CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 8 novembre 2022

.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 } .sF2E0A612 { margin-top:48pt; 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 } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; 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 } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD423F84E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB90D45C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial } .sFA80848F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8BF9F9FB { width:7.06pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDEA351A4 { width:7.61pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s191D4665 { width:1.5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sBC2B707 { margin-left:3.66pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sCCC4F4BA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s1AAD218 { margin-left:3.41pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s81EF3014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7E32902C { margin-left:-8.8pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-9.65pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none; list-style-position:inside } .sA671C4ED { width:19pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1DCA54E8 { margin-left:22.36pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD01F7415 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s79595080 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37CFE62 { margin-left:-4.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s2978F4AE { margin-left:17.81pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s540C3AEE { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCE84E5BD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s87F25821 { margin-left:17.81pt; margin-bottom:6pt; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s452F218F { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:9.63pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8E1F03D8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEB3FA797 { width:8.43pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2FEA90F6 { font-family:Arial; color:#202124 } .sB02085A0 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#202124 } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7BC87A4D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:53pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .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 } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sD8AE9261 { width:36.9pt; display:inline-block } .sB1A859A2 { width:116.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sEB10024A { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2A7D4500 { height:31.8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt }   FOURTH SECTION CASE OF VĂLEANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 59012/17 and 29 others)   JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 22 June 2023 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.   Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Continuing ineffectiveness of restitution mechanism in respect of property confiscated or nationalised by the communist regime, despite new remedies under Law no. 165/2013, placing excessive burden on applicants • Inability to obtain restitution or any or adequate compensation Art 46 • Execution of judgment • Respondent State required to take further general measures to address continuing structural problem in restitution mechanism • Measures to be aimed at streamlining and clarifying applicable procedures and criteria when enforcement of outstanding restitution judgments objectively impossible • Need for short, realistic and binding time-limits for completion of ongoing administrative proceedings   STRASBOURG 8 November 2022 FINAL   03/04/2023   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Văleanu and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer , President ,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Faris Vehabović,   Yonko Grozev,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the thirty applications (see appendix) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Romanian nationals (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated in the appendix; the decision to give notice to the Romanian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the ineffectiveness of the domestic restitution mechanism raised by the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention; the parties’ observations; the decision of the President of the Chamber to appoint Judge K.   Wojtyczek, to sit as an ad hoc judge (Article 26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1 of the Rules of Court), considering that Ms Iulia Motoc, the judge elected in respect of Romania, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28); Having deliberated in private on 4 October 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The complaints raised in the present applications, mainly under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, concern administrative and/or judicial proceedings brought by the applicants under various restitution laws enacted in Romania since 1991, with a view to obtaining restitution or compensation for their property confiscated or nationalised by the communist regime. THE FACTS 2.     A list of the applicants and the relevant details of their applications is set out in the appendix. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms O. Ezer, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. OVERALL BACKGROUND 4.     