Information Note on the Court’s case-law 35
October 2001
Kozlova and Smirnova v. Latvia (dec.) - 57381/00
Decision 23.10.2001 [Section II]
Article 57
Reservations
Latvian reservation precluding the application of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to national laws on restitution of real property: reservation valid
In 1931 the Latvian State sold a certain O.A.R. a plot of land with a house. When he died, the property passed to his daughter, who went into exile in 1944. In 1948 the applicants’ father and another person were granted the right to use the land. They subsequently bought the house. In 1968 the municipality’s executive council divided the house into two parts, which were registered as two separate dwellings. Ownership of one of the two dwellings was granted to the heirs of the applicants’ father, who had died that year. In 1969 the applicants inherited equal portions of their father’s estate. After Latvia had gained its independence, the Supreme Council passed a law in 1991 on the return of real estate to its legitimate owners. O.A.R.’s grandson, A.R., consequently regained property rights over the land that had formerly belonged to O.A.R. Since the decision to restore his property rights did not cover the buildings erected on the land, A.R. applied to the Riga Regional Court in April 1998 to set aside all the previous decisions concerning the house and to acknowledge him as the rightful owner. The Regional Court found in his favour; however, on an appeal by the applicants, the Civil Division of the Supreme Court dismissed his application. Following an appeal on points of law by A.R., the Senate of the Supreme Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the Civil Division of the Supreme Court, which allowed A.R.’s application. An appeal on points of law by the applicants was dismissed.
Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: the reservation entered by the Latvian Government in their instrument of ratification stated that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 did not apply to, inter alia, the Law on the Return of Real Estate to its Legitimate Owners. Since the Latvian courts’ application of that law was contested by the applicants, it was necessary to examine whether the reservation complied with Article 57 of the Convention. The wording of Latvia’s reservation did not attain the degree of generality prohibited by Article 57 § 1 of the Convention: the reservation covered a strictly limited number of laws which, when considered together, formed a coherent system of legal provisions, and both the aims and the substance of the laws in question reflected the Government’s concerns as expressed in the introduction to the reservation. Lastly, as the Commission had already found, a reservation entered under Article 57 of the Convention could apply to more than one piece of legislation. The reservation also satisfied the requirement of Article 57 § 2: the title of each law cited in the reservation was followed by a reference to the Official Gazette, so that anyone could identify precisely which laws were concerned and obtain information on them, and the annex to the reservation briefly outlined the main aim and scope of each of the laws. Furthermore, Latvia’s reservation was worded in similar terms to the reservation which Estonia had entered in respect of the same Article of the Convention and which had been declared valid by the Commission and the new Court. Consequently, the reservation complied with Article 57 of the Convention. Since the Latvian courts had based their decisions on the relevant provisions of the Law on the Return of Real Estate, the reservation was applicable in the instant case: incompatible ratione materiae.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy