[ad_1]
The Strasbourg court determined that the construction had been carried out in accordance with the permits and planning documents issued, so that the owner should not bear the burden of error from the authorities.
“The court considers that the authorities were responsible for verifying that the construction was carried out in accordance with the law,” ruled the panel of three judges.
The dispute arose over the constructions carried out in the Kaunas district, Netoniai village on the Nemunas hillside, which were carried out after obtaining the necessary permits, but later the Lithuanian courts were declared partially illegal.
Judicial marathon
The plaintiff, Tadas Puišys, claims that in 2004 he received planning documents and a permit to build a house on his land, but in 2010 the prosecution appealed to the courts claiming that the house had been built in violation of the planning documents.
In a final decision in 2018, the courts upheld the prosecutor’s claim, holding that the authorities’ decisions were illegal, ordering the applicant to change the house to comply with planning documents, and finding that the applicant had illegally erected a fence and a road near your land. Destroy them.
The man demonstrated that such court decisions unfairly restricted his property rights. It claims that the construction was carried out in accordance with all permits and planning documents issued by the relevant authorities and that it should not bear the burden of error on the part of the authorities.
The Lithuanian Government stated in the case that the house had been built in breach of the detailed plan of the plot from the beginning, but the Strasbourg judges emphasized that there was no indication that the authorities had informed the plaintiff of possible legal actions during the entire period. construction period from December 2004 to February 2008. infractions.
Furthermore, neither in the internal proceedings nor in the proceedings before the Court has it been alleged that the plaintiff, having obtained the corresponding permits, acted illegally or in any other way contributed to the decisions that were later annulled for illegality. The Court is therefore satisfied that the plaintiff had no reason to doubt that all the relevant requirements had been met during the construction of his house and that he was entitled to rely on the expectation that the authorities’ decisions would not be subsequently revoked to their detriment.
Local courts criticized
The Strasbourg court also criticized the Lithuanian courts’ finding that the house had been built in violation of the detailed plot plan, as its columns did not meet the required minimum distance from adjacent plots and protruded on a planned public road. .
According to the European Court of Human Rights, the Lithuanian courts had not sufficiently examined one of the main arguments put forward by the applicant, namely that the prosecutor’s claim was based on incorrect ground coordinates.
“Therefore, given the importance of the matter to the case and the existence of clearly contradictory evidence, the Court considers that it is particularly important that the national courts carefully examine the plaintiff’s arguments and dispel any doubts about the accuracy of the data in the which were based, “concluded the Strasbourg court.
The European Court of Human Rights also noted that the plaintiff had a long-standing uncertainty about the legality of his home.
“The prosecution’s claim was filed in January 2010 and the final judicial decision was made only in May 2018: that is, the trial lasted more than eight years and the final decision was made more than ten years after the house was declared fit for use. . “It is not convincing that the national authorities acted swiftly and with due diligence,” the Strasbourg judges said.
According to the Strasbourg judges, “the requirement that the plaintiff tear down the columns on his own, without apportioning the costs among the institutions that contributed to the situation” is an excessive burden.
The court awarded T. Puišis a thousand euros for non-pecuniary damage, 8.5 thousand. costs. The Strasbourg court stated that it was not empowered to compel the Lithuanian authorities to declare the house fit for use, but stressed that the local authorities had to find the best way to correct their errors in accordance with the court decision.
[ad_2]
