[ad_1]
The decision of the Klaipėda Regional Court suspended the ambitions to undertake construction on the territory of the Seaside Regional Park. After evaluating the case file, the panel of judges stated that there were no historical or archival documents that properties actually existed in the protected area.
For legalization – to court
In the opinion of the Klaipėda Regional Court Chamber, the court of first instance reached the unfounded conclusion that the existence of the old house had been proven.
According to the court, the house has not been proven to contain remains of old gardens, others from the 20th century. first dependents that may have existed before World War II.
This assessment of the Court of First Instance was not based on sufficient and reliable evidence and the judgment under appeal was therefore annulled.
The owner of the parcel asked the court of first instance to determine a fact of legal importance.
The woman owns more than seven hectares of land. The owner demonstrated that there was a house with outbuildings on the plot.
Pre-trial investigations have been initiated in three of these cases. No one was prosecuted during them.
The evidence is supported by the testimony of a witness who explained that there were buildings near the pond.
The fact of the farm also had to be based on 2017. November 6, a certificate of exploratory archaeological research, and a report of the establishment by the bailiff of the factual circumstances, the conclusion of the architect and the Royal Cultural Heritage Protection Specialist.
In its response to the request, the Coastal Regional Park Authority proposed that the request of the applicant be rejected and rejected as unfounded. It stated that the cartographic material did not record the fact of the presence of buildings on the applicant’s land.
Doubts about the testimony
The Directorate openly questioned the witness’s testimony, since the testimony itself had already been used in another civil case to establish the fact of an old house on an adjacent piece of land.
The witness boldly testified about events that could lead to important decisions about the times when he was only 2-3 years old.
The testimony of this neighbor was also presented in another civil case, establishing the fact of an old house on an adjoining land of the Bostora company. Furthermore, the Lithuanian Prosecutor General has questioned the reliability of the witness data in that case.
Witness testimony is also refuted by the 1944 October 27 aerial photograph of the site showing that there were no buildings or remains of buildings on the applicant’s parcel of land (in its current area).
The comb is not the final test
The court concluded that in the present case there was insufficient evidence to establish that the applicant’s parcel of land in the twentieth century. at the beginning there was a hacienda.
A farm is a legally formalized parcel of land with a residential building (house) built on top of it and its annexes (farm, home, commercial buildings and equipment).
Therefore, a hacienda, regardless of when it is built or planned to build, includes a comprehensive set of real estate located on the corresponding plot of land: a residential house, various buildings and structures, and this legally significant fact must be proven by documents historical and archival. assumptions are made.
Commenting on the case, Darius Nicius, the director of the Seaside Regional Parks Directorate, emphasized that the court had studied the merits of the case very carefully.
Darius Nicius / Editorial File Photo.
“The thieves were unlucky. We were faced with a phenomenon in which the owners used the help of some archaeologists to draw conclusions from individual finds, they drew conclusions from several individual finds on a plot of land. If we and other historians-experts had doubts about whether it was a trick or even a fraud, and in some cases it was suspected that a forgery could be committed. In three of these cases pre-trial investigations were opened. archaeologists have admitted to making a mistake, “said Nicius.
The head of the park management speculated that this case is not the last, and in the future there will probably be attempts to validate the facts of the existence of farms in a similar way.
“Archaeologists have tried and will try to corroborate the findings of the brick or clay chip that they found that there were farms here. We already have two court decisions in which the lower courts rely on such evidence. In this case, the superior court ruled otherwise. “This court decision is very important to us, because otherwise the jurisprudence would begin to form, when farms would be legalized on the basis of individual findings,” emphasized D. Nicius.
[ad_2]
