PUUSEP v. ESTONIA
Inadmissible
Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turković
1. The applicant, Mr Christian Peter Puusep, is an Estonian and Australian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Mentone, Australia. He is represented before the Court by Mr C. Ginter, a lawyer practising in Tallinn. 2. The Estonian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ms M. Kuurberg, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. 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 ownership reform process taking place in Estonia at that time, gave rise to a number of administrative and court proceedings. The main issues in the proceedings, in brief, were the following: on which grounds Y.’s father, M., had left Estonia in 1941; whether he had already received compensation for the property left in Estonia and unlawfully expropriated by the Soviet authorities; and what the legal implications of these facts were. 5. By a judgment of 28 December 2006 (case no. 3-02-18) the Tallinn Administrative Court found for Y. in his complaint against a decision of 5 December 2005 of the Tallinn City Committee for the Return of and Compensation for Unlawfully Expropriated Property (Õigusvastaselt võõrandatud vara tagastamise ja kompenseerimise Tallinna linnakomisjon). 6. On 9 March 2007 Y. died and the applicant pursued the proceedings as his successor. 7. Following an appeal by the Committee, on 19 December 2008 the Tallinn Court of Appeal quashed the Administrative Court’s judgment. It annulled the decision of the Committee on the ground that pertinent evidence had not been assessed and ordered the Committee to re-examine Y.’s claim for the return of the property. The Court of Appeal noted in its judgment that it did not instruct the Committee to reach any particular outcome in resolving the matter. The Committee appealed. On 19 February 2009 the Supreme Court declined to examine the Committee’s appeal and the Court of Appeal’s judgment became final. 8. On 3 June 2009 the applicant, dissatisfied with the Committee’s delayed examination of his claim, requested that the Tallinn Administrative Court impose a fine on the Committee for its failure to comply with the judgment of 19 December 2008. 9. On 9 February 2010 the Committee decided to postpone the examination of Y.’s claim pending the receipt of information from the German archives on whether Y.’s father had received compensation for the property in question from Germany. 10. On 9 March 2010 the Tallinn Administrative Court fined the Committee 100,000 kroons (EEK) (approximately 6,391 euros) for its failure to resolve the matter. It noted that the Committee had taken certain measures in order to gather the information required to reach a decision, but found that the delay was unjustified. 11. On 19 May 2010 the Tallinn Court of Appeal dismissed the Committee’s appeal against that decision. The Committee appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined to examine the appeal on 12 August 2010. 12. In the meantime, on 9 June 2010, the Committee issued a decision by which it declared that the property in question was subject to the ownership reform process and that Y.’s successors (that is, the applicant) were “legally entitled subjects” (õigustatud subjektid) in respect of the property. The decision contained a summary of the prior proceedings including, inter alia, reference to the Tallinn Court of Appeal’s judgment of 19 December 2008, by which the Committee had been ordered to reexamine Y.’s claim for the return of the property. 13. On 31 August 2010, having, in the meantime, received information from the German archives, according to which Y.’s father had received compensation in the 1960s from the Federal Republic of Germany for his property left in Estonia, the Committee invalidated its decision of 9 June 2010 and dismissed Y.’s request for the return of the property. The decision also contained a summary of the prior proceedings, similar to the decision of 9 June 2010 (see paragraph 12 above). 14. On 29 October 2010 the applicant challenged the Committee’s decision of 31 August 2010 before the Tallinn Administrative Court. 15. On 4 March 2011 the Administrative Court annulled the Committee’s decision of 31 August 2010. 16. The Tallinn City Government, the Committee’s legal successor, appealed. 17. On 15 June 2011 the Tallinn Court of Appeal quashed the Administrative Court’s judgment and dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the Committee’s impugned decision. The Court of Appeal upheld the Committee’s finding that Y.’s father had already received compensation for the property concerned from Germany. It also found that the Committee had been entitled to re-examine the case after the new facts had arisen and to take a new decision. The applicant did not appeal. 18. On 19 December 2011 the Supreme Court declined to examine an appeal lodged by P., another claimant in the proceedings alongside the applicant. 19. In the meantime, and parallel to the above-mentioned 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. The City of Tallinn claimed title to the property. 20. On 14 June 2004 the Harju County Court found for the City of Tallinn and recognised their title. Y. appealed. 21. On 7 March 2007 the Tallinn Court of Appeal suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the administrative court proceedings in case no. 3-02-18. On 25 June 2009 the examination of the case was resumed. 22. 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 ownership 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.