FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF NOREIKIENĖ AND NOREIKA v. LITHUANIA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction striking out) STRASBOURG

Similar documents
FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF ROMANESCU v. ROMANIA. (Application no /11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 16 May 2017

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF STEMPLYS AND DEBESYS v. LITHUANIA. (Applications nos /13 and 71974/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG.

FIRST SECTION. CASE OF KAREN POGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG.

SECOND SECTION. CASE OF KÖSE v. TURKEY. (Application no /02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 December 2010 FINAL 07/03/2011

SECOND SECTION. CASE OF NEKVEDAVIČIUS v. LITHUANIA. (Application no. 1471/05) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG.

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF DICKMANN AND GION v. ROMANIA. (Applications nos /03 and 10893/04) JUDGMENT (Revision 1 ) STRASBOURG.

FORMER FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF ŠUMBERA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC. (Application no /09)

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND SECTION. CASE OF VAJNAI v. HUNGARY. (Application no. 6061/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 23 September 2014

THIRD SECTION. CASE OF GHARIBYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA. (Application no /05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 13 November 2014 FINAL 13/02/2015

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF VASSALLO v. MALTA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT. (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG. 6 November 2012 FINAL 06/02/2013

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF DORIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA. (Application no /13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 November 2017

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF BARTKUS AND KULIKAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA. (Application no /13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 9 January 2018

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF MANOLE AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA. (Application no /02)

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF RANGELOV AND STEFANOV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /04)

FIRST SECTION. CASE OF CUNHA MARTINS DA SILVA COUTO v. PORTUGAL. (Application no /12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 30 April 2015

THIRD SECTION DECISION

SECOND SECTION. CASE OF FOKAS v. TURKEY. (Application no /02) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG. 1 October 2013 FINAL 01/01/2014

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF MATEUS PEREIRA DA SILVA v. PORTUGAL. (Application no /13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 25 July 2017

THIRD SECTION. CASE OF MAGHERINI v. ITALY. (Application no /01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 1 June 2006

FOURTH SECTION DECISION

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF GOŁAWSKI AND PISAREK v. POLAND. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 27 May 2014

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF ROONEY v. IRELAND. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 31 October 2013

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF STEFANOV & YURUKOV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /04)

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION. CASE OF PAPOYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no. 7205/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 11 January 2018

THIRD SECTION. CASE OF BALAN AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA. (Applications nos /11 and 46098/12) JUDGMENT (Revision) STRASBOURG.

SECOND SECTION. CASE OF EŞİM v. TURKEY. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 17 September 2013 FINAL 17/12/2013

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF T.H. v. IRELAND. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 8 December 2011

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF POTOMSKA AND POTOMSKI v. POLAND. (Application no /05) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG. 4 November 2014 FINAL

SECOND SECTION. CASE OF ÖNER AND TÜRK v. TURKEY. (Application no /12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 31 March 2015 FINAL 30/06/2015

SECOND SECTION. CASE OF MAIORANO AND SERAFINI v. ITALY. (Application no. 997/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 25 November 2014

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF BRITANIŠKINA v. LITHUANIA. (Application no /14) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 9 January 2018

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF CHINNICI v. ITALY (No. 2) (Application no /03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 14 April 2015

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF ŠIDLAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 11 July 2017

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF YONKOV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 2 September 2010

THIRD SECTION. CASE OF BOTEZATU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 14 April 2015 FINAL 14/07/2015

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION. CASE OF LUCHKINA v. RUSSIA. (Application no.

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION. CASE OF OOO RUSATOMMET v. RUSSIA. (Application no.

THIRD SECTION. CASE OF POTCOAVĂ v. ROMANIA. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 17 December 2013

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF JAKUPOVIC v. AUSTRIA. (Application no /97) JUDGMENT

THIRD SECTION. CASE OF G.B. AND R.B. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 18 December 2012 FINAL 18/03/2013

FIRST SECTION. CASE OF SIMONYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 April 2016

THIRD SECTION. CASE OF ION TUDOR v. ROMANIA. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 17 December 2013 FINAL 17/03/2014

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF NALBANTOVA v. BULGARIA. (Application no.

