CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 juin 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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 22 June 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 69419/13 Ramūnas ČINGA against Lithuania lodged on 24 October 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Ramūnas Činga, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Zujūnai. He is represented before the Court by Ms   R. Laurinavičienė, a lawyer practising in Vilnius. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 28 September 1988 the applicant received 0.15 hectares of land in Vilnius County for residential purposes. On 27 July 1992 the applicant received an additional 0.05 hectares of land in Vilnius County for the same purpose. On 15 April 1993 the applicant purchased a total 0.2 hectares of land from the State. At that time there was no detailed plan of Vilnius County. Nevertheless, the plot of land assigned to the applicant was approved by the county’s chief architect. The applicant obtained an official permit for the construction of a house on the land and has been living there since 2004. The house is the permanent residence of the applicant and his family. The plot of land of 0.05 hectares is where waste water treatment equipment and the gas and water supplies are installed and they are necessary to make the house habitable. 1.     Civil proceedings brought by the applicant’s neighbours In 2006 two of the applicant’s neighbours started court proceedings. They claimed that 0.05 hectares of the applicant’s land occupied part of a street and that the applicant had built a concrete fence around the land, making it impossible to use the street. On 26 September 2006 the Vilnius District Court ( Vilniaus rajono apylinkės teismas ) held that the neighbours’ rights had not been breached because they had access to their own land. However, the court ordered the applicant to give one of the neighbours access to an electricity meter. On 4   January 2007 the Vilnius Regional Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance. On 19 November 2007 the Supreme Court found that there were two civil cases regarding the same situation and suspended the proceedings until the other case had finished. On 29 May 2009 the Supreme Court renewed its examination of the case and upheld the Vilnius Regional Court’s decision of 4 January 2007. 2.     Civil proceedings brought by the prosecutor On 15 October 2007 the prosecutor started court proceedings and asked the domestic courts to annul the decisions of the national authorities and the purchase agreement that had entitled the applicant to 0.05 hectares of land. On 11 April 2008 the Vilnius District Court held that the land had been sold to the applicant in breach of the provisions of domestic law. The applicant had to return the plot to the State and the State had to pay him back what he had paid. The court held that the applicant had paid 15 Lithuanian litai (LTL) (approximately 4.34 euros (EUR)). On 10 December 2008 the Vilnius Regional Court found that the applicant was a bona fide owner of the land, mistakes had been made by the authorities and that if the land was taken from the applicant the consequences on him would be disproportionate. Consequently, the court overturned the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the prosecutor’s complaints. No cassation appeal was submitted. 3.     Reopening of the civil proceedings The prosecutor asked the domestic courts to reopen the proceedings. On 4 December 2009 the Vilnius District Court held that the prosecutor had had the possibility to appeal against the decision of the Vilnius Regional Court of 10 December 2008 but that no appeal had been lodged. The court also considered that no grounds for reopening the proceedings existed and dismissed the prosecutor’s application. On 25 May 2010 the Vilnius Regional Court upheld the Vilnius District Court’s decision. On 21   December 2010 the Supreme Court held that the lower courts had made some procedural mistakes, annulled the decisions of the Vilnius District Court and the Vilnius Regional Court and returned the case for examination by the appeal court. On 14 July 2011 the Vilnius Regional Court examined a separate complaint by the prosecutor. It observed that the Supreme Court had held on 21 December 2010 that procedural mistakes had been made, annulled the Vilnius District Court’s decision of 4 December 2009 and remitted the case to the court of first instance. On 25 October 2011 the Vilnius District Court held that the prosecutor’s application to reopen the proceedings had not contained any circumstances that were so exceptional as to affect the final decisions of the courts. It also considered that a repeat assessment of the evidence was not consistent with the provisions of domestic law and dismissed the prosecutor’s application to reopen the court proceedings. On 9 March 2012 the Vilnius Regional Court stated that the violations of the provisions of domestic law were per se related to the public interest and decided to reopen the proceedings. On 15 June 2012 the Vilnius District Court annulled the decision of the Vilnius Regional Court of 10 December 2008 and upheld the decision of the Vilnius District Court of 11 April 2008 by which the applicant was obliged to return the 0.05 hectares of land to the State and the State had to pay the applicant EUR 4.34 for the land. On 25 January 2013 the Vilnius Regional Court upheld the Vilnius District Court’s decision of 15 June 2012. On 22   February 2013 and on 26 April 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed cassation appeals by the applicant. B.     Relevant domestic law Article 6.145 § 1 of the Civil Code provides that restitution is to take place where a person is bound to return to another person property he has received either unlawfully or by error, as a result of the transaction being annulled ab initio , or as a result of the obligation becoming impossible to perform owing to force majeure . Article 6.145 § 2 provides that in exceptional cases the court may modify the mode of restitution or refuse restitution altogether where it would create an undue and unfair burden on one party and, accordingly, give undue advantage to the other party. Article 6.146 of the Civil Code provides that restitution is to be made in kind, except in instances where that is impossible or would be a major burden on the parties. In those cases, restitution is to be effected by payment in the monetary equivalent. Article 366 § 1 (9) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that proceedings can be reopened if the court of first instance made an obvious mistake when applying the law, the mistake could have led to the adoption of an unlawful decision and the decision was not examined on appeal. The Prosecutor General can apply for the reopening of proceedings related to first-instance and appeal decisions. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings. He also complains under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention that his right to his home was breached because the communications necessary for the use of his house are on land that he had to return to the State. Lastly, he complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that it was impossible for him to peacefully enjoy his possessions and about the amount of compensation for the land that he had to return to the State.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Was the decision to take the plot of land of 0.05 hectares from the applicant an interference with his right to respect for his home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and was it necessary, in terms of Article 8 § 2?   3.     Was the decision of the domestic courts to take the plot of land of 0.05 hectares from the applicant compatible with the requirements of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and was the compensation of EUR   4.34 adequate?