CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 4 février 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sF9E8C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s4F597665 { width:33.22pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION CASE OF SKUČAI v. LITHUANIA (Application no. 60969/21)     JUDGMENT   Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Dismissal as time-barred of some of the applicants’ compensation claims in relation to the annulment of their title to a house built in a protected area after obtaining all appropriate permits • Domestic courts’ manner of adjudicating claims at issue deprived the applicants of a reasonable opportunity of presenting their case effectively • Fair balance not struck   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 4 February 2025   FINAL   04/05/2025     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Skučai v. Lithuania, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Saadet Yüksel,   Jovan Ilievski,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Peeter Roosma,   Davor Derenčinović,   Stéphane Pisani , judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   60969/21) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Lithuanian nationals, Mr Juozas Skučas (“the first applicant”) and Ms Indrė Skučienė (“the second applicant”, together “the applicants”), on 13 December 2021; the decision to give notice of the application to the Lithuanian Government (“the Government”); the withdrawal from the case of Mr Gediminas Sagatys, the judge elected in respect of Lithuania (Rule 28 of the Rules of Court), and the decision of the President of the Section to appoint Mr Peeter Roosma to sit as an ad hoc judge in the case (Article 26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1 of the Rules of Court); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 14 January 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns the annulment of the applicants’ title to a house which had been built in a protected area after obtaining all the appropriate permits. The applicants raised complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, Article 8 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The first applicant was born in 1973 and the second applicant was born in 1982. They are husband and wife and live in Neringa. They were represented by Mr J. Čobotas, a lawyer practising in Vilnius. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr R. Dzikovič. Annulment of the applicants’ title to property 4 .     Between 2002 and 2004 the Neringa Municipality approved a planning scheme for land in the Curonian Spit National Park, dividing it into two plots, and issued construction permits for three buildings (two houses and a restaurant) on those plots. Company A. began the construction works but in 2004 sold the unfinished buildings to company V., which finished them. In 2005 the Klaipėda County Administration certified that the completed buildings were suitable for use. 5 .     In February 2006 the applicants bought one of the houses on one of the above-mentioned plots for 1,850,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 535,797 euros (EUR)) from company   V. Their title to the house was registered in the Real Estate Register. 6 .     In June 2006 the Prosecutor General’s Office (hereinafter “the prosecutor”) brought a claim in the public interest against the Neringa Municipality, the Klaipėda County Administration, companies A. and V., the applicants and the individuals who had bought the other of the two houses. The prosecutor asked the court to declare the planning documents, construction permits and other relevant documents issued by the Neringa Municipality and the Klaipėda County Administration (see paragraph 4 above) void; to rescind the sale and purchase agreements by which the buildings had been sold first to company   V. and later to the individual buyers; to order a refund to the buyers of what they had paid under those agreements; and to order companies A. and V. to demolish the buildings. The prosecutor claimed that the construction works had been in breach of the Curonian Spit National Park planning scheme which had been approved by the government in 1994 and had also been in breach of other legal rules on construction and environmental protection. 7.     The applicants contested the prosecutor’s claim. They submitted that they had not breached any laws and had acquired their house in good faith. They also contended that demolition was a measure of last resort and that the house could instead be modified, or the relevant planning documents amended, if necessary. 8 .     On 10 April 2009 the Klaipėda Regional Court allowed the prosecutor’s claim in its entirety. It observed that the Curonian Spit was a protected area that had been on the UNESCO World Heritage List since 2000, and that therefore it was in the public interest to ensure that all construction in the area was lawful and that the environment was protected. It further observed that in 2007 the Constitutional Court had held that all decisions about the management of the Curonian Spit National Park had to comply with the 1994 planning scheme. The court found that the planning documents which had allowed the land to be built on had not been in line with the planning scheme. Moreover, the construction permits had been issued in breach of a number of other legal requirements. Although the prosecutor had not questioned the good faith of the individuals who had purchased the buildings, the court held that the good faith of the buyers did not affect the unlawfulness of the construction. 9 .     Accordingly, the court declared the disputed planning documents and construction permits void and rescinded the sale and purchase agreements between companies A. and V. (see paragraph 4 above) and between company V. and the individual defendants, including the applicants (see paragraph 5 above). It ordered the deletion of the title to the buildings from the Real Estate Register and also ordered company A. to refund the purchase price of the buildings to company V.; the buyers of the houses to return them to company V.; company V. to refund the buyers the purchase price of the houses (in the applicants’ case – LTL 1,850,000 (approximately EUR 535,797)); and companies A. and V. to demolish all the buildings within twelve months after the court decision became final. 10 .     The applicants and several other defendants appealed against that decision, but on 6 December 2010 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals and upheld the decision in its entirety. It also stated that the individuals who had purchased the unlawfully built houses had the right to be compensated for the damage they had sustained but that the question of compensation fell outside the scope of the present case. 11.     Following the conclusion of the above-mentioned proceedings, the applicants’ title to the house was removed from the Real Estate Register. The applicants’ first civil claim against the State (2012-2013) 12 .     In May 2012 the applicants lodged a civil claim against the State, which was represented by the State Inspectorate of Territorial Planning and Construction (hereinafter “the Inspectorate”), and the Neringa Municipality, seeking compensation for their financial loss. They claimed that, following the court decisions in the above-mentioned proceedings (see paragraphs 8-10 above), their house would be demolished and they would be refunded the price which they had paid when purchasing it in 2006, but that the market value of the house had increased significantly since then. The applicants submitted an expert report putting the market value of the house in December 2011 at LTL 2,700,000 (approximately EUR   781,974). They therefore claimed compensation of LTL   850,000 (approximately EUR   246,177), being the difference between the market value of the house and the sum that company V. had been ordered to pay them in the previous proceedings (see paragraph 9 above). The applicants submitted that the damage had been caused by the unlawful actions of State authorities and therefore had to be compensated for by the State. 13 .     They also claimed LTL 454,274 (approximately EUR 131,567) for the interest paid on the bank loan they had taken out to buy the house. 14 .     On 6 February 2013 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ claim. It held that the amount of damages to be awarded to them could not be determined until their house was demolished. 15 .     The applicants appealed against that decision. On 7   November 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed the appeal in part. It found a causal link between the unlawful actions of the authorities and the losses sustained by the applicants in relation to the purchase, use and eventual loss of the house. It also found that the applicants had already sustained loss because they had lost their title to the house, even though it had not yet been demolished. However, the Supreme Administrative Court considered that the order in the previous proceedings for the refund to the applicants of the price they had paid for the house had been in accordance with the rules of restitution in the Civil Code, and no departure from those rules had been ordered (see paragraphs 69 and 70 below). This led the Supreme Administrative Court to conclude that the applicants had already been fully compensated and that their request for compensation for the alleged increase in the market value of the house was unfounded. 16 .     However, the court held that the applicants’ claim for the interest which they had paid to the bank (see paragraph 13 above) was well founded – the interest was an additional expense they had incurred by purchasing the house which had been unlawfully built as a result of the authorities’ actions. It therefore awarded the applicants LTL 454,274 (approximately EUR   131,567) jointly from the State and the Neringa Municipality in compensation for the interest paid. Developments relating to the territorial planning and attempts at reaching aN AMICABLE settlement 17 .     In December 2011 several media outlets reported that the government was looking into the possibility of reaching settlements with the owners of nearly twenty buildings in the Curonian Spit National Park which had been built after all the appropriate permits had been obtained but had subsequently been declared to be unlawful, in order to avoid the demolition of those buildings and the obligation for the State to pay compensation to their owners. In an interview given to the national broadcaster that month, the Prime Minister stated that taxpayers should not have to pay for the authorities’ mistakes in issuing construction permits and that the government was looking for ways to protect the interests of the taxpayers while also preserving the architectural heritage of Neringa. 18 .     On 6 June 2012 the government approved the Curonian Spit National Park management plan, which replaced the 1994 planning scheme (see paragraphs 6 and 8 above). Paragraph 9.2.3.5 of the management plan referred specifically to the plot on which the applicants’ house had been built. It stated that, in accordance with a binding court decision, the buildings on that plot had to be restored to the pre-2000 condition and buildings which distorted the historic look of that area had to be demolished. Instead of the three buildings which had been built (see paragraph 4 above), only the one building which had been there before 2000 was permitted and should be restored. 19 .     In November 2013 the Prime Minister established a working group to seek solutions to the problems of, inter alia , the enforcement of court decisions about construction in the Curonian Spit National Park and the payment of compensation where buildings had to be removed. 20 .     In July 2014 the Inspectorate contacted the bailiff in charge of the enforcement of the Klaipėda Regional Court’s decision of 10 April 2009 (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above). The Inspectorate informed the bailiff that the government had instructed it to have the enforcement of that decision stayed under Article 627 § 1 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provided for the enforcement of a court decision to be stayed at the written request of the creditor. In September 2014 the bailiff informed the Inspectorate and companies A. and V. that enforcement had been stayed and that it would remain stayed until further request. 21 .     In December 2014 the working group established by the Prime Minister (see paragraph 19 above) reported its conclusions and recommendations. It referred to various court decisions ordering the demolition or reconstruction of buildings built in accordance with permits which had subsequently been revoked, and observed that the State and the Neringa Municipality might be ordered by the courts to compensate for the loss and damage caused by the administrative decisions which were subsequently declared unlawful. The level of compensation would be likely to be calculated according to the value of the buildings and the extent of other expenses incurred by the individuals and might reach millions of Lithuanian litai. 22 .     The working group observed that the individuals and entities who had built and purchased the buildings involved had found themselves in a legally complicated situation, as did the State. In particular, although the courts had ordered company V. to refund the individual buyers (see paragraph 9 above), that company was in the process of an insolvent liquidation and did not have sufficient assets to meet all the claims of its creditors (see paragraphs 30-32 below). The working group recommended amending the Curonian Spit National Park planning documents so as to enable the individuals’ claims to be settled, bringing the legal disputes to an end and avoiding expense to the State. At the same time, it emphasised that it was important to avoid damaging the Curonian Spit, which was a World Heritage Site. 23 .     On 15 April 2015 the government commissioned the drafting of amendments to the 2012 Curonian Spit National Park management plan (see paragraph 18 above). The government’s order stated that one of the aims of the future amendments was to strike a balance between the interests of the State, municipalities, individuals and legal entities with regard to the use and development of the territory. 24 .     In June 2016 the Inspectorate sent a letter to the prosecutor, the Office of the Government, the State Service for Protected Areas, the Neringa Municipality, several other government authorities, companies A. and V., the applicants and the other individuals whose property titles had been revoked in the same proceedings (see paragraphs 8-10 above). It enclosed a preliminary draft of a settlement agreement. The Inspectorate stated that the aims of reaching a settlement were, inter alia , to put an end to the long-running legal disputes; to preclude further legal proceedings; to ensure compliance with the construction requirements that applied in protected areas; to protect the interests of those who had purchased the disputed buildings; to create conditions for the legalisation of those buildings; and to avoid further claims for compensation against the State and the Neringa Municipality. 25 .     The Inspectorate asked the recipients to give their comments and suggestions regarding the draft agreement. It stated that each party should be prepared to give up part of its claims so that an agreement could be reached. The State for its part was prepared to create the conditions in which the disputed houses could be legalised, to withdraw the demand that they be demolished, and to compensate for some of the related loss and damage. The individuals who had already been awarded certain sums in compensation, namely the applicants (see paragraph   16 above) and some of the other buyers (see paragraph 78 below), should renounce or return that compensation. The Inspectorate observed that the State Service for Protected Areas had previously expressed the opinion that the buildings would have to be reconstructed if they were to be legalised and asked it to make specific proposals for reconstruction which could be put into the draft agreement. It stated that once the parties had agreed on a draft, it would be submitted to the government for its approval. Furthermore, before the agreement could be signed off, it would also need to be approved by the prosecutor. The Inspectorate asked the recipients to indicate by 1 July 2016 whether they agreed in principle with the proposed settlement terms. 26.     The applicants submitted, and the Government did not dispute, that they had accepted the proposed terms of the draft agreement. The Court has not been informed about any other follow-up to the Inspectorate’s letter. 27 .     On 30 October 2019 the government adopted further amendments to the management plan of the Curonian Spit National Park (see paragraph   18 above). Paragraph   9.2.1.6 of the reamended management plan referred specifically to the plot where the applicants’ house had been built and stated that the buildings on that plot – a residential house and any ancillary buildings – should fit the architectural profile of a traditional fisherman’s home. 28 .     On 25 November 2019 the Constitutional Court issued a ruling on whether certain provisions of the Curonian Spit National Park management plan (both the previous version approved in 2012 and its amended version approved in 2019 – see paragraphs 18 and 27 above) were compatible with the Constitution and other legal instruments. The ruling did not specifically address the paragraphs which concerned the applicants’ house (see paragraphs 18 and 27 above). The Constitutional Court held, inter alia , that the State had a duty under the Constitution to preserve the identity and integrity of the Curonian Spit, and that no decisions or agreements of the State or municipal authorities could authorise non-compliance with the Curonian Spit special protection regime or with final court decisions on violations of that regime; such non-compliance could not be justified by the wish to avoid further legal disputes or expense to the State. In the light of those considerations, the Constitutional Court concluded that some of the provisions of the management plan as amended in 2019, which no longer required the removal of buildings or parts of them which had previously been found by the courts to have been unlawfully constructed, were not compatible with the Constitution. 29 .     On 19 August 2020 the head of the State Service for Protected Areas commissioned the drafting of further amendments to the Curonian Spit National Park management plan in order to comply with the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 25 November 2019 (see paragraph 28 above). The order stated that the aim of any further amendments was to ensure that the Curonian Spit protection regime was compatible with the Constitution and that it did not create the conditions for non-compliance with binding court decisions. Liquidation of company V. 30 .     In July 2011 company V. started a restructuring process, which was discontinued in December 2013. In March 2014 it went into liquidation. 31 .     In June 2014 the court approved the list of the company’s creditors. The second applicant, who had taken over the first applicant’s claim as well, was listed as a creditor of the third rank. 32 .     In September 2014 company V. was declared bankrupt. 33 .     In July 2017 the court approved the second applicant’s claim for EUR   569,290, made up of the EUR 535,797 awarded to the applicants by the Klaipėda Regional Court in its decision of 10 April 2009 (see paragraph 9 above) and interest of EUR   33,493. Civil claim against the State by company V. 34.     In April 2018 the liquidator of company V. lodged a civil claim against the State, which was represented by the Inspectorate, and the Neringa Municipality. It claimed compensation for the amount it had been ordered to repay to the buyers of the disputed houses by the Klaipėda Regional Court’s decision of 10 April 2009 (see paragraph 9 above). 35.     On 19   December 2018 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed that claim, finding that the houses had not been demolished and therefore that the claimant had not sustained any actual damage. 36 .     The liquidator of company V. appealed against that decision and on 12 May 2021 the Supreme Administrative Court, sitting in an extended panel of five judges, allowed the appeal in part. It firstly observed that there was no dispute that company V. had sustained financial loss as a result of unlawful actions of the authorities. The unlawfulness of the authorities’ decisions which had allowed the construction of the disputed houses had also been confirmed in cases concerning other claimants (see paragraphs   78 and 80 below). 37.     