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF ROSEN PETKOV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 2 September 2010

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF SUOMINEN v. FINLAND. (Application no /97) JUDGMENT

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF PENEV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /04)

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF KARAOĞLAN v. TURKEY. (Application no /00) JUDGMENT

SECOND SECTION. CASE OF HORVÁTH AND VAJNAI v. HUNGARY. (Application nos /11 and 55798/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG.

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION. CASE OF KASTELIC v. CROATIA. (Application no /00) JUDGMENT

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF DRUŽSTEVNÍ ZÁLOŽNA PRIA AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC. (Application no /01) FINAL 28/06/2010

SECOND SECTION. CASE OF SORGUÇ v. TURKEY. (Application no /03) JUDGMENT

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF GEORGIEVA AND MUKAREVA v. BULGARIA. (Application no. 3413/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 2 September 2010

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF YANKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA. (Application no. 4570/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 23 September 2010

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF GISZCZAK v. POLAND. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 29 November 2011 FINAL 29/02/2012

SECOND SECTION. CASE OF TURGAY AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (no. 3) (Applications nos /08, 23173/08, 23182/08 and 23200/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF DIMITROVA v. BULGARIA. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 10 February 2015

SECOND SECTION. CASE OF VUČINIĆ v. MONTENEGRO. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 5 September 2017

THIRD SECTION. CASE OF IBROGIMOV v. RUSSIA. (Application no /12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 15 May 2018

THIRD SECTION. CASE OF NOSENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA. (Application no. 6116/10 and 5 others - see appended list) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG.

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION. CASE OF BERTUZZI v. FRANCE. (Application no /97) JUDGMENT

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF PUHK v. ESTONIA. (Application no /00) JUDGMENT

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF CUŠKO v. LATVIA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 December 2017

FOURTH SECTION. (Application no /95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 12 November 2002 FI AL 12/02/2003

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF PŁOSKI v. POLAND. (Application no /95) JUDGMENT

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF PEČENKO v. SLOVENIA. (Application no. 6387/10) JUDGMENT

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF ALEKSANDR NIKONENKO v. UKRAINE. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 14 November 2013 FINAL 14/02/2014

FIRST SECTION. CASE OF SERGEY SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA. (Application no /04)

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF BASARBA OOD v. BULGARIA. (Application no /01) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG. 7 January 2010

- unofficial translation -

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF KĄCKI v. POLAND. (Application no /11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 4 July 2017

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF GARZIČIĆ v. MONTENEGRO. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 21 September 2010 FINAL 21/12/2010

SECOND SECTION DECISION

THIRD SECTION. CASE OF JOVIČIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF NIELSEN v. DENMARK. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 2 July 2009 FINAL 02/10/2009

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF BIRŽIETIS v. LITHUANIA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 14 June 2016

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF OKPISZ v. GERMANY. (Application no /00) JUDGMENT

FIRST SECTION. CASE OF ZAVORIN v. RUSSIA. (Application no /11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 15 January 2015

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF SUPERWOOD HOLDINGS PLC AND OTHERS v. IRELAND. (Application no. 7812/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG.

FIRST SECTION. CASE OF GORESKI AND OTHERS v. THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA. (Application no /04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG

THIRD SECTION. CASE OF PAUL AND BORODIN v. RUSSIA. (Application no /14) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 13 November 2018

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION. CASE OF TÁRSASÁG A SZABADSÁGJOGOKÉRT v.

