FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 48259/99
by Kaljo VALK
against Estonia
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 10 July 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrsE. Palm, President,
MrL. Ferrari Bravo,
MrGaukur Jörundsson,
MrR. Türmen,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrT. Panţîru,
MrR. Maruste, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 15 February 1999 and registered on 25 May 1999,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the applicant’s failure to reply to these observations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Kaljo Valk, is an Estonian national, born in 1915 and living in Tartu. The respondent Government are represented by Mr E. Harremoes, Special Adviser to the Mission of the Republic of Estonia to the Council of Europe, and Ms M. Hion, First Secretary of the Human Rights Division of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 11 September 1991 the applicant’s wife submitted to the Tartu County Commission for the Return and Compensation of Unlawfully Expropriated Property (Õigusvastaselt võõrandatud vara tagastamise ja kompenseerimise Tartu maakonna komisjon) an application for restitution of farm land, a house and farm buildings, which had previously belonged to her father. The land had been nationalised in 1940 and the buildings had been expropriated in 1952.
By decision of 29 July 1993 the County Commission recognised her as the lawful subject of restitution with respect to the expropriated property.
On 23 August 1993 the Haaslava District Administration (Haaslava Vallavalitsus) decided to return to the applicant’s wife two preserved farm buildings. The ownership title of one farm building was in fact transferred to her 14 September 1993. The ownership title of the other building, however, was not transferred to her.
In the meantime, on 25 May 1993 the applicant’s wife had instituted civil proceedings before the Tartu County Court (Tartu Maakohus) for the return of the expropriated property.
Following the death of his wife on 18 November 1994 the applicant, as her lawful heir, continued to pursue her civil claim.
On 6 June 1996 the County Court terminated the civil proceedings holding that it was not competent to determine disputes concerning restitution of property, since, according to the Property Reform Act, such disputes were to be settled in administrative proceedings. The applicant filed an appeal against this decision with the Tartu Court of Appeal (Tartu Ringkonnakohus).
On 11 July 1996, the Court of Appeal partially quashed the decision of the County Court and sent the case back to this court for a re-examination. It upheld the decision to terminate the civil proceedings insofar as the applicant’s restitution claim concerned the house.
On 12 January 1998 the applicant requested the County Court to order an expert evaluation concerning the condition of the house and the farm buildings. On 25 February 1998 the court rejected his request, holding that this was not relevant for the determination of the issues before it. By judgment of 13 April 1998 the Tartu County Court dismissed the applicant’s civil action.
On 20 April 1998 the Haaslava District Administration changed its decision adopted on 23 August 1993, omitting from it the return of the other farm building. It held that the question of its return would be decided upon a further examination of all the relevant circumstances.
On 26 October 1998, with one correction, the Tartu Court of Appeal upheld the County Court’s judgment of 13 April 1998.
On 13 January 1999 the Supreme Court (Riigikohus) refused to grant the applicant leave to appeal.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the civil proceedings concerning his property claim lasted too long.
2. He also complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the length of the administrative proceedings concerning restitution of property.
3. The applicant complains that the courts refused his requests for expert evaluations, which would have allowed him to prove the preservation of the buildings in their original condition.
4. He complains under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the failure of the authorities to restitute to him the expropriated property.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Court notes that the Government’s observations were submitted on 10 January 2001 and that, on 22 January 2001, these observations were communicated to the applicant, who was invited to submit his comments in reply by 7 March 2001.
The Court further notes that the applicant has not replied to this invitation nor to further letters sent to him by the Court on 31 January 2001 and 19 March 2001 and a last letter sent on 2 May 2001 by registered mail warning him that in the circumstances the Court may strike his application out of its list of cases.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes from the above that the applicant does not wish to pursue his application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Michael O’BoyleElisabeth Palm
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy