CASE OF PADALEVIČIUS v. LITHUANIA
(Application no. 12278/03)
7 July 2009
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Padalevičius v. Lithuania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Işıl Karakaş, judges
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 June 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
“... although the legislature enjoys a certain discretion in establishing the conditions and procedure for the restoration of rights of ownership, in doing so it must take account of the constitutional principle of protection of the right of ownership. This principle also presupposes that, unless it is necessary for the needs of society, land unlawfully nationalised by the occupying government must be returned to its owners in kind under the procedure and conditions established by law...
... given that Government Decree no. 649 of 25 August 1993 and Government Decree no. 294 of 19 April 1994 established that the land allocated to the LAA also included an area designated for building private dwelling houses, and that it was established that the status of the land, subject to being bought out by the State, was granted because that land was on territory allocated to the scientific and educational establishment, and given also that Government Decree no. 350 of 9 March 1995 permitted natural persons to acquire private ownership of the plots of land on the territory attributed to the educational-production base of the LAA, the right of the owners to restore their ownership rights over the said land has been denied”.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
“Property shall be inviolable. Rights of ownership
shall be protected by law.
Property may be expropriated only for the needs of society and in accordance with the procedure established by law, and shall be justly compensated.”
Article 1.80 Nullity of a transaction that does not comply with the mandatory statutory provisions
“1. Any transaction that fails to comply with the mandatory statutory provisions shall be null and void.
2. When a transaction is declared null and void, each party shall be required to restore to the other party everything he or she has received by means of that transaction (restitution). Where it is impossible to restore in kind the items received, the parties shall be required to compensate each other in money, unless the law provides for other consequences as a result of the transaction's being declared void.
Article 4.97 Payments on the return of items illegally possessed
“1. In claiming an item as stipulated by Article 4.95 of this Code, the owner shall have the right to demand: from the person who knew or should have known that his possession was illegal (possessor in bad faith), that he or she reimburse or provide compensation for all income he or she received or should have received during the entire period of possession; from an illegal possessor in good faith – all income which such possessor received or should have received since the time when he or she found out or should have found out about the possession being illegal or found out about the commencement of a civil case concerning restitution of the item concerned.
2. An illegal possessor in bad faith shall have the right in his or her turn to claim from the owner necessary expenses related to the item concerned from the time the owner receives income from it.
3. An illegal possessor in good faith shall have the right to claim from the owner compensation for all his expenses incurred in connection with the item concerned that have not been covered by income received from it.
4. An illegal possessor in good faith shall have the right to keep those parts that have been added to improve the item concerned, provided these can be removed without causing damage to it. If the parts added as improvement cannot be removed or if the item was improved in a different manner, the illegal possessor in good faith shall have the right to claim a compensation for the expenses arising from such improvement, in an amount not greater than the increase in value.”
Article 6.145 Grounds for restitution
“1. Restitution shall take place where a person is required to return to another person the property he or she has received either unlawfully or by error, or as a result of the transaction whereby the property was received by him or her being annulled ab initio, or as a result of the obligation becoming impossible to perform because of force majeure. ...”
Article 6.146 Manner of restitution
“Restitution shall be made in kind, except in cases where this is impossible or would cause serious inconvenience to the parties. In the latter case, restitution shall be effected by means of an equivalent monetary payment.”
Article 6.147 Estimation of monetary equivalent
“1. The monetary equivalent shall be estimated on the basis of the prices valid at the time when the debtor received the items he is required to restore.”
Article 6.150 Reimbursement for expenses incurred for the care of the property
“The repayment of expenses for the care and custody of the property subject to restitution which have been incurred by the person who is required to return the property shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Book IV of this Code, applicable in respect of possessors in good faith and possessors in bad faith.”
Article 6.151 Restoration of fruits and revenues
“1. The fruits and revenues accruing from the property subject to restitution shall belong to the person required to make restitution. This person shall bear all the expenses incurred in the production of those benefits and revenues. ...”
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
1. The parties' arguments
2. The Court's assessment
1. The parties' arguments
2. The Court's assessment
(a) Applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(b) Compliance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(i) Period to be taken into consideration
(ii) Applicable criteria
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
The parties' arguments
Relying on the above the Government concluded that this part of the application should be declared inadmissible and rejected under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
1. Whether there was interference
2. Whether the interference was provided for by law
3. Legitimate aim and proportionality
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
80. The Government contested these claims as unreasonable and excessive.
B. Costs and expenses
C. Default interest
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following sums, to be converted into the national currency of that State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
(ii) EUR 869 (eight hundred and sixty-nine euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, for costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 July 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Deputy Registrar President