AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 34476/97
by Edvin VESTERBY
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 16 October 1996
by Edvin VESTERBY against Estonia and registered on 14 January 1997
under file No. 34476/97;
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 a dual citizen of Estonia and Sweden born in
1927. He resides in Vällingby, Sweden.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, can be
summarised as follows.
By decision of the Lääne County Commission for the Return and
Compensation of Unlawfully Expropriated Property ("Õigusvastaselt
Võõrandatud Vara Tagastamise ja Kompenseerimise Lääne
Maakonnakomisjon") of 31 March 1995 the applicant and his two brothers
were recognised as the lawful subjects of restitution in respect of
their family's property which was nationalised in 1940. The property
consisted of a plot of land of 47,99 ha and several buildings,
including a house.
Pursuant to the decision of the county commission, the Noarootsi
District Administration ("Noarootsi Vallavalitsus") ordered by decree
No. 171 of 17 April 1995 the return of the property to the applicant
and his brothers.
On 10 May 1995 the resident of the house which was to be returned
submitted a complaint to the single administrative judge of the Lääne
County Court ("Lääne Maakohus") requesting that the decree No. 171
should be declared illegal and claiming that she was the rightful owner
of the house and the surrounding buildings. By judgment of
24 October 1995 the court declared the decree of the district
administration illegal and sent the case back to the administration for
a new decision. The court based its judgment on the Republic of Estonia
Principles of Property Reform Act which provides that unlawfully
expropriated property is not subject to return if the property has lost
its former distinct condition by undergoing significant changes in the
form, value and size (Paragraph 12, sections 3(2) and 8). According to
the expert evaluation carried out at the request of the district
administration, the buildings in question had lost such distinct
condition.
On 26 February 1996 the Tallinn Court of Appeal ("Tallinna
Ringkonnakohus") confirmed the judgment of the first instance court.
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused on 24 April 1996.
The applicant alleges that, following the court judgments, the
current resident was allocated by the local administration 1,9 ha of
land in connection with the recognition of her ownership of the
contested buildings, according to Paragraph 9 the Land Reform Act.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains about a violation of his rights under
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. In particular, he
complains about the refusal of the authorities to recognise his right
of inheritance with respect to the property of his family which was
illegally expropriated in 1940.
THE LAW
The applicant complains about non-restitution of part of his
family's property. He invokes Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the
Convention which provides:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful
enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his
possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair
the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary
to control the use of property in accordance with the general
interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions
or penalties."
The Commission recalls Estonia's reservation with respect to the
cited provisions contained in the instrument of ratification, deposited
on 16 April 1996. The reservation reads in the relevant part as
follows:
"In accordance with Article 64 (Art. 64) of the Convention, the
Republic of Estonia declares that the provisions of Article 1 of
the First Protocol (P1-1) shall not apply to the laws on property
reform which regulate the restoration or compensation of property
nationalised, confiscated, requisitioned, collectivised or
otherwise unlawfully expropriated during the period of Soviet
annexation... The reservation concerns the principles of the
Property Reform Act, the Land Reform Act...and their wording
being in force at the moment the Ratification Act entered into
force."
The Commission observes that the reservation includes references
to specific acts, it is sufficiently precise and is accompanied by a
brief summary of the relevant laws. The reservation thus satisfies the
conditions for its validity under Article 64 (Art. 64) of the
Convention.
The Commission considers that the Estonian reservation covers the
applicant's complaint regarding the restitution of his family's
property. It follows that the complaint must be rejected under
Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) as being incompatible ratione materiae
with the provisions of the Convention.
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