CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 novembre 2023

.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 } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sD8AE9261 { width:36.9pt; display:inline-block } .sDC0BAB79 { width:166.46pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 23200/19 Gheorghe ȚURCAN against Romania   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28   November 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Tim Eicke, President ,   Branko Lubarda,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to: the application (no.   23200/19) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 10 April 2019 by a Romanian national, Mr Gheorghe Țurcan (“the applicant”), who was born in 1967, lives in Suceava and was represented by Mr D.F. Dăscălescu, a lawyer practising in Suceava; the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Romanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms O.F. Ezer, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention relating to his inability to obtain compensation for the improvements made by him to the residential premises he rented from the municipality. 2.     On 23 July 2003, the applicant concluded a tenancy agreement with the Suceava municipal authorities concerning a social apartment belonging to the latter. The tenancy agreement is valid to date. 3.     After signing the agreement, the applicant carried out a series of improvements in the flat. These included adding a bathroom and a new room to the flat, strengthening the building structure, renewing the roof framework, adding thermal insulation, altering the internal layout, replacing internal doors, windows, flooring, electrical fittings, and sanitary systems, as well as erecting a shed. 4.     On 14 November 2014, the applicant initiated court proceedings against the Suceava Municipality, seeking compensation for the upgrades he had made to the rented apartment, amounting to roughly EUR 18,000. In its defence, the municipality contended, among other things, that the claim was time-barred. 5.     On 7 June 2017, the Suceava District Court ruled that the claim was not time-barred. The court found that the time limit had not yet begun running for the applicant and would only start running once the lease contract was terminated. Despite this finding, the court upheld the applicant’s claims in full and ordered the municipality to pay the requested compensation to him. 6.     The above judgment was confirmed by the Suceava County Court on 6   March 2018 and the municipality challenged the solution of both courts with an appeal on points of law. 7.     On 19 February 2019, the Suceava Court of Appeal upheld the municipality’s appeal on points of law, setting aside the decisions of the lower courts and rejecting the applicant’s claims. The court concluded that the applicant did not have standing to bring the action (acțiunea este lipsită de un interes născut și actual) as the tenancy agreement between the parties was still in effect. Relying on Articles 32 and 33 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court ruled that the entitlement to compensation on the part of the applicant would only arise upon the cessation of the tenancy agreement. Granting the tenant’s claim before such cessation would effectively permit him to unjustly enrich himself at the landlord’s expense because the value of the improvements would naturally depreciate over time due to wear and tear and, by the end of the lease agreement, the landlord would have paid the tenant an amount surpassing the actual residual value of the improvements carried out. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 8.     The applicant complained that the domestic courts’ failure to grant his claims against the municipality had breached his right to respect for his property as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The Government disagreed and argued that the complaint was inadmissible. 9.     The general principles concerning protection afforded by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 have been summarised in Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no.   44912/98, §§ 49-50, ECHR 2004-IX; Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and Di   Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 173, ECHR 2012; Béláné Nagy v.   Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, § 75, 13 December 2016; and Valverde Digon v. Spain , no. 22386/19, § 49, 26 January 2023. 10.     Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that the applicant filed his action with the intention of seeking compensation from the municipality for the improvements carried out on the property he was renting from said authority. Therefore, the proceedings do not pertain to an “existing possession” of the applicant. It remains to be determined whether the applicant could be deemed to have had any “legitimate expectation” of realising his claim to compensation. 11.     The Court notes that the Court of Appeal decided that the applicant lacked standing to initiate proceedings against the municipality because the tenancy agreement was still ongoing and that the entitlement to the sought compensation would only arise upon the cessation of the said agreement. The court grounded its decision in the general principles set forth in Articles   32 and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure concerning locus standi , emphasising that recognising the applicant’s demand for compensation prior to the termination of the lease would result in his unjust enrichment at the landlord’s expense (see paragraph 7 above). The Court finds no indication that the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeal was arbitrary or contrary to the provisions of the national law applied by it. In fact, the court gave effect to the provisions of the law that stipulated the requirement for lease termination as a precondition for the entitlement to compensation - a precondition that was not met in the applicant’s case. Therefore, the Court concludes that the applicant could not have had any “legitimate expectation” of realising his claim for compensation for the upgrades made to the rented premises prior to the tenancy agreement’s conclusion. 12.     The Court accordingly concludes that the applicant did not have a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1. Consequently, the judgment of the Suceava Court of Appeal did not amount to an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, and the facts of the case do not fall within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 13.     It follows that the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is 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. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 18 January 2024.     Ilse Freiwirth   Tim Eicke   Deputy Registrar   President