CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 juin 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 18 June 2020 Published on 6 July 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 36098/19 Jeronimas TARVYDAS against Lithuania lodged on 18 June 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant owns a plot of land. On that plot there was an old wooden house, built in the eighteenth century, which had the status of protected cultural heritage. In 2016 the applicant demolished part of that house and started building a new house. The authorities gave him a fine for unlawful construction and ordered him to restore the old house. The applicant did not dispute that the construction had been unlawful. However, he argued that restoring the old house was impossible, in particular because it had been in a decrepit state and dangerous to the surroundings, and also because it was unclear whether the authentic materials from which it had been built could be obtained. The first-instance court found for the applicant. However, the appellate court quashed that decision and ordered him to restore the house, without addressing his arguments that the restoration was impossible. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, but the Supreme Court refused to accept it for examination as raising no important legal issues. The applicant complains under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention that the courts disregarded his arguments and adopted a decision ordering him to do what was impossible.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the Klaipėda Regional Court give sufficient reasons, as required by Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, for the decision to order the applicant to restore the house? In particular, did it conduct a proper examination of the applicant’s arguments with regard to the alleged impossibility of the restoration (see Perez v. France [GC], no.   47287/99, §§   80 ‑ 82, ECHR   2004 ‑ I; Paliutis v. Lithuania , no. 34085/09, §   47, 24   November 2015; and Carmel Saliba v. Malta , no.   24221/13, § 64, 29   November 2016)?   2.     Was the decision to order the applicant to restore the house devoid of arbitrariness, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, particularly in view of the decrepit state of that house (see Bochan v.   Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 62, ECHR 2015, and the cases cited therein)?