FIRST SECTION
Application no. 12951/11
Anneli VEITS
against Estonia
lodged on 14 February 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Anneli Veits, is an Estonian national, who was born in 1990 and lives in Tallinn.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 1995 the applicant’s grandmother N. privatised (bought on favourable conditions from the public authorities) an apartment at 9 Mahtra Street in Tallinn. In 1996 she donated the apartment to the applicant who was represented by her mother V. in the transaction.
On 21 April 2003 Zh. signed a power of authority, attested by a notary, whereby he authorised N. to sell his apartment at 33 Punane Street in Tallinn. On 20 May 2003 N., acting on behalf of Zh., sold the apartment to her daughter V. For Zh., N. bought an apartment in the countryside worth about a twentieth of the apartment at Punane Street.
It appears that on 7 August 2003 V. requested the approval of the social security service of the local municipality for the sale of the applicant’s apartment at 9 Mahtra Street. She submitted that she had bought another apartment at 33 Punane Street by means of a loan. She wished to pay back the loan with the money to be received from the sale of her daughter’s apartment and donate the newly acquired apartment to her daughter. Apparently the approval was granted by the social security service and the apartment at Mahtra Street was sold. On 28 October 2003 V. donated the apartment at Punane Street to the applicant.
On an unspecified date criminal investigation into the circumstances of the sale of several apartments by various persons, including Zh., was initiated. The persons concerned had sold their apartments in Tallinn and in some occasions acquired cheaper apartments in rural areas. For different reasons such as mental problems or alcohol abuse the persons had had difficulties in understanding the true nature of their transactions. Some of the persons in question died soon after the transactions. Thus, Zh. died on 3 January 2004 of poisoning with ethylene glycol. Criminal investigations into these deaths were also opened.
There are some elements in the case file that allow to presume that in the meantime, in 2003, a prosecutor ordered the attachment of the apartment at 33 Punane Street but apparently this order was subsequently quashed. On 4 April 2007 the Harju County Court again ordered the attachment of the apartment in question.
Apparently in 2007 N. and V. were committed for trial by the Harju County Court. N. was charged with a number of offences including murder of Zh. and an attempted murder of another person as well as several counts of fraud. V. was charged with several counts of fraud and aiding and abetting an attempted murder.
On 27 April 2008 the applicant reached the age of eighteen.
By a judgment of 12 January 2010 N. and V. were convicted as charged. In respect of the transactions related to the apartment at 33 Punane Street, the County Court established, relying on a psychiatric expert opinion, that Zh. who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia had not understood the meaning of his acts when signing the power of authority for the sale of the apartment. Zh. had died by the time of the court hearing but according to his statements made during the preliminary investigation N. had promised him money for the apartment and also to buy him another apartment. She had told him to sign a confirmation that he had received the money but in fact he had got no money. The court found implausible the allegation of the accused, supported by N.’s husband, that V. had borrowed a part of the money to be paid for the apartment from N.’s husband who had sold his apartment five years before and kept the cash at home. It noted that according to N. the money from the sale of her husband’s apartment had been used for buying yet another apartment. The court also noted that V. had been unable to explain the origin of the second half of the money allegedly paid to Zh. for the apartment at Punane Street, and established that Zh. had received no money. The court ordered the confiscation of the apartment at 33 Punane Street, belonging to the applicant, as property obtained through crime. N. was sentenced to fifteen and V. to eight years’ imprisonment.
V. and N. appealed. V. argued, inter alia, that the apartment at 33 Punane Street belonged to the applicant. In order to buy the apartment, another apartment at 9 Mahtra Street had been sold with the approval of the social security service. Thus, the apartment at Punane Street had not been obtained through crime and it was not subject to confiscation.
By a judgment of 14 June 2010 the Tallinn Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. In respect of the confiscation of the applicant’s apartment at Punane Street, the Court of Appeal noted that she had obtained the apartment when being a minor and had not been capable of understanding the transaction. The apartment had not been obtained legally but through crime. Therefore, its confiscation had been lawful.
On 18 August 2010 the Supreme Court decided not to examine the appeals lodged by N.’s and V.’s counsel.
On 9 November 2010 the Harju County Government asked a real estate company to carry out an assessment of the market value of the apartment at 33 Punane Street. The County Government referred to the Harju County Court’s judgment of 12 January 2010 and noted that it intended to sell the apartment at a public auction on the basis of that judgment.
On 2 December 2010 the real estate company sent a letter to the applicant informing her of the County Government’s intention of selling the apartment and asking her to give an expert of the company access to the apartment for carrying out its assessment.
B. Relevant domestic law
Article 83 § 3 (2) of the Penal Code (Karistusseadustik) provides that, by way of exception, a court may confiscate the object of an intentional offence if it belongs to a third person at the time of the making of the judgment and the person had acquired the object, in full or in the essential part, on account of the offender, as a present or in any other manner for a price which is considerably lower than the normal market price.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that she was not invited to take part in the court proceedings involving the determination of her civil rights and obligations.
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about having been deprived of her apartment of which she was a bona fide owner.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have an effective access to court in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did she have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did she have a possibility to effectively participate in the proceedings?
2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint about the peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
3. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see, for example, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V, and Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, § 64, 1 April 2010)?
4. The applicant is requested to inform the Court when and how she became aware of the proceedings concerning the confiscation of her apartment at 33 Punane Street. She is further requested to explain in detail which steps she took in order to contest the confiscation.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy