Document Nr.7
No. (2-240) 22-998-07 of 16 04 2007
To: Zenonas Jurgelevičius
Jaunimo st. 28, Ringaudai,
In Kaunas County Public Prosecutor‘s Office your request regarding the restoration of ownership rights to the land of former land owner Vincas Eišrotas situated in Ringaudai village, Ringaudai rural district, Kaunas District has been heard. You have required the following: 1. To stop land seizure in Kaunas District Ringaudai village. 2. To inspect the evidence presented in this request, opinion (Civil case No. 2-0748-358/2006), appeal and cassation appeal and under their confirmation to call to account the persons consciously violating the law. 3. To establish the amount of damage brought to the legitimate land owners and initiate its compensation. Besides you indicate that on 25 02 2000 RL Prime Minister sent a request to Kaunas District Public Prosecutor S.Brinevičius re defense of interests of J.Stašaitis and E.Jurgelevičienė, however, the Public Prosecutor did not react to this request.
It has been established that in 1926 Ministry of Agriculture by land transference deed transferred to Vincas Eišrotas a landlot of 9.0304. The applicant‘s mother Elzbieta Jurgelevičienė (daughter of Vincas Eišrotas) on 14 10 1991 presented a request regarding the restoration of ownership rights to the land owned by her father Vincas Eišrotas. E. Jurgelevičienė indicated that she claims 4.5 ha of land. On 21 12 1991 Genovaitė Bublienė presented a request to restore ownership rights to part of the land possessed by Vincas Eišrotas according to the ownership right – 3.01 ha. By Kaunas District Court Decision of 06 09 1995 which has come into force in civil case No. 2-910/95 a legally relevant fact has been established that Andrius Miknevičius till 1940 according to the rights of private ownership in Kaunas District Noreikiškės Rural District Ringaudai village possessed 4.515 ha of land. As disagreements between claimant G.Bublienė and E. Jurgelevičienė appeared (as G.Bublienė indicates that she has the right to restoration of ownership rights to part of the land to which E.Jurgelevičienė claims her rights) on 19 09 2001 Kaunas District Commission regarding the documents proving the fact of land possession through ownership rights acknowledged that the present documents are not sufficient for the restoration of ownership rights, due to which it was offered to E.Jurgelevičienė and G.Bublienė to address the court regarding the legally relevant fact. On 13 05 2003 Governor Administration of Kaunas County order No. V-213 did not satisfy Elzbieta Jurgelevičienė’s request regarding the restoration of ownership rights to 4.5 ha of land located in Ringaudai village Kaunas Distr. in kind. The claimants did not address the court regarding the establishment of a legally relevant fact, did not present the lacking documents proving ties of relationship, so by 09 09 2005 Governor Administration of Kaunas County order No. 02-05-8830 ownership rights to Elzbieta Jurgelevičienė were not restored, order No. 02-05-8829 ownership rights to Genovaitė Bublienė were not restored. The latter claimant addressed with a claim Kaunas District Court asking to cancel Governor Administration of Kaunas County 09 09 2005 order No. 02-05-8829 by which it was decided not to restore the ownership rights to the land situated in Ringaudai Rur. Distr., Kaunas District, to renew the time-limit to present to the Governor Administration of Kaunas County the request regarding the restoration of ownership rights of landlot possessed by Motiejus Eišrotas of 2.44 ha situated in Ringaudai village, Kaunas District, to establish legally relevant fact that G.Bublienė‘s father Motiejus Eišrotas until nationalization according to ownership right possessed a landlot of 2.44 ha situated in Ringaudai village, Kaunas District. By 12 09 2006 Kaunas District Court decision in Civil case No. 2-0748-358/2006 the claim ought to be satisfied completely. Kaunas Circuit Court by decision of 07 12 2006 denied the appeal of the third person Elzbieta Jurgelevičienė and left non-revised Kaunas District Court decision of 12 09 2006. Lithuanian Supreme Court Division Judicial Selection College by decision of 05 03 2007 refused to accept the appeal in cassation of person Elzbieta Jurgelevičienė indicating that in E.Jurgelevičienė‘s appeal in cassation exhaustive arguments denying the decision of the first instance court and decision of the College of appeal court legality and legitimacy have not been indicated, part of appeal in cassation legal arguments are obviously false.
After evaluation of all the circumstances conclusion should be made that the process of restoration of ownership right to the landlot possessed by Vincas Eišrotas situated in Ringaudai village, Kaunas District is going on in the manner and on the basis established by laws. Governor Administration of Kaunas County employees have several times in writing explained to E.Jurgelevičienė the procedure of appealing against Governor Administration of Kaunas County orders, they also recommended to address the court regarding the establishment of a legally relevant fact in the order required in the civil processes (thus their right was made use of by other two claimants to the part of landlot possessed by V.Eišrotas). However, E. Jurgelevičienė still has not made use of these rights due to what the restoration of ownership to the real estate (part of the landlot possessed by V.Eišrotas) at present is not possible.
The arguments indicated in Z.Jurgelevičienė counter-claim (Civil case No. 2-0748-358/2006), appeal and appeal in cassation have been evaluated by court decisions, decisions in the instance procedure which have come into effect, so there is no juridical basis to establish and evaluate the circumstances discussed by the courts.
The applicant requests to establish the amount of the damage done to the legitimate land owners and initiate its coverage. As E. Jurgelevičienė so far has not presented sufficient data proving her right to the property and does not take any measures (established in civil procedure) to prove her right to the restoration of property, restoration of delayed time-limit, there is no basis to state that damage has been brought to her as legitimate land owner. Attention should be drawn to the fact that the law does not give the opportunity to public prosecutors to defend the interests of private people (excluding the cases indicated by the laws) and as for damage covering according to RL CC Art. 6.271 Art. 6.272 the person is entitled to address the court in the order of civil procedure himself.
The applicant indicates that on 25 02 2000 RL Prime Minister sent a request to Kaunas District Public Prosecutor S.Brinevičius regarding defending the interests of J.Stašaitis and E.Jurgelevičienė, however, the Public Prosecutor did not react to this request. We inform that Kaunas District Head Public Prosecutor S.Brinevičius on 30 03 2000 by letter No. 56/23/2000 replied to letter of
You are entitled to appeal against the reply following Person Request and Appeal Considering Procedure provisions confirmed by RL Attorney General order No. 1-56 of 09 04 2004 and RL Office of a Public Prosecutor Law to higher Public Prosecutor.
Public Prosecutor of Civil Cases Department (signature) Arūnė Alimaitė
Tel. 409623
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą