Communicated on 12 June 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 20496/17 Galina KONNOVA against Estonia lodged on 10 March 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the confiscation of the applicant ’ s alleged property (cash) as a result of criminal proceedings to which she was not a party.

In the criminal proceedings against A. K., the Harju County Court initially authorised the attachment of cash found in a bank ’ s safety deposit box used by A.K. ’ s partner L.K. and – following A.K. ’ s conviction in the settlement proceedings ( kokkuleppemenetlus ) for a drug offence – the said cash was confiscated from L.K. by way of extended confiscation ( laiendatud konfiskeerimine ). The domestic court found that the safety deposit box was used by L.K. to store the money emanating from A.K. ’ s illegal activities and that under Article 83 2 § 2 of the Penal Code she could also be an addressee of the confiscation decision as a third person. The applicant – L.K. ’ s mother – claims she had rented the safety deposit box from the bank and that the cash in the deposit box belonged to her. She was not included in the criminal proceedings as a third person and she found out about the confiscation after A.K. ’ s conviction had become final. The domestic courts refused to examine her appeal challenging the attachment decision on the grounds that she was not an addressee of that decision, as well as her request to reopen the criminal proceedings. Her complaint to challenge the activities of the Prosecutor ’ s Office ( uurimiskaebemenetlus ) was dismissed. At the same time the Harju Country Court indicated that the applicant could still lodge a claim against the State as under the domestic law she could possibly still claim to be the owner of the money. It does not appear that the applicant has lodged such a claim.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant have an effective access to court in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In other words, did she have an adequate opportunity to put her case to the domestic courts, so as to prove her claim regarding the ownership of the cash found in the bank ’ s safety deposit box and argue the unlawfulness or arbitrariness of the confiscation? In particular, did the applicant have a possibility – existing in law and effective in practice – to submit a claim against the State enforcing her alleged property rights, as referred to in the Harju Country Court ’ s decision of 27 September 2016 in case no. 1-16-7754? Is the reasoning in the Supreme Court ’ s judgment of 30 April 2013 in case no. 3-1-2-3-12 applicable in the present case? ( compare and contrast Veits v. Estonia , no. 12951/11 , § 44, 15 January 2015 and Rummi v. Estonia , no. 63362/09 , § 69, 15 January 2015).

The Government are invited to provide information about any other relevant domestic case-law, in particular possible case-law developments after the Supreme Court ’ s judgment in case no. 3-1-2-3-12, concerning the procedural possibilities of persons who have not been parties to the criminal proceedings but whose property has been confiscated as a results of such proceedings, to put their claims for the recovery of the property and/or compensation for the property before the domestic courts.

The Government are also invited to submit the Tallinn Court of Appeal ’ s decision no. 1-15-7663, dated 2 November 2015, whereby the court dismissed L.K. ’ s appeal on the attachment decision.