CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 mars 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 }   Communicated on 7 March 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 51755/10 Antanas ŠIDLAUSKAS against Lithuania lodged on 6 August 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Antanas Šidlauskas, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1945 and lives in Jonava. He is represented before the Court by Mr   P. Astromskis, 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 1994 the applicant bought an apartment in Jonava. A few years later he lost his job and was no longer able to pay for the utilities. In 2000 the utility provider instituted civil proceedings against the applicant concerning his debt of 2,861 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 828.60 euros (EUR)). The domestic courts upheld the claim. In 2003 the judgment was transferred to a bailiff for enforcement. On 6 October 2004 the bailiff organised a public auction in which the applicant’s apartment was sold to third parties for LTL 3,390 (EUR 982). According to the State Enterprise Centre of Registers, the market value of the apartment at that time was LTL 12,100 (EUR 3,504). In November 2007 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Jonava District Court, arguing that the sale of his apartment at the public auction had not been in accordance with the domestic law. The applicant submitted that according to the domestic law, taking a person’s place of residence in order to enforce a court judgment was permitted only when the debt in question was higher than LTL 3,000 (EUR 869). The applicant also submitted that he had had a small plot of land in the Jonava Region, so the enforcement must have begun with that property and not with his only home. In January 2008 the applicant submitted a revised claim in which he requested pecuniary damages of LTL 51,540 (EUR 14,927), corresponding to the market value of the apartment at the time of the submission of the revised claim. On 17 June 2009 the Jonava District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. It held that the sale of the applicant’s apartment in the public auction had been lawful and thus there were no grounds to award him any damages. On 1 October 2009 the Kaunas Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and satisfied the applicant’s claim in its entirety, holding that his apartment had been sold unlawfully and awarding the applicant pecuniary damages of LTL 51,540. On 8 February 2010 the Supreme Court partly amended the judgment of the Kaunas Regional Court. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s conclusion that the applicant’s apartment had been sold unlawfully. However, it held that the amount of damages in the applicant’s case had to be assessed on the basis of the market value of the apartment at the time of the public auction. Thus, the Supreme Court awarded the applicant pecuniary damages of LTL 12,100. B.     Relevant domestic law Article 6.249 § 5 of the Civil Code provides: Article 6.249.     Damage and damages “... 5.     Damage shall be assessed according to the prices valid on the day when the court judgment was passed unless the law or the nature of the obligation requires the application of prices that were valid on the day the damage arose or on the day when the action was brought ...” COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that he has been unlawfully deprived of his only home and the damages awarded to him by the domestic courts were clearly insufficient for him to acquire a new home.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in view of the amount of the damages awarded to the applicant by the domestic courts?