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

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6983F43D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:27.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s7A11F50B { margin-left:6.52pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.83pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s36C5EC9D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:35.72pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.83pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sD407E162 { width:116.42pt; display:inline-block } .sB6CA8415 { width:26.45pt; display:inline-block } .s36359848 { width:112.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 44427/04 and 22662/06 Stere NACHI and Others against Romania and Ioan Oituz FINICHIU and Elena Aurora Adriana BOTOȘIU 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 various provisions of the Convention and its Protocols. 3.     At various dates after notice of the above-mentioned applications had been given to the Government, the parties informed the Court that the claimed property had been returned to the applicants, either in whole (application no. 44427/04), or in part (application no. 22662/06, concerning property no. 1, see appended table). 4.     The applicants in application no. 44427/04 claimed that they were still entitled to obtain compensation in respect of loss of benefit from their possession. 5.     The applicants in application no. 22662/06 argued that the matter had not been resolved in respect of property no. 2 (see the appended table), and that they had never ceased to be the legitimate owners of that property. THE LAW 6.     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 The matter has been resolved (both applications) 7.     The Court considers that, in view of the above and having regard to its well-established case-law on the matter (see Ana Ionescu and Others v.   Romania , nos. 19788/03 and 18 others, §§ 15-16, 26 February 2019), in so far as it concerns the applicants’ property claims in application no.   44427/04 as well as those of the applicants in application no.   22662/06 concerning property no. 1, as specified in the appended table, the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and 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 . 8.     Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of the list as regards all of the applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of application no. 44427/04 and as regards the applicants’ similar complaints concerning property no. 1, as identified in the appended table, in respect of application no. 22662/06. Incompatible rationae materiae (application no. 22662/06) 9.     Concerning the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention relating to property no. 2, as identified in the appended table, the Court considers that the applicants have not shown that they have met the statutory conditions required in order to qualify for reparatory measures, in so far as they failed to show that they had a title to the claimed property (see, by way of contrast, Dickmann and Gion v.   Romania , nos.   10346/03 and 10893/04, § 93, 24 October 2017). 10.     Having regard to the fact that the Convention does not guarantee the right to acquire property (see, among many other authorities, Kopecký v.   Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004 ‑ IX), the applicants’ complaints relating to property no. 2 are incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. Other complaints (both applications) 11.     The applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. 12.     In particular, the applicants in application no. 44427/04 claimed that they were also entitled to obtain compensation in respect of loss of benefit from their property, namely for the period between 2004 and 2006, when the impugned judgment was quashed. Furthermore, the applicants in both applications complained about the fairness and/or the outcome of the proceedings which did not allow them to obtain restitution of their nationalised properties or to secure compensation therefor. 13.     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 (see also Dickmann and Gion v. Romania , nos. 10346/03 and 10893/04, §§ 107 and 115, 24 October 2017). 14.     It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. Costs and expenses 15.     The applicants in application no. 22662/06 claimed 700 euros (EUR) in respect of legal costs and expenses. However, they did not submit any documents showing that their claim is justified. The Court finds therefore no basis on which to accept that the costs and expenses claimed by the applicants have actually been incurred by them. 16.     It follows that the claim must be rejected. 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 concerning the restitution of the applicants’ property in respect of application no. 44427/04, and of the applicants’ property no.   1, in respect of application no. 22662/06; Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible; Rejects the claim for cost and expenses in application no. 22662/06. 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 1. 44427/04 26/10/2004 Stere NACHI b: 1908   ; d: 2009 pursued by heir Dumitru Nachi   Mihail NACHI b: 1918   ; d: 2007 pursued by heirs: Nicolae Nachi 1952 Ileana Cepi 1956   Foti NACHI b:1930 ; d: 2018 pursued by heir Aida Tescaru Adrian VASILIU Apartment no. 3, Pompiliu Eliade str, no. 3, Bucharest 05/04/2000 Supreme Court of Justice 21/09/2004 High Court of Cassation and Justice, quashed on 12/12/2006 11/05/2007 when the property was returned to the applicants 2. 22662/06 27/05/2006 Ioan Oituz FINICHIU 1926   Elena Aurora Adriana BOTOȘIU 1932     Property no. 1: House with one floor and 327 sqm of land, land register number 1621/1/1 Sf. Gheorghe   Property no. 2: Property located under 1623/4/2/1 in the Sf Gheorghe land register 19/03/2002 Sf. Gheorghe District Court       03/03/2010 High Court of Cassation and Justice 29/11/2005 Brasov Court of Appeal         --- For property no.   1 on 03/03/2010, when the property was returned to the applicants