CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 20 octobre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sC7F8CD85 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .sEDACC6AB { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s5C381674 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s76334B44 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFBB1651C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s17E903BE { width:3.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s86D3EA10 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .s1024C44D { width:199.21pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s74F96529 { width:204.97pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s75A32C27 { 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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s1F821FB { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; color:#474747 } .s23C4F0E5 { font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF00A2B95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super } .s1EB61C36 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s3E39756B { height:58.15pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s9D743EF5 { margin-left:16.12pt; padding-left:1.73pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     FOURTH SECTION CASE OF NASTA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 22023/03 and 11 others – see appended list)         JUDGMENT   This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in a judgment of 12 October 2021   STRASBOURG 20 October 2020             This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Nasta and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda, President,   Carlo Ranzoni,   Péter Paczolay, judges, and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”), on the various dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice of the applications to the Romanian Government (“the Government”); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 29 September 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the inability of the applicants to recover possession of their properties which had been unlawfully nationalised under the former communist regime and had been sold by the State to third parties. THE FACTS 2.     The list of the applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, most recently, Mrs   O.F.   Ezer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5.     The factual and legal circumstances set out in the current applications are similar to those pertaining to the applicants in the case of Străin and   Others v. Romania (no. 57001/00, §§ 5-18, ECHR 2005-VII), to the applicants Ms and Mr Rodan in the case of Preda and Others v. Romania (nos.   9584/02 and 7 others, §§ 35-41, 29 April 2014) and to the applicants in the case of Ana Ionescu and Others v. Romania (19788/03, §§   6-7, 26   February 2019). 6.     In short, the applicants obtained final court decisions finding that the nationalisation by the former communist regime of their properties had been unlawful and that they had never ceased to be the legitimate owners of those properties. Despite the fact that their title deeds were not disputed, the applicants were not able to recover possession of their properties, as the latter had either already been sold or were sold by the State to third parties. The applicants did not receive compensation for those properties. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE 7.     The relevant background domestic law and practice in relation to acknowledged unlawfully nationalised properties sold by the State to third parties have been summarised in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Brumărescu v. Romania [GC] (no. 28342/95, §§ 34-35, ECHR   1999-VII); Străin and Others (cited above, §§ 19-23); Maria Atanasiu and Others v.   Romania (nos. 30767/05 et 33800/06, §§ 44 et seq., 12 October 2010); Preda and Others (cited above, §§ 68-74); and Dickmann and Gion v.   Romania (nos. 10346/03 and 10893/04, §§ 52-58, 24 October 2017). THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 8.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Locus standi 9.     The heirs of some of the applicants informed the Court of those applicants’ deaths and, as their close relatives, expressed the intention to pursue the application in their stead. The Government did not object to this. Having regard to the close family ties and the heirs’ legitimate interest in pursuing the applications, the Court accepts that the deceased applicants’ heirs may pursue the applications in their stead (see Janowiec and Others v.   Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, § 101, ECHR 2013 and Preda and Others v. Romania , nos. 9584/02 and 7 others, § 75, 29 April 2014). It will therefore continue to deal with these applications at the heirs’ request (see the appended table for details). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 of protocol No. 1 tO THE CONVENTION 10.     The applicants submitted that their inability to recover possession of their unlawfully nationalised properties or to secure compensation, despite court decisions acknowledging their property rights, amounted to a breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” Admissibility Application no. 22023/03 11 .     