CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 septembre 2024

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 October 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 35631/23 Lauryna SKREBYTĖ against Lithuania lodged on 17 September 2023 communicated on 18 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns property rights. In 2004 the authorities approved the limits of a plot of 0.2317   hectares in Palanga, a resort by the Baltic Sea, and registered it in the Real Estate Register. In 2006 the authorities restored the property rights of several individuals by giving them that plot jointly. The applicant submits that at that time the Real Estate Register did not contain information that the plot at issue included a forest and that the authorities which adopted those decisions did not have such information at their disposal. In 2011 the heirs of the above-mentioned individuals sold the plot to the applicant’s father for 250,000 Lithuanian litai (approximately 72,400 euros). The sales and purchase agreement, which was certified by a notary, did not indicate that the land was subject to any restrictions linked to the presence of a forest on it. In 2012 the applicants’ parents gifted the plot to her. In 2015 the prosecutor instituted court proceedings seeking the annulment of the administrative decisions by which the plot at issue had been given to the above-mentioned individuals, as well as the agreements by which it had been sold to the applicant’s father and gifted to the applicant. The prosecutor submitted that the plot included 0.1946 hectares of a forest of national importance ( valstybinės reikšmės miškas ) which, according to the law, could only be owned by the State. However, in 2016 the administrative courts rejected the prosecutor’s claim as time-barred. The presence of a forest on the applicant’s plot was registered in the Real Estate Register in December 2020. In November 2020 she lodged a request with the municipal authorities of Palanga to amend the relevant territorial planning documents in order to allow construction on her plot. The authorities rejected her request, on the grounds that the plot included a forest of national importance, and that decision was upheld by the administrative courts; the final decision was taken by the Supreme Administrative Court on 1 February 2023. In April 2021 the applicant lodged a request with the National Forests Service, asking it to correct a mistake made in the plan of forests of national importance and to exclude her plot from that plan. She pointed out that a forest of national importance could not be owned by an individual. Her request was rejected, on the grounds that the forest on her plot met the criteria of a forest of national importance and thus there was no mistake to be corrected. That decision was upheld by the administrative courts; the final decision was taken by the Supreme Administrative Court on 17 May 2023. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that her property rights are severely restricted, as she is unable to use the plot or sell it for a price comparable to the one for which it was bought. She submits that she acquired the plot in good faith, relying on the data of the Real Estate Register, which did not indicate the presence of a forest on the plot. However, she has had to bear an excessive burden of the authorities’ failure to act diligently because she has not been given any compensation for the restrictions on her property rights. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted the effective domestic remedies, as required under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, does the domestic law provide for a remedy which may be considered “effective” for the purposes of Article 35 § 1, allowing the applicant to claim compensation for damage allegedly sustained as a result of actions or omissions of the public authorities relating to restrictions on her property rights (see, mutatis mutandis , Mozeris and “Eugenijos ir Leonido Pimonovų Alzheimerio ligos paramos fondas” v. Lithuania (dec.), no.   66803/17, §§ 55-61, 2 April 2019, and the cases cited therein)? The parties are asked to provide examples of relevant case-law of the domestic courts.   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Köktepe v. Turkey , no. 35785/03, §§ 81-92, 22 July 2008, and Beinarovič and Others v. Lithuania , nos. 70520/10 and 2   others, §§   136-42, 12 June 2018, and the cases cited therein)? The parties are asked to indicate the date on which the presence of a forest of national importance on the plot at issue was registered in a relevant public register or otherwise made known to the public.