Owners of multi-apartment buildings exercising their right of shared ownership and having a legitimate need to use a parking space in the yard, even if it belongs to another owner, can claim the use of the parking space and the compensation to be paid. This was stated by the Supreme Court of Lithuania in a ruling issued on 6 May 2025.
Often, when developers are developing apartment or townhouse projects on their own land, there are cases where the spaces used to serve the main facilities, such as parking lots or access roads, are not allocated proportionally to the residents when the apartments or houses are sold. According to Eimantas Čepas, an attorney at law at AVOCAD, this decision of the Court of Cassation is an important signal for both residents and property developers. "This case becomes a precedent for a clearer definition of the legitimate grounds for the use of infrastructure belonging to another entity, especially when it comes to long-term use and public interest," the lawyer notes.
Who has the right to use the yard?
The circumstances of the case before the Supreme Court revealed that the parking lot adjacent to the apartment building is owned by a private legal entity, UAB, but has been used for many years by the residents of the apartment building, as the detailed planning documents, in implementing the requirement to provide a certain number of parking spaces, envisaged that it would serve the main building, an apartment building. The UAB claimed that the residents had illegally occupied their territory and demanded that they stop using it.
However, the Supreme Court noted that in such situations it is important to assess the reasons for the residents' use of the parking lot, whether it is necessary for the proper operation of the apartment building, and whether there is a legal basis for declaring the parking lot to be an appurtenance of the apartment building.
Proportionality and fairness are key
The Court clarified that the mere fact that a parking lot is not a common facility does not automatically mean that the residents are not entitled to its use.
"The use by residents of a parking lot belonging to another legal person may be justified on the basis of the principles of justice, reasonableness and fairness, where such use is necessary for the functioning of the apartment building and the owner is compensated for the damage," the ruling states on .
The Court stressed that it is necessary to assess all the circumstances - whether the site is actually needed for the residents' needs, whether the residents were willing to agree on the compensation, and whether the compensation is reasonable.
According to lawyer Eimantas Čeps, in situations where the owner of the land or building agrees to the use and the parties agree on reasonable compensation, the use arrangement is considered legal and reasonable.
In his view, this ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania may have significant consequences for the residents of cities throughout Lithuania, especially in densely urbanised areas where infrastructure development, ownership and actual use of land or buildings often intersect. Despite the fact that the land or structures serving the main buildings sometimes remain outside the common ownership of the residents after the real estate projects are realised, the actual use or purpose of such land or structures may provide a legal basis for declaring them to be subordinate and for deciding their legal status and fate accordingly.
"The Supreme Court of Lithuania recognises in this decision the legal significance of such a factual practice if it complies with the principles of reasonableness, fairness and proportionality, and promotes constructive solutions between communities and owners of private land or buildings," says the lawyer.
This decision sends a clear message: urban infrastructure and land use must be addressed through dialogue, consensus and fair compensation. Residents, developers and municipalities alike are encouraged to strike a balance between property rights and the public interest, and the Supreme Court's jurisprudence provides a valuable basis for finding lasting solutions in an urbanised environment.
"The principle of justice should not be limited to cadastral maps, but should also reflect the reality of people's lives," notes AVOCAD's lawyer.