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF NEDYALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA. (Application no /05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 2 June 2015 FINAL 02/09/2015

THIRD SECTION. CASE OF HANU v. ROMANIA. (Application no /04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 4 June 2013

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF HARTMAN v. SLOVENIA. (Application no /05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 18 October 2012 FINAL 18/01/2013

THIRD SECTION DECISION

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

THIRD SECTION. CASE OF U.N. v. RUSSIA. (Application no /15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 26 July 2016

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF BAURAS v. LITHUANIA. (Application no /13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 31 October 2017


COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND SECTION DECISION

Transcription:

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF NOREIKIENĖ AND NOREIKA v. LITHUANIA (Application no. 17285/08) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction striking out) STRASBOURG 4 October 2016 This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.

NOREIKIENĖ AND NOREIKA v. LITHUANIA 1 In the case of Noreikienė and Noreika v. Lithuania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: András Sajó, President, Vincent A. De Gaetano, Nona Tsotsoria, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Egidijus Kūris, Iulia Motoc, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 13 September 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 17285/08) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ( the Convention ) by two Lithuanian nationals, Ms Daina Noreikienė and Mr Algirdas Noreika ( the applicants ), on 31 March 2008. 2. In a judgment delivered on 24 November 2015 ( the principal judgment ), the Court held that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention with respect to the extinguishment of the applicants title to a plot of land by a decision of the domestic court and a lack of adequate compensation (Noreikienė and Noreika v. Lithuania, no. 17285/08, 31-40, 24 November 2015). 3. Under Article 41 of the Convention the applicants sought just satisfaction of 86,600 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 28,960 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Relying on an expert s report of August 2012, they submitted that the amount for pecuniary damage corresponded to the market value of the plot of land at the time of deprivation. The applicants did not make any claims regarding costs and expenses. 4. Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicants to submit, within six months, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (ibid., 50-51, and point 3 of the operative provisions). 5. By a letter of 24 August 2016 the Government submitted to the Court the following joint declaration signed by the applicants representative and

2 NOREIKIENĖ AND NOREIKA v. LITHUANIA the Agent of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania on 23 August 2016: 1. The Government of the Republic of Lithuania, hereby expressing respect for human rights, and the applicants D. Noreikienė and A. Noreika conclude a friendly settlement in the case Noreikienė and Noreika v. Lithuania (no. 17285/08). 2. The Government of the Republic of Lithuania undertake to pay the applicants D. Noreikienė and A. Noreika ex gratia EUR 86,596.39 (eighty-six thousand five hundred ninety-six euros and thirty-nine cents) to cover pecuniary damage, EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros) to cover non-pecuniary damage and EUR 700 (seven hundred euros) for reimbursement of legal costs and expenses. The said sum will be free of any taxes and will be payable within three months from the date of the notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until the settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. 3. The applicants D. Noreikienė and A. Noreika and the Government of the Republic of Lithuania declare that the conclusion of this Declaration constitutes a final resolution of the case Noreikienė and Noreika v. Lithuania (no. 17285/08) before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicants D. Noreikienė and A. Noreika declare that they waive any further claims or complaints against Lithuania in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. THE LAW 6. Following its principal judgment, the Court has been informed that a friendly settlement has been reached between the Government and the applicants with respect to the applicants claims under Article 41 of the Convention. Although the text of the friendly settlement agreement indicates that the Government has made its undertaking ex gratia, the Court notes that that agreement is subsequent to the principal judgment in which a violation of the applicants rights was found. 7. The Court finds the agreement equitable within the meaning of Rule 75 4 of the Rules of Court and considers that it is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols (Article 37 1 of the Convention and Rule 62 3 of the Rules of Court). Consequently, the Court takes formal note of the friendly settlement and considers it appropriate to strike the remainder of the case out of its list of cases. 8. In accordance with Rule 43 3 of the Rules of Court, the present judgment will be forwarded to the Committee of Ministers in order to allow the latter to supervise, in accordance with Article 46 2 of the Convention, the execution of the Government s undertakings.

NOREIKIENĖ AND NOREIKA v. LITHUANIA 3 FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases. Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 October 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Marialena Tsirli Registrar András Sajó President