The Supreme Administrative Court then emphasised that the Klaipėda Regional Court’s decision of 10 April 2009 was final and binding on the parties. Although that decision had not been enforced to date, the settlement negotiations did not appear to have led to any agreement which might affect the amount of loss and damage incurred by company V. Moreover, following the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 25 November 2019 (see paragraph 28 above), the Curonian Spit National Park management plan was being amended again and one of the aims of that amendment was to avoid non-compliance with final court decisions (see paragraph 29 above). 38.     The Supreme Administrative Court held that the financial loss incurred by company V. was evident, genuine and proven, and that it could be determined what the loss was. Although the Inspectorate had argued that company V. had not incurred any loss or damage because it had not yet reimbursed the buyers for what they had paid when purchasing the houses, the court observed that those individuals had been included in the list of the company’s creditors in the liquidation and it was under an obligation to pay them. The Supreme Administrative Court also emphasised that the situation had remained unresolved for an unjustifiably long time. The court decisions entitling company V. to have the houses returned to it had not been enforced because the individuals had not been evicted; they could not be evicted because company V. had not reimbursed them for what they had paid when purchasing the houses; and it was unable to reimburse them because it did not have sufficient funds. As a result, both the company and the individuals had found themselves in a legal stalemate. Refusing to allow the company’s claim until the houses were demolished would therefore be contrary to the principles of justice, fairness and reasonableness, as well as contrary to the public interest in protecting the Curonian Spit. 39 .     The defendants had asked the court to declare the company’s claim time-barred, but the court rejected that request. Relying on its decision of 29   April 2020 (see paragraph 81 below), the Supreme Administrative Court held that the limitation period should not be applied in the present case, having regard to the government-level negotiations among, inter alia , the authorities which had taken the disputed decisions, the claimant in the present case, and other interested parties; the staying of the enforcement of the Klaipėda Regional Court’s decision of 10 April 2009 at the Inspectorate’s request (see paragraph   20 above); and the commissioning of draft amendments to the Curonian Spit National Park management plan with the aim of reaching a settlement in the present case (see paragraph 23 above). 40 .     The Supreme Administrative Court therefore awarded company V. EUR 1,184,222 in compensation for loss and damage to be paid jointly by the State and the Neringa Municipality. The applicants’ second civil claim against the State (2018-2021) The claim 41 .     In May 2018 the applicants instituted civil proceedings against the State, which was represented by the Inspectorate, and the Neringa Municipality, seeking compensation for loss and damage. The claim was lodged on behalf of the applicants and their four minor children. They stated that the house at issue was their only home and that they had lost their title to it because of mistakes made by the authorities – the unlawfulness of the authorities’ actions had been confirmed in the previous court proceedings (see paragraph 15 above). Although the applicants had been awarded EUR   535,797 from company V. (see paragraph   9 above), they had not yet received that money because the company was in insolvent liquidation (see paragraphs 30-32 above) and did not have sufficient funds to pay all its creditors. 42 .     The applicants claimed a total of EUR 1,172,920 for financial loss, consisting of the amount which they were entitled to claim from company V. in the liquidation (see paragraph 33 above); the amount by which, according to them, the market value of the house had increased since they had purchased it (they submitted expert assessments showing the market value of the house on various dates and contended that the date to be taken was 2007, when the market value had been at its highest – EUR   1,130,677); and EUR 8,749 in tax paid and other expenses incurred in relation to the house. They also claimed EUR   3,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage – EUR 500,000 for each applicant and each of their children – for the inconvenience, insecurity and emotional distress which had been going on for nearly 13   years. The applicants emphasised that they had purchased the house in good faith and had not breached any laws. The decision of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court 43 .     On 27 March 2020 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings in the part concerning the applicants’ claim for the increase in the market value of the house and dismissed the remainder of the claim. 44 .     The court acknowledged that it had already been established that the decisions taken by the Neringa Municipality and the Klaipėda County Administration with regard to the applicants’ house had been unlawful (see paragraphs   8, 15 and 16 above). 45 .     However, it held that there was no causal link between those unlawful decisions and the fact that the amount which the applicants had the right to receive from company V. (see paragraphs 9 and 33 above) had not been paid to them to date. The same conclusion had been reached by the Supreme Administrative Court in a similar case (see paragraph 78 below). That part of the claim therefore had to be dismissed. 46 .     As for the claim for the increased market value of the house, the court noted that the applicants had already made that claim before the courts and it had been dismissed in decisions which had become final (see paragraphs   12-16 above). According to the Law on Administrative Proceedings, proceedings had to be discontinued if there already was a final court decision concerning a dispute between the same parties regarding the same subject matter and the same grounds (see paragraph 74 below). The fact that the amount claimed by the applicants in the present proceedings was different from that claimed in the previous proceedings did not, in the court’s view, change the fact that the two claims were analogous. Accordingly, it discontinued the case in respect of that claim. 47 .     However, the court found that the land rent tax ( žemės nuomos mokestis ) and real estate tax ( nekilnojamojo turto mokestis ) which the applicants had paid on the house, as well as the notarial expenses they had incurred when buying the house could be recognised as financial loss sustained as a result of the unlawful actions of the authorities, to the extent that they were supported by relevant documents. It observed that such expenses had been awarded to claimants in similar cases (see paragraphs   78   and 80 below). 48 .     Furthermore, the court found that the situation relating to the house had caused the applicants and their three older children stress and inconvenience, which could justify making an award for non-pecuniary damage. The court dismissed the claim by the applicants’ fourth child, finding that he had not been born when the disputed decisions had been taken and that it had not been demonstrated that he had sustained any non-pecuniary damage. In the light of the circumstances of the case and having regard to the relevant case-law, the court considered that a fair amount of compensation would be EUR 1,000 for each of the applicants and EUR 100 for each of their three older children. 49 .     However, the court held that the applicants’ above-mentioned claims were time-barred. The Civil Code set a limitation period of three years for lodging compensation claims. The court observed that the applicants had been informed about the prosecutor’s request to annul their property title in 2008. Moreover, in 2012 they had instituted civil proceedings against the State, seeking compensation for financial loss (see paragraph 12 above). This showed that by 2012 they knew that their rights had been violated. Their present claim, which was lodged in May 2018, was therefore time-barred. 50 .     The applicants had argued that the running of the statutory limitation period had stopped because the State and the Neringa Municipality had acknowledged their obligation to compensate them for the loss and damage which they had sustained (see paragraphs 17-25 above). However, the court dismissed that argument. It held that the State and municipal authorities had made statements of a general nature about the need to compensate individuals for loss and damage and that there had been no indication that those authorities had acknowledged the applicants’ specific claims for compensation. The court held that participation in settlement negotiations did not and could not amount to the acknowledgment of a claim so as to satisfy the provision of the Civil Code that stopped time running for the purposes of the limitation period where liability was acknowledged (see paragraph 67 below). 51 .     Lastly, the court held that there were no grounds for extension of the limitation period because the applicants had not shown that they had justifiable reasons for failing to file their claim on time (see paragraph 68 below). The court stated that the above-mentioned circumstances (see paragraph 50 above) could not justify the applicants’ long delay. The applicants’ appeal 52 .     The applicants appealed against the decision of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court. They submitted, in particular, that the limitation period had ceased to run on the date of the Court of Appeal’s decision of 6   December 2010 (see paragraph 10 above), for the reasons set out in Article 1.130 § 2 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 67 below), and that time had still not started running again because the authorities had acknowledged their obligation to compensate them for the loss and damage and had made promises to that effect, and settlement negotiations were still ongoing. The applicants pointed out that in their 2012 civil claim they had not asked for compensation for the purchase price of the house (see paragraphs   12 and 13 above) because at that time that loss had not yet been incurred. They had lodged the present claim as soon as they had received preliminary information that company V. did not have sufficient funds and that their claims would not be satisfied in the liquidation. They also contended that all of their claims were interrelated and that the limitation period had not expired for any of them. 53 .     They further submitted that, if the court found their claims to be time ‑ barred, the limitation period should be extended on the grounds that they had missed the deadline for good reasons – namely that they had been promised compensation and that settlement negotiations, including the legalisation of the house, were still ongoing. The fact that the applicants had expected to settle the case with the State should not be used against them. 54 .     The applicants contended that the decision of the extended panel of the Supreme Administrative Court of 12 May 2021 on the effect of the limitation period (see paragraph   39 above) should be applied in their case. 55.     The applicants also disputed the court’s decision to discontinue their claim for the difference between the price they had paid for the house and its increased market value (see paragraph 46 above). They submitted that the situation in 2012 had not been analogous to that of the present day because at that time they had had no reason to doubt that company V. would reimburse them. They contended that the market value of the house had significantly increased since they had purchased it and that, at present, they would not be able to buy a similar house for the same price. 56.     Lastly, the applicants submitted that the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage which the court had considered to be justified (see paragraph 48 above) was insufficient to redress the prolonged stress and inconvenience they had endured because of the unlawful actions of the authorities. The decision of the Supreme Administrative Court 57 .     On 16   June 2021 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal, stating that it fully agreed with the findings of the lower court. Other relevant facts 58 .     On 14 December 2021 the second applicant received EUR 175,319 from company V. in the liquidation (see paragraph 33 above). 59 .     In February and March 2022 company V. was officially dissolved and it was removed from the Register of Legal Entities. 60.     On 23 February 2022 the government approved amendments to the Curonian Spit National Park management plan. Paragraph 9.2.1.6 of the amended plan concerns the plot where the applicants’ house is located and states, inter alia , that construction on that plot must follow the historical limits of construction there prior to 2000 and that only one building could be built on the plot (see paragraphs 18 and 27 above). 61 .     At the time of the parties’ latest observations before the Court (on 16   September 2024), the applicants’ house had still not been demolished and they were still living there. 62 .     On an unspecified date the prosecutor lodged a public interest claim against the State, which was represented by the Inspectorate, and the Neringa Municipality, asking the court to order them to pay the individuals who had purchased the disputed houses from company V. the compensation awarded to them by the Klaipėda Regional Court’s decision of 10 April 2009 which had not been yet paid to them – including EUR   393,970 which should have been paid to the second applicant. In April 2024 the court accepted the prosecutor’s claim for examination. The Inspectorate contested the claim. It submitted that the State and the Neringa Municipality had already paid compensation to company V. for financial loss sustained as a result of the Klaipėda Regional Court’s decision of 10 April 2009 (see paragraphs 36-40 above) and that the State could not be held responsible for the consequences of the failure of a private company. It further submitted that similar claims made by the individual owners of the houses in question had been dismissed by the courts (see paragraphs 12-16 above and paragraphs 78 and 80 below) and that those issues were res judicata . The second applicant, who has the status of a third party in the proceedings, submitted that the amount requested by the prosecutor was insufficient to cover the loss and damage caused to the applicants. She asked the court to go beyond the limits of the prosecutor’s claim and to award her compensation for the loss of the market value of the house. At the time of the submission of the parties’ latest observations before the Court (on 16   September 2024), the case had still not been decided by the first-instance court. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE Constitutional and statute law Constitution 63.     The relevant provisions of the Constitution read: Article 23 “Property shall be inviolable. The rights of ownership shall be protected by law. Property may be taken only for the needs of society according to the procedure established by law and shall be justly compensated for.” Article 24 “The home of a human being shall be inviolable. ...” Article 30 “A person whose constitutional rights or freedoms are violated shall have the right to apply to a court. Compensation for material and moral damage inflicted upon a person shall be established by law.” Article 54 “The State shall take care of the protection of the natural environment, wildlife and plants, individual objects of nature, and areas of particular value, and shall supervise the sustainable use of natural resources, as well as their restoration and increase. The destruction of land and subsurface, the pollution of water and air, radioactive impact on the environment, as well as the depletion of wildlife and plants, shall be prohibited by law.” Civil Code Statutory limitation periods 64.     Article 1.125 § 9 provides that the statutory limitation period for lodging claims for damages is three years. 65.     Article 1.126 § 2 provides that the court may apply the statutory limitation period only when one of the parties makes such a request. 66.     Article 1.127 § 1 provides that the statutory limitation period starts running on the day when the right to lodge a claim arises, that is to say on the day when the person knows or ought to know about the violation of his or her rights, unless the Civil Code or other legal instruments provide otherwise. 67 .     Article 1.130 § 2 provides that for the purposes of the statutory limitation period time stops running if the person liable shows that he or she acknowledges the obligation in question. 68 .     Article 1.131 § 2 provides that where a court finds that the statutory limitation period has been missed for good reason, it must be extended and the rights that have been violated must be vindicated. Restitution 69 .     Article 6.145 § 1 provides, inter alia , that restitution shall be ordered where one person must return to another property which has been obtained unlawfully or by mistake, or because the transaction on the basis of which the property at issue was transferred has been declared void ab initio . 70 .     Article 6.145 § 2 provides that, in exceptional cases, the court may change the manner in which restitution is ordered or not order it at all, where ordering it would unfairly and unjustifiably worsen the situation of one of the parties and improve that of the other. Compensation for damage 71 .     Article 6.271 § 1 provides that compensation for damage caused by unlawful acts of State or municipal authorities must be paid by the State or the municipality, regardless of whether an individual civil servant or State employee was at fault. Article 6.271 § 4 provides that the State or the municipality will incur civil liability under that Article in the event that State or municipal authorities or their employees fail to act in the manner required by law. 72 .     Article 6.250 § 1 defines non-pecuniary damage as physical pain, emotional suffering, inconvenience, mental shock, emotional depression, humiliation, deterioration of reputation, diminution of possibilities to associate with others, and so on, evaluated by a court in monetary terms. 73 .     Article 6.250 § 2 provides, inter alia , that non-pecuniary damage will be compensated only in cases provided for by law. When assessing the amount of compensation to be awarded for non-pecuniary damage, the court must take into consideration the consequences of the said damage, whether the person who caused the damage was at fault, that person’s financial status, the amount of financial loss sustained by the aggrieved person, and any other relevant circumstances, as well as the criteria of fairness, justice and reasonableness. Law on Administrative Proceedings 74 .     Article 103 § 2 provides that the court shall discontinue the examination of a case, inter alia , where a final court decision has been taken on a dispute between the same parties, on the same subject matter and the same grounds. The practice of the courts Constitutional Court 75.     The case-law of the Constitutional Court relating to protected areas in general and the Curonian Spit National Park in particular has been summarised in Kristiana Ltd. v. Lithuania (no. 36184/13, §§   68-70, 6   February 2018). 76.     In a ruling of 19 August 2006 the Constitutional Court held: “In the course of the protection and defence of human rights and freedoms ... particular importance is attributed to the matter of compensation for damage. It is established in Article 30 § 2 of the Constitution that compensation for material and moral damage inflicted upon a person shall be established by law. The need to compensate for material and moral damage inflicted on a person is therefore a constitutional principle ... This constitutional principle is inseparable from the principle of justice entrenched in the Constitution: all the necessary legal preconditions must be created by law so that the damage inflicted can be justly compensated for. The Constitution therefore requires the establishment by law of such legal regulation that in all cases where a person has sustained damage as a result of unlawful actions, that person will be able to make a claim for just compensation for that damage and to receive the appropriate compensation. ... [It] should be emphasised that the Constitution does not allow exceptions to be made by law by which moral and/or material damage inflicted on a person is not compensated for, for example because it was caused by the unlawful actions of officials or institutions of the State itself. If the law or another legal instrument were to set up a means for the State to fully or partially avoid the liability to justly compensate for material and/or moral damage caused by the unlawful actions of a State institution or [its] officials, it would not only mean that the constitutional concept of compensation for damage would have been di