FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 67648/10 Christian Peter PUUSEP against Estonia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 7 January 201 4 as a Chamber composed of:

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President, Khanlar Hajiyev, Julia Laffranque, Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, Erik Møse, Ksenija Turković , Dmitry Dedov, judges

and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 November 2010,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

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.

The circumstances of the case

3 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1. Administrative court proceedings

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 re ‑ examine 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.

2. Civil court proceedings

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.

COMPLAINTS

23. The applicant complain ed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Tallinn Court of Appeal ’ s judgment of 19 December 2008 ha d not been enforced .

24. He also complain ed that , as a result of the municipal authorities ’ failure to comply with the Tallinn Court of Appeal ’ s judgment , he had not receive d a fair trial in the civil proceedings that had been adjourned pending the outcome of the administrative court proceedings.

THE LAW

A. The parties ’ submissions

25 . The Government asked the Court to declare the application inadmissible as an abuse of the right of petition. They pointed out that in his application to the Court of 7 November 2010 the applicant had claimed that “to this day, the [Tallinn City Committee] has not complied with the Court order to re-determine the applicant ’ s grandfather ’ s status”, that “the [Committee] refuses to comply with the Court order” and that “12 August 2010 Estonian Supreme Court process number 3-7-1-3-330” was the final domestic decision, that is, the Supreme Court ruling by which it declined to examine the appeal by the Committee against the imposition of the fine.

26 . The Government argued that all these claims were untrue and misleading for the Court. By the time of the submission of the application to the Court the Tallinn Court of Appeal judgment of 19 December 2008 had been fully enforced. The Committee had complied with this judgment, firstly, by taking its decision of 9 June 2010 and secondly, by its decision of 31 August 2010 made on the basis of new evidence. The applicant ’ s awareness of these decisions was demo nstrated by the fact that on 29 October 2010 he had lodged a complaint with the Tallinn Administrative Court against the latter decision whereas he had lodged his application with the European Court of Human Rights at a later date, on 7 November 2010.

27 . Thus, the Government argued that the applicant had failed to submit truthful information to the Court, either at the outset of the proceedings or later. Nor had he informed the Court about the domestic proceedings he had instituted in order to challenge the Committee ’ s decision of 31 August 2010. The latter proceedings came to an end by the Tallinn Court of Appeal ’ s judgment of 15 June 2011, against which the applicant did not appeal.

28 . In respect of the applicant ’ s arguments relating to the proceedings since 1991 taken as a whole, the Government emphasised that the present case only concerned the enforcement of the judgment of 19 December 2008.

29 . The applicant disagreed and argued that the Tallinn Court of Appeal ’ s judgment of 19 December 2008 had not been enforced. He pointed out that it had been stated in the judgment: “When assessing the legality of the 5.12.2005 decision [of the Committee] it is necessary to ascertain if the additional evidence confirms that [M.] did not leave Estonia [in the context of] a resettlement agreement.” The applicant argued that in its decisions of 9 June and 31 August 2010 the Committee had not established whether M. had been a refugee, even though the court had explicitly ordered it to do that. Instead, the Committee ’ s decisions concerned the question of whether the applicant had already been compensated. The applicant submitted that in his application to the Court he had not referred to those decisions because they had clearly not enforced the court order.

30 . The applicant also raised a number of arguments related to the process of the determination of his claim lodged in 1991 in the context of the ownership reform process. He argued that his complaint about the length of the proceedings was not only related to just the last set of proceedings but to the whole matter. The applicant (and his predecessors) had been denied proceedings within a reasonable time since 1991, when the application for the return of the illegally expropriated property had been submitted. The lack of effective domestic remedies had been proved by the numerous changes in the Committee ’ s decisions and its decisions of 9 June and 31 August 2010 had been yet another indication of the unreasonable length of the proceedings.

B. The Court ’ s assessment

31 . As regards the scope of the case, the Court observes that in his original application to the Court the applicant only complained about the Committee ’ s failure to enforce the Tallinn Court of Appeal ’ s judgment of 19 December 2008 and the resultant lack of fairness in the resumed civil proceedings. Further arguments about the ownership reform process as a whole and the domestic authorities ’ alleged failure to determine his property claim in the course of twenty years were only raised by the applicant in his submissions in reply to the Government ’ s observations. Thus, in order to decide on the Government ’ s plea of abuse of the right of petition, the Court shall examine the matter proceeding from the original application lodged by the applicant on 7 November 2010.

33 . The Court notes that, in the present case, the applicant in his application to the Court, lodged on 7 November 2010, complained that the Tallinn Court of Appeal ’ s judgment of 19 December 2008 had not been enforced. He submitted that this was so despite the fact that the Tallinn City Committee for the Return of and Compensation for Unlawfully Expropriated Property – who were responsible for enforcing the judgment – had been fined for non-compliance with the judgment. However, the Court observes that by the time he lodged the application the applicant was aware that the Committee had taken its decisions of 9 June and 31 August 2010 in respect of the matter dealt with in the Court of Appeal ’ s judgment in question. The applicant ’ s awareness of those decisions is proved by the fact that he had challenged the decision of 31 August 2010 before an administrative court prior to lodging his complaint with the Court.

34. However, the applicant ’ s complete silence on the decisions and his plain statement that the judgment had not been enforced cannot be interpreted, in the Court ’ s view, as anything else but a failure to disclose information concerning the very core of the application.

35 . Having regard to the importance of the applicant ’ s failure to disclose this information for the proper determination of the present case, the Court finds that such conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual petition, as provided for in Article 34 of the Convention.

36 . In view of the above, it is appropriate to reject the application as a whole as an abuse of the right of petition, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these r easons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Søren Nielsen Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre Registrar President