Demolition of a house located in a protected area. Attempt to misled the Court. Dismissal of the application
JUDGMENT
Povilonis v. Lithuania 07.04.2022 (app. no. 81624/17)
SUMMARY
The case concerned the unlawful construction of a house in a protected area, amid allegations of
bribery and trading in influence. The applicant, who had bought the house in 2014, complained
under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human
Rights that he had been forced to demolish it at his own expense, despite having a building permit.
The Court rejected the application as an abuse of the right of petition under Article 35 (admissibility
criteria) of the European Convention because the applicant had attempted to mislead it when
lodging his complaint.
In particular, he had given two contradictory versions of the facts: arguing before this Court that
domestic decisions ordering the demolition of the house had interfered with the right to enjoy “his
property”, while testifying in ongoing criminal proceedings – concerning alleged attempts to
influence the courts in their decisions on the house’s demolition – that he had agreed to a sham
transaction with the local mayor and had never intended to retain the property for his own use.
PROVISION
Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Žilvinas Povilonis, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Kaunas
(Lithuania).
In April 2014 Mr Povilonis bought a house – which was still under construction – situated on Stateowned land in the resort town of Druskininkai from a private individual, R.B., who had been granted a building permit in 2013 after a development plan had been issued by the local authorities changing the designation of the land from recreational to residential. After acquiring the house, Mr Povilonis
was also issued with a building permit to continue construction.
However, following a complaint by a non-governmental association, civil proceedings were initiated
in June 2014 to annul the development plan and building permits. The Vilnius Regional Court and the
Supreme Court subsequently found that the decisions on the plan and permits were in breach of
numerous legal acts and of the public interest as the land was in a protected area.
The sale of the house to Mr Povilonis was thus declared null and void and his building permit was
rescinded. He was ordered to demolish the house, which he eventually did in August 2020.
In the meantime, Mr Povilonis had unsuccessfully brought proceedings requesting that he be
permitted to build his house in compliance with the requirements for the recreational area, instead
of being obliged to demolish it.
Over 30 people have since been accused of trying to seek a favourable outcome in those
proceedings and a pre-trial criminal investigation is still underway. Mr Povilonis is one of the
suspects: he is accused of bribery and trading in influence, committed in an organised group.
When questioned in the criminal proceedings in November 2019 Mr Povilonis argued that he had no
interest in being involved in any bribery concerning the house as he had never intended to retain it
for his own use. In particular, he testified that he had only bought the house to help his friend, R.M.,
the local mayor, who did not have the financial means to buy it at the time. In what the applicant described as “an honourable agreement between two men”, R.M. intended to buy it from him at a later date, with the applicant in the meantime furnishing it to his taste. He had even had a will drawn up leaving the house to a third person designated by R.M.
Both the construction of the house and controversy over legislation making it possible to build in
protect areas has attracted much public and media attention in Lithuania.Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been forced to demolish his house at his own expense, despite having a
building permit for its construction.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
The Court noted that Mr Povilonis had specifically argued in his application form and observations
that the court decisions ordering the demolition of the house had interfered with the right to enjoy
“his property”.
However, in his testimony to the domestic authorities in the recent criminal investigation, he had
stated that he had never intended to retain the property for his own use. It appeared in fact that a
sham transaction had been concluded from the very outset, with R.M. intending to acquire the
house in the long term.
Mr Povilonis’ two divergent versions of the facts cast serious doubt on the accuracy, credibility and
reliability of his claims before the Court. He has not provided any plausible explanation for such a
contradiction.
The background of alleged corruption to the case, which the Government had referred to as “an
unprecedented scandal in Lithuania” and a testament to “genuine legal nihilism”, only added more
certainty to the conclusion that the applicant had attempted to mislead this Court when lodging his
complaint.
The Court therefore rejected the application as an abuse of the right of petition under Article 35
(admissibility criteria) of the European Convention.
The Court stressed that its findings in the case had no bearing on the outcome of the ongoing
criminal proceedings in Lithuania.
