.S. It observed that it had no authority to directly order the VCA to complete the restoration of the applicant’s property rights within that period of time, but that “the activity of the VCA or its successor in the restitution process could constitute grounds for reducing the possible expenses of that institution, if [the applicant and J.S.] were found to have suffered losses as a result of unlawful acts established in the present decision ... and had to be compensated”. 69. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, presenting essentially the same arguments as before (see paragraph 64 above). She also argued that the order to pay the money to J.S. should not have been imposed on her but on the VCA, since it was the latter which had acted unlawfully. 70. On 7 February 2011 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court in its entirety. The court stressed that forests of national importance could not be transferred into private ownership on any basis whatsoever, including restitution of nationalised property (see paragraph 101 below). It stated that the institutions responsible for adopting decisions on restoration of property rights had to verify whether all the conditions for restitution provided by law were complied with and, when deciding to restore property rights in natura, whether the property in question was not a type which could only belong to the State. Accordingly, the VCA, when adopting the decision to restore the applicant’s property rights, had been under an obligation to verify whether that decision complied with the law in force at the time of its adoption. 71. The Court of Appeal held that the finding that the applicant’s property rights had been restored in contravention of the law enabled it to consider that she had acquired those property rights in bad faith (nesąžininga įgijėja). It stated that the applicant and J.S. “could not be considered bona fide acquirers merely because the land in question had become private property as a result of a decision adopted by a public authority”. It also stated that when an individual knew or ought to have known that an administrative decision might be contrary to the law, he or she could not rely on his or her good faith. 72. The Court of Appeal further observed that even though the unlawful restoration of property rights had been the result of a decision adopted by the VCA, under the law it was not possible to order the VCA, and not the applicant, to return the money paid for the plot in question to J.S. (see paragraph 69 above). The court considered that requiring J.S. to return the plot to the State and the applicant to return the money to J.S. would not cause “serious difficulties for the defendants” (see paragraph 95 below). It also reiterated that the applicant had retained the right to restoration of her property rights in one of the forms provided for by law. 73. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. On 29 March 2011 the Supreme Court refused to accept it for examination on the grounds that it raised no important legal issues. 74. On 25 October 2011 the applicant paid LTL 49,500 to J.S. 75. On 23 February 2012 the applicant received a letter from the NLS confirming that she had retained the right to have her property rights to 0.15 hectares of land restored. It stated that there was no more vacant land in Kryžiokai and that her property rights could be restored by: (i) assigning a plot of land or forest equal in value to the land held previously; (ii) providing securities; (iii) discharging liabilities to the State; (iv) transferring, free of charge, a new plot of land equal in value to the land held previously for the construction of an individual home in the city or rural area where the previously held land was situated; or (v) providing monetary compensation (see paragraph 92 below). The applicant was asked to inform the authorities of her choice as to the form of restitution. 76. On 7 March 2012 the applicant sent a letter to the NLS stating that she had suffered pecuniary damage in the amount of LTL 49,500 as a result of the actions of the authorities. The applicant expressed her wish to be given a plot of land of 0.15 hectares, and if the value of that plot was lower than LTL 49,500, that the difference be paid to her as damages. 77. On 24 July 2012 the applicant received another letter from the NLS. It stated that there was a possibility of her receiving a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in the Vilnius city area but as there were 4,806 other candidates waiting to receive plots in that area, the restitution would take a long time. The applicant was asked to consider an alternative form of restitution, such as a plot of land in a rural area, a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in a different city or monetary compensation. She was also informed that there was a possibility for her to receive land in Kryžiokai, so if she wished to receive a plot in that area, her request would be considered when the land plan had been prepared. 78. On 21 August 2012 the applicant sent a letter to the NLS. She reiterated that the annulment of her property rights to 0.15 hectares of land had caused her pecuniary damage in the amount of LTL 49,500. In her view, being put on the list with 4,806 other candidates and being made to wait for an undetermined period of time for restitution was unacceptable. The applicant asked to be allocated a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in Vilnius in the order of priority, and if that was not possible, to be informed how many plots were available in Vilnius and when she might expect to receive one. If she could not be given such a plot, she wished to receive compensation of LTL 49,500. The applicant stated that she did not wish to choose any other form of restitution. 79. On 14 December 2012 the NLS approved the list of candidates to receive plots of land in several areas around Vilnius. The applicant was included in that list as a candidate to receive 0.15 hectares of land. On 31 December 2012 the NLS held a meeting in which candidates were offered plots in the relevant areas. The applicant took part in that meeting. According to the minutes of the meeting approved by the NLS and signed by the applicant, she refused the plot which was offered to her and stated that she wished to wait for the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in her case. 80. On 26 April 2016 the NLS approved the list of candidates to receive plots of land in several other areas around Vilnius. The applicant was included in that list as a candidate to receive 0.15 hectares of land. 81. On 27 April 2016 the NLS sent a letter to the applicant inviting her to attend a meeting of candidates on 18 May 2016 in which she would be offered a plot. The applicant did not take part in that meeting. 82. On 18 May 2016 the NLS sent a letter to the applicant inviting her to attend a meeting of candidates on 1 June 2016 in which she would be offered a plot. It is unclear whether the applicant took part in that meeting. 83. According to the latest information provided to the Court, the fourth applicant’s property rights to 0.15 hectares of land have still not been restored.