CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 8 avril 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7486CA7E { width:0.34pt; display:inline-block } .s574E4C05 { width:124.18pt; display:inline-block } .s67CC2216 { width:138.53pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 27331/04 Susanna GUNESCH against Romania   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8   April 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan, President,   Jolien Schukking,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 5   July 2004, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1 .     The applicant, Ms Susanna Gunesch, was born in 1922, lived in Heidenheim, Germany, and died in 2012. Her son and sole heir, Mr   Johann   Gunesch, continued the correspondence with the Court in the present procedure, without formally expressing his intention to pursue the application on her behalf. 2 .     The applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning her inability to obtain restitution of her nationalised property or to secure compensation therefor was communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). The applicant also complained under Article 2 of Protocol no. 4 to the Convention that, in 1986, she had been forced to surrender her possession which constitutes the object of the present application, in order to be allowed to exercise her right to leave her country. 3.     In a final decision of 18 February 2014, the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal acknowledged that the property situated in Sibiu, no. 448 Sura Mica street, had been unlawfully nationalised from the applicant under the former communist regime and then had been sold to third parties. The court also found that that sale had been lawful. 4 .     On 10 November 2008 the authorities issued a decision granting the applicant compensation of 434,500 Romanian lei (RON), (approximately 120,000   euros (EUR) at that time) for the property in question. The amount was paid in five instalments, from February 2014 to March 2018. The first three payments were made directly to the applicant and the last two were issued to her heir, following the applicant’s death. 5 .     The applicant and subsequently her heir accepted the compensation. After the final payment Mr Johann Gunesch signed a statement accepting to waive any further claims against Romania in respect of the property in question. 6 .     Mr Johann Gunesch informed the Court that he did not wish to withdraw the claims made by the applicant in the present proceedings. THE LAW Complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention 7.     The Court notes that, according to the information presented by the parties, following the steps the applicant took at the national level, she was compensated for the possession that forms the object of her present application (see paragraph 4 above). 8.     The Court further notes that the applicant accepted that compensation and waived her claims related to that possession (see paragraph 5 above). 9.     In view of the above, the Court considers that the matter related to the applicant’s property claims 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 application in this part under Article   37   §   1 in fine (see Ana Ionescu and Others v. Romania , nos. 19788/03 and 18   others, §§ 15-16, 26 February 2019, and Mavrianopol v. Romania (dec.), no.   29226/06, 15 October 2020). 10.     Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list of cases as regards the complaint concerning the restitution of the property, raised under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Other complaints 11.     The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention (see paragraph 2 above, in fine ). 12.     The Court does not consider it necessary to address an issue of the locus standi of Mr Johann Gunesch, the applicant’s heir, to pursue the application after her death (see paragraph 1 above, in fine ), as the complaint is in any event inadmissible. In fact, the measure complained of had taken place in 1986 (see paragraph 2 above, in fine ), whereas the Convention only entered into force in respect of the respondent State in 20   June   1994. Accordingly, this complaint is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) and must be rejected as inadmissible in accordance with Article 35   §   4. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases as regards the complaint concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 29 April 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Armen Harutyunyan Acting Deputy Registrar   President