Following the establishment of the communist regime in Romania in 1947, the State proceeded to nationalise buildings and agricultural land on a large scale. After the fall of the communist regime, the State enacted a series of laws aimed at affording redress for breaches of property rights by the former regime (see paragraphs 5, 7 and 10 below). 5 .     Laws nos. 112/1995 and 10/2001 established the principle of restitution (issuing titles to property and granting possession) of nationalised residential property and compensation in cases where restitution was no longer possible. Law no. 18/1991 conferred on former owners and their successors in title the right to partial restitution of agricultural land. The most important amendment to that Law was made by Law no. 1/2000, which raised the ceiling for entitlement to 50 ha per person for arable land and 100 ha per person for agricultural land. If restitution was not possible, the beneficiaries were entitled to compensation. 6.     The relevant authorities in charge of the initial assessment of claims lodged under the restitution legislation were the local and regional commissions for the application of the above-mentioned laws. 7 .     Law no. 247/2005 attempted to harmonise the administrative procedures for restitution of properties covered by the above-mentioned laws and special legislation concerning restitution of agricultural land. 8.     The leading role in implementing this law was entrusted to two newly created structures: the Central Compensation Board ( Comisia centrală pentru Stabilirea Despăgubirilor ), which in 2013 became the National Commission for Property Compensation ( Comisia Naţionalǎ pentru Compensarea Imobilelor – hereinafter “the NCPC”), mainly in charge of validating and issuing compensation decisions; and the National Agency for Property Restitution ( Autoritatea Naţională pentru Restituirea Proprietăţilor – “the NAPR”), responsible for monitoring and coordinating at national level the application and implementation of the restitution laws. 9 .     On 12 October 2010 the Court adopted a pilot judgment in the case of Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania (nos. 30767/05 and 33800/06, 12   October 2010), in which it singled out the deficiencies of the restitution mechanism, indicating to the respondent State under Article 46 of the Convention that new steps needed to be taken in order to process restitution claims with more efficiency. 10 .     On 20 May 2013 Law no. 165/2013 (hereinafter “the Law”) came into force, setting out the various procedures available to petitioners seeking settlement of their restitution claims. 11 .     On the basis of the parties’ observations and comments regarding the new remedies set out by the Law, on 29 April 2014 the Court found in the case of Preda and Others v. Romania (nos. 9584/02 and 7   others, §§   134 ‑ 40, 29   April 2014) that the mechanism established by the new law offered a range of effective remedies that needed to be exhausted by claimants whose complaints referred to one of the following situations: the existence of concurrent titles with respect to the same plot of agricultural land; the annulment of such a title without any compensation; the delivery of a final judgment confirming the right to compensation for the unlawful seizure by the State of any type of immovable property, without fixing the amount; the failure to pay such compensation awarded in a final judgment; and the prolonged failure to give a decision on a restitution claim. 12 .     The Court also held that the Law did not contain any provisions of a procedural or substantive nature capable of affording redress in situations in which final judgments existed validating concurrent titles with respect to the same residential property. That particular conclusion was reaffirmed in the case of Dickmann and Gion v. Romania (nos. 10346/03 and 10893/04, 24   October 2017). 13 .     The complaints set out in the present applications relate to the Court’s findings in the case of Preda and Others (cited above) as to the general functioning of the mechanism established by the Law, and raise issues concerning the effectiveness of the remedies laid out therein. In particular, the applicants argued that the time-limits set out in the Law in relation to the authorities’ obligation to enforce final decisions in their favour and/or give a decision on their restitution claims had long since expired; at the same time, those who had received their compensation decisions many years after the entry into force of the Law argued that the method of calculating compensation, using the 2013 values of property transactions, had rendered the compensation awarded derisory. Some of the applicants had had their titles annulled by the domestic courts for the benefit of third parties considered to have more entitlement to the property, but no compensation or other form of redress had been provided to them. The applicants generally claimed that the prolonged failure of the authorities to finalise the procedure concerning their claims, together with the total lack or inadequacy of compensation, including for the loss of use of the property to which they were entitled, had imposed an excessive and disproportionate burden on them. THE APPLICANTS’ PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES 14.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Non-enforcement of final judgments 15 .     The applicants have obtained final decisions in their favour in which the courts have either: asked the local commissions to issue title deeds (ownership titles) and/or grant possession of the property to which they were entitled (applications listed under nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 23, 24, 26 and 30 in the appendix) or pay them appropriate compensation instead (applications listed under nos. 14, 16 and 29 in the appendix); or to provide a legal response to their restitution claims (applications listed under nos. 19, 20 and 28 in the appendix). These final decisions have not been (fully) enforced to date. The relevant details of each application are presented below. Failure of the authorities to issue title deeds and/or to grant possession (a)    Argintaru, application no. 12854/18 16.     A final judgment given by the Gorj County Court on 8 October 2012 acknowledged the applicant’s entitlement to the restitution of 736.9603 ha of forest land and 166.6536 ha of alpine pasture land ( pǎșune gol alpin ). The relevant commissions were requested to grant her possession of the land, either at the original location or at a different location, chosen in agreement with her, and to then issue a title deed. 17.     On 27 November 2014 the Târgu Jiu District Court allowed a request by the applicant lodged under Article 906 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter “the CPC”) and ordered the relevant local commission to pay her the amount of 300 Romanian lei (RON) for each day of non-enforcement. 18 .     On the basis of the above-mentioned decision and following a further request by the applicant lodged in accordance with Article 906 (see paragraph   157 below), on 29   February 2016 the Târgu Jiu District Court ordered the local commission to pay her a “final” amount of RON 115,500 as “penalties” for the non-enforcement of the outstanding judgment for the period between 7 October 2014 and 27 October 2015. That amount was paid to her in 2016. 19 .     A subsequent attempt by the applicant to seek similar penalties for the period between 28 October 2015 and 28 October 2016 was dismissed by a final judgment of 4 September 2017 given by the Gorj County Court, which held that as the previous judgment of 2016 had mentioned the term “final” amount (see paragraph 71 below), and considering that the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“the HCCJ”) had on 6 March 2017 interpreted the purpose of Article 906 of the CPC as only allowing one request for the fixing of the final amount (see paragraph 176 below), no such further awards could be requested or made. 20.     Following a legislative amendment to Article 906 of the CPC in December 2018 (see paragraph 157 in fine below), a further request similar to that described in paragraph 17 above was lodged by the applicant in 2019. She was awarded RON 27,300 by the Motru District Court in a final judgment of 15 July 2020 to cover the three-month period prior to the request being lodged with the court. In its reasoning, the court considered that the law allowed requests such as the applicant’s every three months until enforcement of an outstanding judgment. It is unclear whether that amount was paid to the applicant. 21 .     According to the most recent information submitted to the Government by the Gorj Prefecture on 11 February 2021, enforcement of the outstanding judgment was difficult as the respective plots of land appeared to be public property belonging to the State and were managed by two regional Forest Administration Departments (Mehedinţi and Baia de Aramǎ). The procedure to be followed was therefore not straightforward, the Prefecture stating that the mechanism for transferring property from public into private ownership of the State and then to the local commissions was highly problematic. (b)    Onu, application no. 32541/18 22.     By a final judgment of 10 April 2014, the Galaţi County Court ordered the Galaţi regional commission to issue a title deed to the applicant confirming his property rights to 3 ha of land ( luciu de apǎ ) at Şovârca Lake. 23 .     The Government submitted that when attempting to enforce the outstanding judgment, the domestic authorities had identified the land, which was public property and part of a larger fishing spot set up on the River Prut. Therefore, under the law, the applicant was entitled to obtain a different equivalent plot of land, if available, or appropriate compensation. 24 .     Since 2021 the Galaţi regional commission has made several attempts to have the property transferred from the public property of the State into its private property, with a view to a subsequent transfer to the applicant. The Government argued that such a procedure was complex and long, involving the adoption of a preliminary Government Decision to that end. At the time the observations were submitted, there was no indication of any actual outcome of those attempts. 25 .     The Government also indicated that as no alternative plots of land were available, the possibility of awarding the applicant compensation had instead been discussed with him, but he had not shown any interest. 26 .     On 15 January 2018 the applicant lodged a request under Article 906 of the CPC (see paragraph 157 below), seeking to sanction the relevant regional commission for its failure to enforce the outstanding judgment. His request was dismissed as ill-founded by the first-instance court on 19   December 2019 on the grounds that execution of the judgment concerning the original location was impossible as the land was apparently public property and the commission had not acted in bad faith. An appeal by the applicant was dismissed by the Galaţi County Court on 9 July 2021. The latter judgment has not been made available to the Court by the parties. (c)    Todea and Others, application no. 38992/18 27.     