CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 août 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 26 August 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 58166/18 Tadas PUIŠYS against Lithuania lodged on 27 November 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns construction which was carried out after obtaining the relevant permits but later declared to be partly unlawful. In 2004 the applicant obtained planning documents and a permit to build a house on his land. The relevant authorities inspected the construction several times and found it to be in line with domestic regulations. However, in 2010 the public prosecutor lodged a claim before courts, arguing that the house had been built in violation of the planning documents. By the final decision adopted in 2018, the courts allowed the prosecutor’s claim. They held that certain decisions of the authorities, which had found the applicant’s house to be in line with domestic regulations, had not complied with the law. The applicant was ordered to alter the house so that it would comply with the planning documents. In the same decisions the courts also found that the applicant had unlawfully built a fence and a road near his land and ordered him to demolish them. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the aforementioned decisions unfairly restricted his property rights. He submits that the construction was carried out in accordance with all the relevant permits and planning documents issued by public authorities and that he should not have to bear the burden of the authorities’ mistakes.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, in view of the court decisions finding that his house has been built in breach of domestic regulations (see Tumeliai v.   Lithuania , no.   25545/14, §§ 77-80, 9 January 2018)?