After the communication of the application to the Government, updated information concerning the claims under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 was submitted by the applicants Lucia Nasta, Egon Mihai Nasta and Georgeta Nasta in connection with apartments nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, located on Aviator Iuliu Tetrat Street no. 2, Bucharest; this information stated that on various dates these properties have been returned to the above applicants by final court decisions. In view of that, the above applicants argued that they wished to pursue the proceedings before the Court only in respect of the loss of profit or benefit due to them for the period they have been deprived of their property over the above apartments. The Government contended that the matter raised by the present application as lodged by the above-mentioned applicants had been resolved. 12.     The Court reiterates that, under Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, it may “... at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that ... the matter has been resolved ...”. 13.     The Court takes note of the parties’ submissions and of the fact that the above-mentioned applicants enjoy full possession of the properties returned to them. Moreover, as regards their request in respect of loss of profit, the Court notes that such claims have constantly been rejected as speculative (see Ana Ionescu and Others , cited above, § 40 and the cases cited therein). 14 .     The Court therefore considers that the matter giving rise to the complaints lodged by the applicants Lucia Nasta, Egon Mihai Nasta and Georgeta Nasta under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 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 these complaints under Article   37 §   1 in fine . Accordingly, the part of the application lodged by the applicants Lucia Nasta, Egon Mihai Nasta and Georgeta Nasta should be struck out of the list. All applications including the remainder of application no.   22023/03 15.     The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies and/or that they could not claim to have a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, their complaints being therefore incompatible rationae materiae . 16.     The applicants contested these arguments and submitted that the compensation mechanism put in place by the domestic legislation was not effective. 17.     The Court reiterates that it has already considered at length and rejected the same objections concerning the alleged inapplicability of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to situations identical to those in the current case (see Străin and Others , cited above, §§ 30, 31 and 38). 18.     It has further considered and repeatedly rejected the Government’s submissions as to the alleged effectiveness of the restitution laws, including Law   no.   10/2001 and Law no. 165/2013, in cases where there are concurrent valid title deeds (see Străin and Others , cited above, §§ 54-56, Preda and   Others , cited above, §§ 133 and 141, Dickmann and Gion , cited above, §§   72 and 78, and Ana Ionescu and Others , cited above, §   23). 19.     It finds that in the instant case the Government have not put forward any new fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility of this complaint. The Government’s objection in this regard must therefore be rejected. 20.     The Court further notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. Merits 21.     The applicants argued that the inability to date to recover possession of their properties or to receive compensation if recovery of possession were not to be possible was in breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. 22.     The Government reiterated their objection to admissibility and submitted that the applicants should have pursued the procedures set out in the restitution laws, including Law no. 165/2013. 23.     The Court notes that, just like the applicants in the case of Străin and   Others , cited above, and also like Ms and Mr Rodan in the case of Preda and Others , cited above, the applicants in the present case had obtained final decisions acknowledging with retroactive effect the unlawfulness of the seizure of their property by the State and their legitimate ownership over those properties. These decisions have not been challenged or quashed to date. The applicants have not been able, to date, either to recover possession of the properties mentioned in the appended table or to obtain compensation for this deprivation. 24.     The Court reiterates that in the case of Preda and Others it found that the applicants’ inability to recover possession of their properties despite final court decisions retroactively acknowledging their property rights constituted a deprivation of their possessions within the meaning of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that such a deprivation, combined with a total lack of compensation, imposed on the applicants a disproportionate and excessive burden in breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 (see Preda and Others , cited above, §§ 146, 148-49). It reiterated its above findings in the similar case of Dickmann and Gion (cited above, §§ 103-04) and in the more recent case of Ana Ionescu and   Others (cited above, §§ 23, 28-30). 25.     The Court further finds that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. 26.     The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION 27.     The applicants in applications nos.   22023/03, 643/04, 18015/05, 33320/05 and 6931/06 also raised various complaints under Article 6 of the Convention, which the Court has carefully examined. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. 28.     It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 29.     Article   41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 30.     The applicants submitted claims for just satisfaction on various dates between 2006 and 2009. At the Court’s request, the claims have been updated between 2015 and 2019. 31.     The Government made comments in reply to the applicants’ original and updated claims for just satisfaction. 32.     In support of their claims and submissions in respect of pecuniary damage the applicants and the Government submitted one or more of the following: a)     expert reports prepared by registered experts, either at the Ministry of Justice or members of the National Association of Valuers (ANEVAR), which is an association recognised by the Romanian Government as an association of public interest. The expert reports estimated the market value of the claimed properties after visiting them (applicants’ experts), using criteria defined by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 9/2008, which fixes the rent for State properties, the standards and recommendations determined by the National Association of Valuers (ANEVAR), and the International Valuation Standards (IVS). The Government’s experts did not visit the properties. b)     administrative decisions pursuant to Law no. 165/2013 awarding compensation calculated according to the criteria established by the said Law or estimated values calculated by the competent administrative bodies (see section 41 of Law no. 165/2013, Preda and Others , cited above, §   70). c)     copies of sale contracts indicating the price per square metre for neighbouring properties. A.     Pecuniary damage 33.     As the Court has held on a number of occasions, a judgment in which the Court finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to the breach and make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no.   31107/96 § 32, ECHR 2000-XI, and Guiso -Gallisay v. Italy (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00, § 90, 22 December 2009). 34.     The Court considers, in the circumstances of the case, that the return of the properties in issue would put the applicants as far as possible in a situation equivalent to the one in which they would have been if there had not been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 35.     Failing such restitution by the respondent State, the Court holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, in respect of pecuniary damage, an amount corresponding to the current value of their properties (see Preda and Others , cited above, § 163). 36.     As regards the amount of money claimed in respect of loss of profit or benefit from the applicants’ possessions, the Court rejects this claim. To award a sum of money on this basis would be a speculative process, given that profit derived from possession of property depends on several factors (see Buzatu v. Romania (just satisfaction), no. 34642/97, §   18, 27   January 2005, and Preda and Others , cited above, § 164). 37.     The Court notes the disparity between the applicants’ estimates of the value of their properties and those advanced by the Government. Having regard to the information at its disposal concerning real estate prices on the local market, including the documents submitted by the parties, and to its established case-law in respect of similar cases (see Maria Atanasiu and Others , cited above, § 253; Preda and Others , cited above, §   164; and Dickmann and Gion , cited above, §§ 113-18), the Court considers it reasonable and equitable, as required by Article 41, to award the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of pecuniary damage. B.     Non-pecuniary damage 38.     The Court considers that the serious interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions cannot be adequately compensated for by the simple finding of a violation of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1. Making an assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article   41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of non-pecuniary damage. C.     Costs and expenses 39.     Some applicants have either not submitted any claims for costs and expenses or have failed to substantiate them. Accordingly, the Court finds no reason to award them any sum on that account (see appended table). 40.     As concerns the claims submitted by the remaining applicants, regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table covering costs under all heads. D.     Default interest 41.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Holds that the heirs of the applicants who have expressed the wish to pursue the proceeding in place of the late applicants have standing to do so (see appendix); Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike out application no. 22023/03 in so far as it concerns the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 mentioned in paragraphs   11-14 of the present judgment; Declares the applications admissible in respect of the remaining complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 and the remainder of the applications inadmissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to return to the applicants their properties within three months; (b)   that, failing such restitution, the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within the same three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage; (c)   that, in any event, the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within the same three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses; (d)   that the aforementioned amounts shall be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (e)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 October 2020, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Ilse Freiwirth   Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications No Application no. Date of introduction Applicant Year of Birth/Death Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Identification of property Domestic decision acknowledging the applicants’ title to property Domestic decision confirming the validity of the third parties’ title to property Amounts awarded for A. pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage B. costs and expenses/application   in euros (EUR)       22023/03 09/06/2003 Șerban NASTA b. 1929 d. 2003 pursued by heirs: Constantina NASTA, Victor NASTA, Niculae NASTA and Alexandra-Liliana NASTA all Romanian citizens residing in Bucharest   Eugenia CRÂNGARIU, lawyer practising in Bucharest Apartment no. 4 (104.20 sq.   m) located on 2 nd   floor, Aviator Iuliu Tetrat Street no. 2, Bucharest and the appurtenant land of 28.39 sq.   m   Decision of 14 May 1997 of the Bucharest 1 st District Court Decision of 16 October 2015 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal A: EUR 205,000 (200,000+5,000)   B: EUR 5,000   643/04 02/12/2003 Ileana BRUMUȘESCU 1927 Bucharest Romanian   House located on Bitolia Street, no.   10, Bucharest composed of: - one three-rooms apartment with a surface of 105.89 sq. m; - one three-rooms apartment with a surface of 103.14 sq. m - an attic of 25.36 sq. m and the appurtenant land of 265 sq.   m Decision of 5 June 2003 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal Decision of 5 June 2003 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal A: EUR 505,000 (500,000+5,000)   B: no award   17707/04 30/03/2004 Anca-Rodica NICA 1946 Torrance Romanian, American Steliana ȘERBAN, lawyer practising in Bucharest Apartment no. 2 (172.30 sq.   m) located on 1 st   floor, Bitolia Street no.   11, Bucharest, with garage (15 sq. m) and the appurtenant land Decision of 30   September 2003 of the Supreme   Court of Justice Decision of 30   September 2003 of the Supreme   Court of Justice A: EUR 300,000 (295,000+5,000)   B: EUR 990         22543/04 20/11/2003 1. Mariana Alexandra Zoe Lucia DUVAL-VALENTIN b. 1935 d. 2017 pursued by heirs:   Olivier Christian Maurice DUVAL-VALENTIN 1964 and Guy DUVAL-VALENTIN b. 1959 d. 2012 pursued by heirs: Sarah Ileana Marguerite DUVAL-VALENTIN and Loïk Robert Maurice DUVAL-VALENTIN   2. Adrian Gaston Petru LANGER b. 1938 d. 2015 pursued by heirs: Anne-Céline Marie LANGER [1] 1972 and Cécile Marie Bénédicte LANGER 1977   3. Georges LANGER 1943 Belgium Romanian, French [2]   Vincent COUSSIRAT - COUSTÈRE Three plots of land of a total surface of 22,765 sq.   m (topographic nos. 2148/b, 2149 and 2150/b) located on Aurora Street nos. 2 and 4, Timișoara Decision of 1   October 2003 of the Timișoara Court of Appeal Decision of 1   October 2003 of the Timișoara Court of Appeal A: EUR 3,000,000 (2,995,000+5,000)   B: EUR 2,300   26971/04 04/05/2004 1. Anna-Margit [3] HATFALUDY 1943 Oradea Hungarian   2. Elena TARSOLY Oradea Hungarian   3. Zita VEZSENYI Oradea Hungarian   4. Janos TARSOLY Oradea Hungarian Árpád Ștefan KOLOZSI, lawyer practising in Oradea Apartments located on Tudor Vladimirescu Street no. 25, Oradea as follows: - apartment no. 4 (3 rooms, 77.13   sq. m) and the appurtenant land of 212 sq. m; - apartment no. 9 (1 room, 44.05   sq. m) and the appurtenant land of 136 sq. m; - apartment no. 9A (1 room, 58.12 sq. m) and the appurtenant land of 162 sq. m; - apartment 11 (1/2 rooms, 93.52   sq. m) and the appurtenant land of 270 sq. m; - apartment no. 14 (2 rooms, 54.02 sq. m) and the appurtenant land of 139 sq. m; - apartment no. 16 (2 rooms, 68.95 sq. m) and the appurtenant land of 174 sq. m.   Decision of 18 April   2001 of the Oradea Court of Appeal Decision of 5   November 2003 of the Oradea Court of Appeal (for apartments nos. 4, 9, 9A, 11 and 16)   Decision of 28 June 2005 of the Oradea Court of Appeal (for apartment no.   14) A: EUR 500,000 (495,000+5,000)   B: no award   32009/04 28/05/2004   Roxana Issabela Lya GHIAȚĂ [4] 1936 Madrid Romanian   Mirela CHELARU, lawyer practising in Bucharest Apartment no. 9 (of 153,64 sq.   m) and the appurtenant land located on Atena Street no. 22 (formerly Aleea Zoe), Bucharest Decision of 6 May 1999 of the Bucharest County Court Decision of 27   January 2004 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal A: EUR 151,000 (146,000+5,000)   B: no award   18015/05 27/04/2005 1.Vasile-Csaba SZÖVERDI b. 1944 d. 2008 pursued by: Judit-Reka SZÖVERDI 1976 Cluj-Napoca Romanian and Edith LÁSZLÓ [5] Cluj-Napoca     2. Eva Ildikó MÁTHE b. 1941 d. 2016 pursued by: Aliz Éva MÁTHÉ 1972 Cluj-Napoca Romanian and Alpár-Zoltán MÁTHE 1977 Cluj-Napoca Romanian   Constantin Eugen IORDĂCHESCU, lawyer practising in Cluj-Napoca Property located on Gheorghe Bilascu Street no. 11-11/A (formerly Republicii Street, no.   11), Cluj-Napoca composed of: - at no. 11: a house and the appurtenant land of a total surface of 224 sq.   m (topographic no.   912/1) - at no. 11 [6] : a plot of land of 327   sq.   m (topographic no.   912/2); - at no. 11A [7] : a plot of land of 500   sq. m (topographic no.   912/3).   Decision of 12   November 2004 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice Decision of 12   November 2004 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice A: EUR 370,000 (365,000+5,000)   B: EUR 3,600   25957/05 07/05/2005 1. Andreea HREAMĂTĂ 1973 Bucharest Romanian   2. Ion Victor FIANU 1940 Pitești Romanian   3. Ioan IONESCU 1933 Bucharest Romanian   4. Verginia TODOR 1929 Bucharest Romanian   5. Valeria MIHAI POENARU 1934 Bucharest Romanian   6. Cornelia Georgeta ENESCU 1940 Bucharest Romanian   7. Ioan Dan VASILESCU 1934 Bucharest Romanian   8. Ligia DINCĂ 1934 Bucharest Romanian   9. Maria ZĂVOIANU 1939 Pitești Romanian   10. Teodor-Nicolae NICOLESCU [8] 1961 Bălilești [9] Romanian   11. Gheorghe NICOLESCU 1920 Câmpulung Muscel Romanian   12. Alexandru-Cristian NICOLESCU 1956 Micești Romanian   13. Gheorghe PANTAZESCU 1950 Bucharest Romanian   14. Grigore PANTAZESCU 1954 Bucharest Romanian Maria TURCU, lawyer practising in Bucharest Building located on Dr. Mihail Mirinescu Street no.   10, Bucharest composed of: - apartment no. 1, ground floor, of 127.90 sq. m, - apartment no. 2, first floor, of 127.90 sq. m - apartment no. 3, second floor, of 123.90 sq. m and - the appurtenant land of 320,5   sq. m. Decision of 30   November 2004 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal Decision of 30   November 2004 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal A: EUR 680,000   B: no award   33320/05 03/08/2005 Teodor MIRON 1939 Bucharest Romanian   House (51.25 sq. m) and the appurtenant land of 261 sq.   m located on Ronda Street no.   39, Bucharest Decision of 11   January 1996 of the Bucharest 2 nd   District Court Decision of 9   February 2005 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal A: EUR 225,000 (220,000 [10] +5,000)   B: EUR 1,800   6931/06 06/02/2006 Emil CIUREA 1938 Ontario Romanian   House (60.64 sq. m), cellar (14   sq. m) and garage (22.59   sq.   m) located on Răzoare Street, no. 30 bis, Constanța Decision of 17   October 2005 of the Constanța Court of Appeal Decision of 17   October 2005 of the Constanța Court of Appeal A: EUR 65,000 (60,000+5,000)   B: EUR 5,000   16776/06 17/03/2006 1. Silvia PÂRVULESCU 1949 Bucharest Romanian   2. Iosif VLĂDUȚESCU b. 1946 d. 2015 pursued by: Daniela-Viviana VLĂDUȚESCU 1974 and Sofia-Petronela VLĂDUȚESCU 1976     Apartment no. 1 (100.55 sq.   m), building A (corp A), located on Acumulatorului Street, no.   13, 1 st   district, Bucharest and the appurtenant land of 103,12 sq.   m Decision of 14   September 2005 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal Decision of 14   September 2005 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal A: EUR 55,000 (50,000+5,000)   B: no award   37266/06 22/08/2006 1. Adriana Paula POAȘCĂ 1951 Bucharest Romanian   2. Nicolae BAUER 1943 Dudu Romanian   Apartment no. 2 (81.71 sq.   m) located on first floor, Carpaţi Street, no. 44, 1 st   District, Bucharest Decision of 27   January 2006 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal (drafted on 21 February 2006) Decision of 27   January 2006 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal (drafted on 21 February 2006) A: EUR 75,000 (70,000+5,000)   B: EUR 500     [1] Rectified on 17 December 2020: the text was “Anna-Céline Marie LANGER”.   [2] Rectified on 17 December 2020: the order of the two words, “Romanian” and “Belgium” has been switched and “ French” has been added. [3] Rectified on 21 January 2021: the text was “Anna HATFALUDY”. [4] Rectified on 8 January 2021: the text was “Roxana Isabella Lya GHIAȚĂ”. [5] Rectified on 21 January 2021: the text “Edith LÁSZLÓ, Cluj-Napoca” was added. [6] Rectified on 21 January 2021: the text was “11A”. [7] Rectified on 21 January 2021: the text was “11”.   [8] Rectified on 21 January 2021: the text was “Teodor NICOLESCU”. [9] Rectified on 21 January 2021: the text was “ Câmpulung Muscel”. [10] Rectified on 8 January 2021: the text was “220,00”.