By a final judgment of 15 July 2002, the Turda District Court confirmed the applicants’ entitlement to a plot of land of 3.64 ha located at a place named “Râtul Viţeilor” in Turda. The court ordered the local and regional commissions to issue a title deed and grant the applicants possession of the plot of land. 28.     On 10 December 2007 an attempt by the applicants to enforce the outstanding judgment with the assistance of a bailiff failed, the relevant record noting that the plot of land was in the possession of the State-owned National Fisheries Management Company. The local commission’s attempts to finalise the documentation enabling the regional commission to issue a title deed were unsuccessful as the land was public property, as confirmed by the National Agency for Fish and Aquaculture on 15   February 2016. 29 .     In 2019 the Agency transferred to the Turda local commission a total area of 45.3357 ha of land, including the plot of 3.64 ha. As an expert report attempting to identify the plot of land was pending, the outstanding judgment could not be enforced until that procedure was completed. (d)    Blajǎ, application no. 40167/18 30 .     By a final judgment of 25 May 2011, the Iași County Court confirmed the applicant’s predecessor’s entitlement to a plot of agricultural land of 1,000   sq.   m in Iași. A further final judgment of 24 April 2014 given by the same court ordered the local and regional commissions to grant the applicant possession and issue a title deed for that land. 31 .     A final judgment of 24 June 2015 given by the same court acknowledged the applicant’s entitlement to be granted possession and be issued with a title deed concerning another plot of land of 500 sq. m. The relevant commissions were requested to comply with their corresponding obligations. 32 .     As the land at the original location was no longer available, on 27   October 2020 the regional commission adopted a proposal by the local commission to grant the applicant equivalent land at a different location. 33 .     As to the damages awarded to the applicant for the delayed non ‑ enforcement of the outstanding judgments, the information submitted to the Court reveals that, according to the judgment of 20 February 2020 by the Iași County Court, and respectively that of 2 December 2020 by the Iași District Court, at the relevant time she was entitled to a total amount of respectively RON 528,475 and RON 20,925 (in respect of non-pecuniary damage caused by the non-enforcement), based on various judgments, some of them not yet final at the relevant time, given in proceedings brought under Article   906 of the CPC (see paragraph 157 below). In her submissions, received by the Court on 11 March 2022, the applicant indicated that she had not received all of that money, claiming to be entitled to still receive an amount of RON 408,925. 34 .     In her last submissions of 8 June 2022 the applicant claimed that on the one hand the courts had lowered the amount of RON 20,295 to RON   10,000, and in any event, the Iași local commission had challenged all enforcement proceedings launched by the applicant so as to obtain the amounts awarded under Article 906 of the CPC. These latter proceedings were still pending before the domestic courts. (e)    Iuga, application no. 42182/18 35.     By a final judgment of 2 June 2010, the Maramureș County Court acknowledged the applicant’s wife entitlement to be granted possession of a plot of 3.76 ha of forest land located in Borșa (Cornedei Mountain). Several attempts to respond to the applicant’s claims were made, having regard to the fact that it was objectively impossible to enforce the outstanding judgment, since the land belonged to the town of Borșa, as acknowledged by a final judgment of 4 December 2013 given by the Maramureș County Court. Subsequently, the applicant was invited to negotiate with the local commission the possibility of accepting an alternative solution (other plots of land), but he refused to participate in such discussions. 36 .     The information submitted by the Maramureș County Prefecture on 26   February 2021 referred to the fact that since there was no land available within the Borșa area, the local commission had to firstly draft the necessary documentation in order to request the regional commission’s approval to have a plot of land transferred from public into private property of the State, pursuant to Article 13 of the Law (see paragraph 145 below). Since there was a disagreement between the local and regional commissions regarding which authority was entitled to initiate such proceedings, advice was requested from the NAPR, pending which no further progress was made in respect of the applicant’s request. (f)      Pintea, application no. 45732/18 37.     By a judgment of 17 May 1995 given by the Dej District Court, which became final on 25 July 1995, the court acknowledged the applicant’s predecessor’s entitlement to be granted possession of a plot of forest land of 0.5675   ha located in Nima, Cluj. 38.     Because the judgment remained unenforced, on 7 August 2018 the applicant brought another set of proceedings asking the court to order the relevant commissions to grant him possession of the land and issue him with a title deed. The Gherla District Court allowed his claim on 27 October 2021, referring to an expert report which confirmed that the land in question had belonged to his predecessors and was available to be given back to him. The judgment is amenable to appeal. (g)    Enescu and Others, application no. 52852/18 39.     The applicants obtained acknowledgment of their property rights to 9,100   sq. m of land in Bucharest by a final judgment of 10 June 2015 given by the Bucharest County Court. 40 .     On 6 October 2020 the Bucharest regional commission sought to have ownership of the land transferred from the local commission of the city’s fifth sector ( Sectorul 5 ). The transfer documentation was issued on 18   November 2020 and at the time of the submission of the observations, it was awaiting signature by the relevant local commission. 41 .     Following a request by the applicants under Article 906 of the CPC (see paragraph 157 below), on 16 March 2016 the Bucharest District Court ordered the local commission and the relevant mayor to pay them a daily fine of RON 1,000 until the outstanding judgment of 2015 was enforced. Consequently, on 20 December 2017 a total amount of RON 371,700 was paid to the applicants. 42.     Another similar request, this time against the Bucharest regional commission, was allowed by the Bucharest District Court on 18 June 2020, with the applicants being entitled to receive a daily fine of RON 500 until the outstanding judgment was enforced. No further information concerning this was made available to the Court. 43 .     The applicants brought claims for the loss of use of their property for the period 8 December 2015 to 27 June 2018, based on Article 892 of the CPC, which were allowed by the first-instance court but dismissed on appeal by the Bucharest County Court on 11   July 2019. The latter judgment has not been submitted to the Court. (h)    Albuleţ, application no. 2556/19 and Marcu, application no. 59503/18 44 .     On 11 July 2006 the Teleorman District Court allowed a claim by the applicants’ predecessors and ordered the local and regional commissions to draft the necessary documentation and then issue a title deed concerning 23   ha of forest land as identified in an expert report drawn up in 2000 and appended to the judgment. Failure on their part to comply with the outstanding judgment was sanctioned with a daily fine of RON 100 ( daune cominatorii ), to be paid to the applicants. A similar finding was given by the Brașov District Court on 16 April 2019, the local commission and the Predeal Town Hall being required to pay a daily fine of RON 100 as of the date of that judgment until the 2006 outstanding judgment was enforced. 45.     There is no information available to the Court as to whether any of the above-mentioned daily fines were paid in any form to the applicants. 46 .     The outstanding judgment is still awaiting enforcement, with several sets of court proceedings relating thereto still pending, as submitted by the Predeal Town Hall on 8 February 2021. Furthermore, it is submitted that the 23   ha of land was made up of several plots of forest land, some of which had either been already given to third parties or belonged to the town of Predeal (forest or pasture land), the State (managed by Romsilva), or were located within the boundaries of another town (Azuga). (i)      Ifrim, application no. 1369/19 47.     By a final judgment of 12 November 2008, the Podul Turcului District Court confirmed the applicant’s entitlement to, inter alia , 0.27 ha of forest land located at a place named “Podiș”. 48.     Part of the outstanding judgment was enforced on 16 March 2009. Since the part of the judgment relating to the 0.27 ha had not been complied with, the applicant requested that enforcement proceedings be initiated, a request allowed by the Bacǎu County Court on 21 July 2017. The Bacǎu Prefecture challenged the execution and on 19 June 2018 the Bacǎu County Court found that the applicant’s right to obtain enforcement of the outstanding judgment had become time-barred, in accordance with Article   405 of the former CPC (see paragraph 156 below), as far as was relevant for the examination of the case, within three years calculated as of 16   March 2009. 49 .     As the property claimed was on the boundary of two towns (Podu Turcului and Boghești), on 22 August 2017 the Podul Turcului local commission referred the enforcement to the Boghești local commission. On 26 February 2021 the latter local commission submitted that the referral was erroneous as it was the other commission which had authority to deal with the matter. The proceedings are still pending. (j)      Association “Composesoratul Borșa”, application no. 16060/19 50.     By a final judgment of 1 June 2005, the Oradea Court of Appeal confirmed the applicant association’s property rights to 17,000 ha of forest land located in Borșa and ordered the local and regional commissions respectively to grant it possession of the land and issue the corresponding title deed. 51.     The applicant association submitted that by lodging more than nine extraordinary appeals against the outstanding judgment, the majority of which had been dismissed, and one of which was still pending, the domestic authorities had attempted in bad faith to impede its enforcement. 52 .     On 27 November 2014 the applicant association brought proceedings seeking to enforce the outstanding judgment of 2005. On 16 January 2017 the Maramureș regional commission issued a title deed concerning the 17,000   ha of land, without however specifying its exact location. However, the Cluj Court of Appeal found on 27 November 2020 that despite a title deed having been issued, the applicant association had not yet been granted possession of the land to which it was entitled, and that no effective reinstatement had taken place. Moreover, several parts of the land claimed by the applicant association appeared to have been given to third parties within restitution proceedings. 