AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 35541/97
by Aadu OLL
against Estonia
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 1 July 1998, the following members being present:
MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President
N. BRATZA
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs J. LIDDY
MM L. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs M. HION
Mr R. NICOLINI
Mrs M.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 27 May 1996 by
Aadu OLL against Estonia and registered on 3 April 1997 under file
No. 35541/97;
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 1932, residing in
Tallinn, Estonia.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
A. Particular circumstances of the case
On January 9, 1994 the applicant filed a civil suit against the
company Vipo regarding the validity of a car sale's contract. The
Tallinn City Court ("Tallinna Linnakohus")ruled in his favour by
judgment of 2 June 1995.
On appeal by the defendant, the Tallinn Court of Appeal
("Tallinna Ringkonnakohus") revoked the city court's judgment on
12 February 1996.
The applicant lodged a cassation complaint with the Supreme Court
of Estonia against the appeal court's judgment claiming that the court
had incorrectly interpreted the law.
On 17 April 1996 the Appeal Application Panel of the Supreme
Court ("Riigikohtu Loakogu")refused leave to appeal by its unmotivated
resolution.
B. Relevant domestic law
Paragraph 332 of the Code of Civil Procedure, adopted on
19 May 1993, provides in the relevant part:
[Translation]
"(2) The Appeal Application Panel grants leave to appeal, if the
appeal disputes the correctness of the application of substantive
law or if it seeks an annulment of a court decision due to a
serious violation of procedural norms which resulted or could
have resulted in an incorrect court decision.
(5) The Appeal Application Panel decides on the granting or
refusal of leave to appeal without calling the parties to the
proceedings, after an exchange of documents or before that, if
it is obvious that the appeal is ill-founded.
(6) Leave to appeal is not granted if the Appeal Application
Panel unanimously agrees that the appeal is manifestly ill-
founded in the light of the conditions set forth in section 2 ...
of the current paragraph.
(7) The Appeal Application Panel decides on the granting or
refusal of leave to appeal by its resolution, which does not have
to be motivated, within two months from the receipt of the
appeal."
[Estonian]
"(2) Loakogu annab menetlusloa, kui kaebuses vaidlustatakse
materiaalõiguse normide kohaldamise õigsust või kui nõutakse
kohtulahendi tühistamist protsessiõiguse normide olulise
rikkumise tõttu, mis tõi kaasa või võis kaasa tuua ebaõige
kohtulahendi.
(5) Menetlusloa andmise või andmisest keeldumise otsustab
loakogu, protsessiosalisi välja kutsumata, pärast dokumentide
vahetamist või ka enne seda, kui loakogule on ilma selleta selge
menetlusloa taotluse põhjendamatus.
(6) Menetlusluba ei anta, kui loakogul on üksmeelselt selge
kaebuse ilmne põhjendamatus käesoleva paragrahvi 2. ..l õikes
sätestatud aluste puudumisel.
(7) Menetlusloa andmise või andmisest keeldumise otsustab
loakogu resolutsiooniga, mida ei pea põhjendama, kahe kuu jooksul
kaebuse saamise päevast.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that
he was prevented from having his cassation complaint examined in a fair
and public hearing by a tribunal established by law. He complains that
the proceedings before the Appeal Application Panel were not fair and
public and that its decision was unmotivated. He alleges that the
Appeal Application Panel examines cases on the merits.
THE LAW
Invoking Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, the applicant
complains that he was denied access to the cassation proceedings and
that the Appeal Application Panel of the Supreme Court of Estonia did
not examine his complaint in a fair and public hearing and that its
decision was unmotivated.
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) first sentence of the Convention
provides:
"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or
of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a
fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an
independent and impartial tribunal established by law..."
The Commission recalls that the right to appeal does not feature
among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention. No
provision of the Convention requires the High Contracting Parties to
grant persons under their jurisdiction an appeal to a Supreme Court.
If a High Contracting Party makes provision for such an appeal it is
entitled to prescribe the rules by which this appeal shall be governed
and fix the conditions under which it may be brought (No. 11826/85,
Dec. 9.5.89, D.R. 61, p. 138).
According to para. 332 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Appeal
Application Panel of the Supreme Court grants leave to appeal if the
appeal disputes the correctness of the application of substantive law
or if there has been a serious procedural mistake. The Commission
considers that an examination as to whether leave to appeal shall be
granted is only an examination as to whether the conditions of
para. 332 of the Code of Civil Procedure are satisfied. It does not
amount to an examination of the merits of the appeal.
The Commission recalls that, when a Supreme Court determines, in
a preliminary examination of a case, whether or not the conditions
required for granting leave to appeal have been fulfilled, it is not
making a decision relating to "civil rights and obligations" (ibid.)
It follows that Article 6 (Art. 6) is not applicable to the proceedings
in which the Appeal Application Panel of the Supreme Court of Estonia
refused the applicant leave to appeal against the judgment of the Court
of Appeal. This complaint is thus incompatible ratione materiae with
the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 27
para. 2 (Art. 27-2).
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy