CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 février 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }     Communicated on 24 February 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 27468/10 Jonas VILĖNIŠKIS against Lithuania lodged on 11 May 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Jonas Vilėniškis, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Garliava. He is represented before the Court by Ms   V. Užupienė, a lawyer practising in Kaunas. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 1958 the applicant’s father bought several buildings situated on a single plot of land in Kaunas, and also obtained the right to use the land they were on, from another individual J.Z. After the father’s death in 1981, the applicant and his five siblings became the co ‑ owners of the buildings. In 1987 the local authorities adopted a decision to nationalise the aforementioned plot of land and the buildings for public purposes (hereinafter – “the 1987 decision”). That decision indicated that the owners of the buildings would be provided with compensation in cash or in kind. The 1987 decision was annulled in 1991. The applicant and his siblings remained registered in the public register as the owners of the said buildings. On an unspecified date the applicant moved to the United States of America (USA). Several years later the authorities recognised J.Z.’s children as candidates to have the property rights to their father’s land restored. In 2007 J.Z.’s daughter V.M. submitted a request to the administration of the public register to enter into the register an indication that the applicant’s buildings had been designated for demolition by the 1987 decision. In support of her request, V.M. submitted a certificate issued by a planning company in 1994 which indicated that the applicant and his siblings had received compensation for the taking of their buildings. The administration of the public register satisfied V.M.’s request. Later that same year V.M. submitted a claim to the court, requesting the removal of the applicant and his sibling’s ownership registration from the public register. In February 2008 V.M. informed the court that it had been impossible to deliver the court documents to the applicant because he could not be found at his official place of residence in Kaunas. V.M. requested the court to serve the documents on the applicant by means of a public announcement, as stipulated by Article 130 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the applicant, no such announcement was published. The applicant’s siblings contested V.M.’s claim. They argued that the 1987 decision had never been implemented because they had not received any compensation for the taking of their buildings, and that that decision was subsequently annulled, which meant that they had retained their property rights over the buildings. On 23 February 2009 the Kaunas District Court upheld V.M.’s claim. The court found that the applicant and his siblings had been compensated for the buildings after 1987: official documents showed that they had all received either monetary payments or an opportunity to buy new apartments for preferential prices; none of them had contested the amount of compensation. The court held that the subsequent annulment of the 1987 decision had not affected that compensation, so allowing them to retain the property rights over the buildings would amount to unjust enrichment. The applicant’s sisters R.V. and J.B. appealed against that judgment but on 2 October 2009 the Kaunas Regional Court dismissed their appeal and upheld the findings of the first-instance court. R.V. submitted four cassation appeals but the Supreme Court refused to accept them as raising no important legal questions (the Supreme Court’s decisions were taken on 27   November 2009, 11 December 2009, 28 December 2009 and 7 January 2010). None of the aforementioned court judgments and decisions indicated whether the applicant had been informed about the case and whether the court documents had been served on him by any means. As submitted by the applicant, during the entire time he was living in the   USA and did not have any knowledge of the court proceedings. He stated that he had found out about them only on 4 January 2010 (after the time-limit to submit a cassation appeal had already ended), when his sister R.V. sent him a copy of the Kaunas Regional Court’s judgment by e ‑ mail. On 4 February 2010 the applicant submitted a request to the Supreme Court to renew the time-limit for submitting a cassation appeal. He argued that he had not been aware of the court proceedings because he lived in the USA. On 17 February 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request to renew the time-limit. The court stated that the other co-owners of the buildings had participated in the case and that they had been represented by lawyers who defended the interests of all the co-owners. It also noted that the fact that the applicant lived in the USA did not preclude him from authorising a lawyer to represent him before the courts in Lithuania and to submit a cassation appeal on time. Lastly the court noted that R.V.’s cassation appeals had been refused as raising no important legal questions. As a result, the Supreme Court considered that there had not been important reasons warranting the renewal of the time-limit. B.     Relevant domestic law At the material time, Article 130 of the Code of Civil Procedure provided as follows: Article 130. Service of court documents by means of a public announcement “1.     If the place of residence and work place of the addressee are unknown and if it is impossible to appoint a curator or when there are more than ten co-parties to the proceedings and there is no possibility of serving the court documents by the procedure mentioned in Article 120 of this Code, the court may deliver court documents by means of a public announcement in the press. 2.     The means of serving court documents provided in paragraph 1 of this article can also be used when the addressee is a legal entity. 3.     The expenses of serving court documents by means of a public announcement must be assumed by the party requesting such service. 4.     The service of court documents provided in paragraph 1 of this article is effectuated by an announcement in a local newspaper (if one exists) and one of the principle daily newspapers in the Republic of Lithuania, by indicating: 1)     the court; 2)     the type of the document; 3)     the addressee; 4)     the date of the court hearing (if it has been set). 5.     The announcement indicated in paragraph 4 of this article must be published no later than fourteen days before the court hearing. The court document is considered served on the day of its announcement in the press.” COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was not informed about the case concerning his property rights and thereby denied the opportunity to defend them.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant informed about the case concerning his property rights, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Kolegovy v.   Russia , no.   15226/05, § 40, 1 March 2012, and the cases cited therein)?