CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 octobre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 2 October 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 26488/18 Vaidotas JANKAUSKAS against Lithuania lodged on 5 June 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the annulment of the applicant’s property rights to a 163   meters long road leading to his house in Klaipėda region. The road was built by the applicant and from his own means on the basis of authorities’ decisions permitting such construction in 2003, and in 2013 the applicant’s title to that road was registered in the real estate registry. Although in 2015 the prosecutor and the local authorities challenged the applicant’s title to that road which was situated on State owned land, the courts of two instances pointed out that he had built that road according to the project which had been earlier approved by the authorities, that there had been no evidence whatsoever that he had acted dishonestly, that he had been paying taxes on that property, that the State or municipality had not incurred any expenses to build or to maintain that road, and that the authorities had been challenging their own decisions twelve years after those decisions had been taken. Moreover, the road had only local importance and therefore could belong to a private individual as property. It followed that there had been neither factual, nor legal basis why the applicant’s title could be annulled. Lastly, those courts noted that if the road would be expropriated, this should have been done only by granting a fair compensation. However, in the applicant’s case the authorities did not consider such an option. By a final ruling of 28   February 2018 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts’ decisions and annulled the applicant’s title to the road. It considered that the applicant had taken a risk by building a road on the State owned land. The fact that existence of a road on such land, as such, was not in breach of public interest, was irrelevant. The applicant complains under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention that his title to the road had been quashed which caused him financial loss. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his property under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention in view of the fact that his title to the road was annulled (see, among other authorities, Beinarovič and Others v. Lithuania , nos.   70520/10 and 2 others, §§   138-42, 12   June 2018, and the case-law cited therein)?