Τhe annulment of property rights to land covered by forests of national importance violates the Convention
JUDGMENT
Beinarovič and others v. Lithuania 12.6.2018 (no. 70520/10, 21920/10 and 41876/11)
SUMMARY
The case concerned the annulment of property rights to plots of land on the grounds that the plots were covered by forests of national importance.
The Court found in particular that the annulment in itself did not constitute a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as the domestic authorities were entitled to correct their mistakes. However, expecting the applicants to undergo a lengthy additional restitution process, without having regard to their particular situation, had been disproportionate.
PROVISIONS
Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol
Article 6 § 1
Article 13
Article 14
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicants, Bronislava Beinarovič, Janina Kšivanskienė, Monika Korkuc and Sabina Dviliova are
Lithuanian nationals. Ms Beinarovič was born in 1915 and lived in Vilnius, she died in 2015. Her
daughter and heir Ms Kšivanskienė, the second applicant, was born in 1943, and Ms Dviliova, the
fourth applicant, was born in 1950. Both live in Vilnius. Ms Korkuc, the third applicant, was born in
1932 and lives in Pagiriai (Vilnius Region).
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. Between 1992 and 1998 the
domestic courts or the domestic authorities acknowledged that the applicants had a right to have
property rights to plots of land restored, in particular in Kryžiokai and Vaidotai, areas near Vilnius.
Consequently, between May 2003 and April 2004, the Vilnius County Administration (“the VCA”)
restored the property rights according to their applications.
However, in subsequent proceedings, the domestic courts annulled these property right decisions on
the grounds that the plots were covered by urban forests which, according to domestic law, were
forests of national importance. The applicants contested the annulment before the domestic courts,
but were unsuccessful.
The applicants were informed that after the courts had annulled their property rights, they had
retained the rights to have them restored in one of the ways provided by law. Subsequent
restitution proceedings started in 2010 (for the first, second and third applicant) and in 2012 (for the
fourth applicant), but their property rights have still not been fully restored to this day.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
The Court found that the annulment of property rights in itself did not constitute a violation of the
applicants’ rights since the Lithuanian authorities were entitled to correct their mistakes in order to
protect forests classified as being of national importance. However, it emphasised that, in line with
its established case-law, the applicants, who had obtained their property in good faith, should not
have had to bear the burden of remedying mistakes for which the authorities were solely
responsible.
Consequently, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in
respect of Ms Beinarovič, Ms Kšivanskienė and Ms Korkuc, in view of the excessive length of the
restitution processes, imputable solely or mainly to the authorities, and the fact that their property
rights had still not been fully restored.
The Court considered that the authorities had been under an obligation to proceed promptly with
the restitution of their property rights since the applicants had already gone through that process
once and had lost their property because of the authorities’ mistakes. Nevertheless, the applicants’
individual situation was not taken into account at any stage.
In contrast, the delay in the restitution process which had affected Ms Dviliova (the fourth applicant)
had not been caused by the authorities. She had explicitly refused to participate in the restitution
process as she wished to wait for the Court’s decision in her case. The Court reiterated that within
the scheme of the Convention it was intended to be subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding
human rights. Since the domestic authorities could not be held responsible for the delay in her case,
the Court found no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Other articles
Regarding the applicants’ further complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13, the Court held that it
was not necessary to examine them as no separate issues arose. It further rejected their complaint
under Article 14 that they had been discriminated against because of their Polish origin as being
manifestly unfounded.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court considered that the question of the application of Article 41 in respect of pecuniary
damage was not ready for decision. It was therefore necessary to reserve the matter, with the
possibility of an agreement between Lithuania and the applicants.
The Court held that Lithuania was to pay the second applicant (who is also the first applicant’s heir)
7,000 euros (EUR) and the third applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also
awarded EUR 894 to the second applicant in respect of costs and expenses. The third applicant did
not submit any claim in this respect(echrcaselaw.com editing).
