AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 41456/98
by Sire ELIAS
against Estonia
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 21 October 1998, the following members being present:
MMM.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President
N. BRATZA
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
MrsJ. LIDDY
MML. LOUCAIDES
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIČ
M. VILA AMIGÓ
MrsM. HION
MrR. NICOLINI
MrsM.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 4 March 1998 by Sirje ELIAS against Estonia and registered on 3 June 1998 under file No. 41456/98;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Estonian citizen, born in 1949 and resident in Erika, Tartu county. She is represented by Mr. Enn Seppel, an engineer residing in Tallinn.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 26 September 1991 the applicant lodged an application with the Pärnu City Commission for the Return and Compensation of Unlawfully Expropriated Property ("Õigusvastaselt Võõrandatud Vara Tagastamise ja Kompenseerimise Pärnu Linna Komisjon") with a request to recognise her as the subject of restitution with respect to a nationalised property.
The previous owner of the property had made a will on 3 July 1943 in which he bequeathed this property to his foster son - the applicant's father -, expressly leaving out his daughter who had already received her share by way of dowry. Following the owner's death in 1957, the applicant's father had no possibility to claim the inherited private property under the laws existing at that time. The applicant's father died in 1987.
By decision of 9 October 1996 the City Commission rejected the applicant's request and recognised instead the son of the previous owner's daughter as the person entitled to the property. The Commission based its decision on the Principles of Property Reform Act of 1991 providing that in the case where the successor of a previous owner has died, the right to claim his or her share of the property does not transfer to his or her successors except if the successors are, inter alia, the grandchildren of the previous owner (Paragraph 8, sections 3(2) and 5).
The applicant submitted a complaint to the Pärnu City Government ("Pärnu Linnavalitsus") which rejected it by the same motivation by decision of 8 November 1996.
The applicant turned to the administrative judge of the Pärnu City Court ("Pärnu Linnakohus") with a request to declare the decision of the City Government unlawful. By judgment of 13 February 1997 the judge dismissed the applicant's complaint which was confirmed by the Tallinn Court of Appeal ("Tallinna Ringkonnakohus") on 26 May 1997. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused on 3 September 1997.
In all her appeals to the courts the applicant submitted that the relevant provisions of the Principles of Property Reform Act were in conflict with the constitutional safeguards regarding the right of inheritance. The courts in first and second instance dismissed these submissions as ill-founded.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains about a violation of her rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention. In particular, she complains that, by rejecting her claim to the property which was bequeathed to her father by will, the authorities have wrongfully restricted her rights of inheritance guaranteed by the Estonian Constitution.
THE LAW
The applicant complains about the refusal of the authorities to recognise her claim of inheritance with respect to the nationalised property. She invokes Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention which provides:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."
The Commission notes that the applicant's complaint concerns the restitution of nationalised property and that her claim of inheritance has been considered by the domestic authorities under the Principles of Property Reform Act. In this respect, the Commission recalls Estonia's reservation with regard to the cited provisions contained in the instrument of ratification, deposited on 16 April 1996. The reservation reads in the relevant part as follows:
"In accordance with Article 64 of the Convention, the Republic of Estonia declares that the provisions of Article 1 of the First Protocol shall not apply to the laws on property reform which regulate the restoration or compensation of property nationalised, confiscated, requisitioned, collectivised or otherwise unlawfully expropriated during the period of Soviet annexation... The reservation concerns the principles of the Property Reform Act...and [its] wording being in force at the moment the Ratification Act entered into force."
The Commission observes that the reservation includes references to specific acts, it is sufficiently precise and is accompanied by a brief summary of the relevant laws. The reservation thus satisfies the conditions for its validity under Article 64 of the Convention.
The Commission considers that the Estonian reservation covers the applicant's complaint regarding the restitution of property. It follows that the complaint must be rejected under Article 27 para. 2 as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
SecretaryPresident
to the First Chamberof the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy