CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94C6321B { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s37C69537 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6E03D265 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD7AA71C8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sD407E162 { width:116.42pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 2097/04 and 21721/07 Constantin Mircea TURCULET IONESCU against Romania and Ion ILIE and Others against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3   September 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,   Georges Ravarani,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. 2.     The applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning their inability to obtain restitution of their nationalised properties or to secure compensation therefor were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. 3.     At various dates after notice of the applications had been given to the Government, the parties informed the Court that the claimed properties had been returned to the applicants. THE LAW 4.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention 5.     The Court finds that, since the claimed properties have been returned to the applicants and having regard to its well-established case-law on the topic (see Ana Ionescu and Others v. Romania , nos. 19788/03 and 18   others, §§ 15-16, 26 February 2019), the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. It further considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications under Article 37 § 1 in fine . 6.     Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of the list as regards the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Other complaints 7.     The applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. 8.     The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. 9.     It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. Costs and expenses 10.     In application no. 2097/04, the applicant claimed reimbursement of alleged costs and expenses incurred. However, the Court notes that he has neither quantified nor substantiated his claims. Accordingly, it finds no reason to award him any sum on that account. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases as regards the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention; Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible; Rejects the applicant’s claims for cost and expenses in application no.   2097/04. Done in English and notified in writing on 24 September 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (restitution of nationalised property) No. Application no. Date of introduction   Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name Identification of property Domestic decision acknowledging the applicants’ title to property Domestic decision confirming the validity of the third parties’ title to property Matter has been resolved     2097/04 07/11/2003 Constantin Mircea TURCULET IONESCU 1945 L.E. Cosma Bucharest No.   93 Trotusului street 06/03/2001 Bucharest Court of Appeal 10/10/2000 Bucharest Court of Appeal   Second action: 05/09/2003 Bucharest Court of Appeal   26/09/2008 Bucharest County Court Decisions enforced     21721/07 24/04/2007 (6 applicants) Ion ILIE 1934 Anca-Maria ILIE 1938 Şerban-Mihai ILIE 1970 Stelian-Ion ILIE 1967 Ioan-Nicolae BOATĂ 1942 Victoria Ştefania Minona VERHUVEN 1940   Bucharest No. 4 Brezoianu Street 23/02/1994 Bucharest District Court 27/10/2006 Bucharest Court of Appeal 12/04/2011 Bucharest Court of Appeal Decision enforced