53.     According to the information available to the Court, the enforcement proceedings are still pending. 54 .     Following a request by the applicant association, lodged on 15   February 2017 under Article 906 of the CPC (see paragraph 157 below), the Bistriţa Nǎsǎud County Court ordered the local and regional commissions to pay the applicant association a daily fine of RON 1,000 until the outstanding judgment of 2005 was enforced. On 26 February 2018 the Sighetu Marmaţiei District Court established the final amount to be paid by the Borșa local commission as the fine for the non-enforcement of the outstanding judgment for the period between 17 September 2016 and the date of delivery of the judgment as RON 527,000. To date, the applicant association has been unable to enforce the judgment, which has constantly been the subject of extraordinary appeals, requests for suspension of enforcement and enforcement appeals. 55.     The applicant association submitted that the domestic authorities had constantly sought its dissolution by the courts, allegedly because, under the law, the dissolution of such an association resulted in all its property being taken over by the local authority. In particular, by issuing tax decisions for land tax due for 2012-2017 in the amount of approximately EUR   500,000, the local authorities tried to declare the applicant association insolvent. On 27   November 2020 the Cluj Court of Appeal, as a first-instance court, annulled all the tax decisions on the grounds that, essentially, the land had never actually been given to the applicant association, which was therefore not the owner of the land, so no land tax could be due. That judgment was appealed against by the tax authorities and the appeal is pending before the HCCJ (with the first hearing set for 19 May 2022). On 4 February 2021 the authorities issued new tax decisions (land tax and arrears) in the amount of some EUR 890,000. The applicant association claimed to have challenged those decisions. 56.     Additionally, the local authorities lodged a request to dissolve the applicant association on the grounds that it had not been constituted in accordance with the law and did not pursue a lawful aim. According to the information available to the Court, on 15 July 2021 the request was dismissed by the Bistriţa Nǎsǎud District Court. That judgment was appealed against and the proceedings are pending before the Bistriţa Nǎsǎud County Court. (k)    Danci, application no. 20341/19 57.     A final judgment of 10 October 2007 given by the Maramureș County Court acknowledged the applicant’s husband’s entitlement to a plot of land of 0.75 ha in Borșa, at a location named “Gura Repezii” or “Acasă”, and ordered the relevant commissions to issue a title deed and grant him possession of that land. 58 .     The relevant plot of land was not available to be given to the applicant as third parties had already registered their own titles in respect of the same property since 2004. Such circumstances, in the local authorities’ view, made it objectively impossible to enforce the outstanding judgment. 59 .     The Borșa local commission therefore invited the applicant on 15   March 2016 to state her position concerning the possibility of her being granted another plot of land or paid compensation in accordance with the law. The invitation was never accepted by the applicant. As she did not consent to accept an alternative solution, the authorities could not move forward in their attempts to enforce the judgment. (l)      Association “Composesorat Mutu Coasta Ursului Straja Lupeni”, application no. 25811/19 60 .     By a final judgment of 5 May 2017, the Hunedoara County Court acknowledged that the applicant association, which had lodged its restitution claims in 2005, had property rights to a total area of 207.32 ha of pasture and forest land. The local and regional commissions were requested by the court to grant possession of the property and issue the corresponding title deeds (see also paragraph 197 below). (m) Ovidiu Paul Ştefǎnescu, application no. 27761/19 61.     By a final judgment of 25 June 2010, the Câmpulung District Court acknowledged the applicant’s right to be granted possession of 75 ha of land, more specifically 4.9 ha of agricultural land, 3.9 ha of pasture land and 66.22   ha of forest land located in Mihǎești. 62.     In 2011 the applicant was granted possession of a 14.42 ha plot of forest land, but no title deed was issued. 63.     In 2015 the applicant was granted possession of two plots of land of a total of 8.8 ha, comprising the agricultural and pasture land. No title deed was issued. 64.     By a final judgment of 6 December 2016, the Argeș County Court confirmed the applicant’s right to be granted possession of the remaining 35.80   ha of forest land at the original location, and of 16 ha of land of the same value at another location, as well as to be issued with title deeds to all 75   ha of land. 65 .     On 13 September 2018 the applicant lodged with the courts a request under Article 906 of the CPC (see paragraph 157 below), seeking penalties for the non-enforcement of the outstanding judgment of 2016. By a final judgment of 20   November 2018, the Câmpulung District Court dismissed the request as ill-founded. The court held that with regard to the non ‑ enforcement, there had been no bad faith on the part of the local commission, and that the outstanding judgment had not yet been enforced because the land had to be transferred from public into private property of the State and then made available to the regional commissions so that further steps could be taken to grant possession to the applicant and issue him with the required title deeds. The local commission had already taken the required steps and requested that the relevant authorities move forward with the necessary transfer, but without any actual results. The court also held that the procedure was very cumbersome and lengthy, and that if at one point it proved to have become unreasonably long, a new request could be lodged by the applicant. 66.     On 5 December 2019 the applicant asked the courts to order the relevant authorities (the government, the relevant commissions and Romsilva) to initiate proceedings to effect the transfer of the land to which he was entitled from public into private property of the State. The proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court. (n)    Şendroiu, application no. 28615/19 67.     On 5 September 2014 the Târgu Jiu District Court ordered the local authorities to issue and forward certain documents (plans and measurements of the land) to the county commission for the issuance of title deeds for two plots of land to which the applicant’s property rights had been acknowledged. One plot of agricultural land measured 3.11   ha and the other, measuring 1.25   ha, was forest land. The court also ordered the local mayor to pay the applicant RON 50 for every day of delay in enforcing the judgment. 68 .     By a judgment of 31 March 2017, the Gorj County Court allowed a request by the applicant under Article 906 of the CPC (see paragraph   157 below) to be paid by the local mayor the amounts established in the outstanding judgment of 2014. There is no information concerning the actual payment of any such amounts. 69 .     Following several sets of proceedings in which the applicant disputed the total area of agricultural land, the Târgu Jiu District Court found, in a judgment of 23 January 2019, which became final on 8 July 2020, that the total area to which the applicant was entitled was 3.11 ha (which included a disputed plot of 0.6214 ha). 70 .     It appears from the case file that in respect of the agricultural land, the authorities issued two title deeds, one for an area of 2.90 ha (dated 7 March 2019) and another for an area of 0.21 ha (dated 11 June 2019). 71 .     With regard to the forest land, two records dated 18 December 2018 confirmed the granting of possession of two plots of 1 ha and 0.25   ha respectively. The procedure of issuing the corresponding title deeds was ongoing, as it was dependent on the transfer of the land from public property into private property of the State. 72 .     The applicant applied to the courts for the annulment of the above ‑ mentioned titles (paragraph 70 above) and records of possession (see paragraph   71 above), essentially because the local authorities had not complied with the outstanding judgment in relation to the total area of land to which he was entitled (see also paragraph 69 in fine ). The proceedings have been suspended until a decision in parallel criminal proceedings concerning the manner of issuing the above-mentioned documents is rendered. (o)    Stoiculescu, application no. 33596/19 73.     In a final judgment of 22 June 1998, the Olt County Court ordered the relevant local commission to grant the applicant possession of a plot of land in Scǎrișoara, 0.15 ha of which was intra muros (within its boundaries) and 0.10   ha was extra muros (outside its boundaries). 74.     Since the outstanding judgment had not been enforced, in 2017 the applicant requested its enforcement through a bailiff. By a final judgment of 18 October 2018, the Olt County Court dismissed the applicant’s request as time-barred, finding that Article 706 of the CPC (see paragraph 156 below) provided that requests concerning the enforcement of property rights had to be lodged within ten years. 75 .     On 21 January 2019 the local commission informed the applicant that the property claimed had belonged to third parties since the 1990s, their title deeds having been issued in 1995. 76 .     The Government submitted that, according to the local commission, the outstanding judgment could not be enforced due to the need to protect the interests of the third parties who had built their houses on the land. The applicant, on the other hand, was reluctant to accept any alternative solutions, such as being granted another plot, to be identified at a later stage, or compensation. 77 .     On 25 May 2021 the applicant was invited to attend a local commission meeting, to be held on 28 May, in order to “find a solution to enforce the outstanding judgment of 1998”. The Court has not been provided with any further information concerning that meeting, or any other concrete proposal made to the applicant with the aim of enforcing the outstanding judgment. (p)    Lie, application no. 43586/19 78.     The applicant’s predecessors’ entitlement to be issued with a title deed and be granted possession of two plots of agricultural land (unidentified), totalling 16.75 ha, was acknowledged by the Brașov County Court in final judgments of 18 March 2004 and 11 February 2019 respectively. The applicant claimed to be entitled to two sevenths of the whole inheritance. 79 .     The Government submitted that since the original location could not be identified, the applicant himself having been unable to indicate it, the local commission