FIRST SECTION
Application no. 67648/10
Christian Peter PUUSEP
against Estonia
lodged on 7 November 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Christian Peter Puusep, is an Estonian and Australian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Mentone, Australia.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Administrative court proceedings
In 1991, Y., the applicant’s father, claimed restitution of his family’s property, an apartment building in Tallinn, which had been unlawfully expropriated in the 1940s. His property restitution claim filed in the context of the property reform gave rise to a number of administrative and court proceedings.
By a judgment of 28 December 2006 the Tallinn Administrative Court upheld Y.’s complaint against the Tallinn City Commission for the Return and Compensation of Unlawfully Expropriated Property (Õigusvastaselt võõrandatud vara tagastamise ja kompenseerimise Tallinna linnakomisjon).
On 9 March 2007 Y. died and the applicant pursued the proceedings as his successor.
On 19 December 2008 the Tallinn Court of Appeal, on the Commission’s appeal, quashed the Administrative Court’s judgment. It annulled a decision of the Commission challenged by Y. and ordered the Commission to resolve Y.’s property claim. On 19 February 2009 the Supreme Court declined to examine the Commission’s appeal and the Court of Appeal’s judgment became final.
According to the applicant the Commission failed to comply with the Court of Appeal’s order and to resolve the property claim in question in spite of his several requests to that effect. On 3 June 2009 the applicant requested the Tallinn Administrative Court to impose a fine on the Committee for its failure to comply with the judgment of 19 December 2008.
On 9 March 2010 the Tallinn Administrative Court fined the Committee 100,000 kroons (EEK) (approximately 6,391 euros (EUR)) for its failure to resolve the matter. It noted that the Committee had taken certain measures in order to gather information required to reach a decision but found that the delay had been unjustified.
On 19 May 2010 the Tallinn Court of Appeal dismissed the Commission’s appeal.
On 12 August 2010 the Supreme Court declined to examine the Commission’s appeal.
2. Civil court proceedings
Parallel to the above administrative court proceedings, the parties were involved in civil litigation. Following the annulment of certain administrative decisions as a result of which Y. had acquired title to the property in question, the City of Tallinn brought an action against Y., later succeeded by the applicant. They claimed title to the property.
On 14 June 2004 the Harju County Court found for the City of Tallinn and recognised their title. Y. appealed.
On 7 March 2007 the Tallinn Court of Appeal suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the above administrative court proceedings. On 25 June 2009 the examination of the case was resumed.
On 10 November 2009 the Tallinn Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the County Court’s judgment. It took note of the applicant’s argument that the question of the return of the property had not been finally resolved in the context of the property reform and that the administrative courts had ordered the City of Tallinn to re-examine the matter. Nevertheless, the court found that it was not within its jurisdiction to resolve administrative matters and that it was still for the City of Tallinn to decide in administrative proceedings whether the property was to be returned to the applicant.
B. Relevant domestic law
Article 98 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (Halduskohtumenetluse seadustik), as in force at the material time, provided that a court could give a time-limit for the enforcement of its judgment (paragraph 1). For a failure to enforce the operative part of its judgment, a court could fine a party up to EEK 100,000 (EUR 6,391). A fine imposed on a party did not absolve it from the obligation to enforce the judgment or deprive an interested party of a right to request a court to impose a new fine on the non-compliant party (paragraph 3).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Tallinn Court of Appeal’s judgment of 19 December 2008 has not been executed.
He also complains that as a result of the municipal authorities’ failure to comply with the Tallinn Court of Appeal’s judgment he did not receive a fair trial in the civil proceedings that had been adjourned pending the outcome of the administrative court proceedings.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the Tallinn Court of Appeal’s judgment of 19 December 2008 been fully and timeously enforced?
2. If the judgment has not been fully and timeously enforced, is this fact compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy