Information Note on the Court’s case-law 19
June 2000
Shestjorkin v. Estonia (dec.) - 49450/99
Decision 15.6.2000 [Section I]
Article 57
Reservations
Requirements for valid reservation
The applicant made numerous unsuccessful attempts to have returned to him nationalised property which had previously belonged to his father.
Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: At the time of ratification, Estonia made a reservation excluding from the scope of this provision a series of named property laws then in force and relating to a specific area of law. Moreover, the reservation is not couched in terms that are too vague or broad for it to be possible to determine their exact meaning and it is therefore not “of a general character”. Finally, the requirement that a reservation contain a brief statement of the law is satisfied, the laws having been attached to the text of the reservation. However, the reservation does not cover any later amendments to the laws and it concerns only substantive and not procedural questions: 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