CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 7 janvier 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sDC0F5DF3 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sEBD403DC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:9pt } .sD37EA1D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s24E6874 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .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 } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .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 } .s42CF1DCB { width:27.67pt; text-indent:0pt; 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 } .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 } .s49F7D146 { width:29.44pt; display:inline-block } .s81EF3014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .s14C34524 { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .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 } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3C6C0BEA { width:21.91pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBD165FDE { width:5.39pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6747EE63 { width:0.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6959B53C { width:1.52pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9B60391A { width:0.97pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s91636E87 { width:0.39pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE7664D6B { width:1.6pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .sEE2E120 { width:2.22pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s36C190A3 { width:0.97pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .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 } .sF267204E { width:5.67pt; 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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3E39F0D2 { width:24.22pt; display:inline-block } .s930DD00E { width:137.1pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s7B0B20EB { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s5D528EA5 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2A7D4500 { height:31.8pt } FOURTH SECTION CASE OF VĂLEANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 59012/17 and 27 others – see appended list)   JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction)   Art 41 • Just satisfaction • Award for pecuniary damage sustained from violation of Art 1 P1 in relation to property confiscated or nationalised by the communist regime • Respondent State to ensure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of outstanding judgments in the applicants’ favour involving the return of the properties to them or the payment of compensation updated for inflation if established prior to 2013 • Award for pecuniary damage calculated on the basis of a domestic valuation system, established by the national legislative framework (the notarial grids), to be paid failing such enforcement • All relevant amounts due to the applicants as compensation in domestic administrative and/or judicial proceedings already enforced in their favour by the date of the present judgment, to be deducted from the Court’s award   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 7 January 2025 FINAL   30/06/2025   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:   Faris Vehabović, Acting President,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer ,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Tim Eicke,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins,   Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15 October, 22 October and 10 December 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The complaints raised in the present applications, mainly under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, concerned 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. 2 .     In a judgment delivered on 8 November 2022 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 essentially on account of the respondent State’s failure to finalise within a reasonable time the restitution proceedings initiated by the applicants, whether by enforcing the final judgments in their favour or by simply giving a decision on their claims, which were still pending before the relevant authorities, even though their entitlement to compensation had already been established in administrative decisions. In particular, the prolonged non-enforcement of outstanding judgments in the applicants’ favour and the lack of an effective remedy in this regard; the annulment of their titles on account of the State’s failure to correctly implement the applicable law and without any compensation; and the failure of the authorities to ensure that the compensation awarded was reasonably related to the current value of the property constituted sufficient elements to enable the Court to conclude that, despite the safeguards introduced by Law   no.   165/2013 and validated   a priori   by the Court in Preda and Others v.   Romania (nos.   9584/02 and 7 others, 29 April 2014) , the restitution mechanism continued to fall short of being comprehensively effective and convincingly consistent so as not to place an excessive burden on the applicants ( see Văleanu and Others v. Romania , nos. 59012/17 and 27   others, §§ 262 and 277, 8 November 2022). 3.     Under Article   41 of the Convention, all the applicants requested that the outstanding judgments in their favour be enforced and that the property to which they were entitled be given back to them. Some of the applicants submitted expert valuation reports concerning the property claimed and/or the corresponding loss of use to which they argued they were entitled (ibid., §   275). 4 .     In its principal judgment, the Court awarded various amounts to those applicants who had claimed compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage and who had respectively claimed and substantiated their request for the costs and expenses of the proceedings incurred up to the adoption of the principal judgment (ibid., §§   279 and 280-81). Those amounts are indicated in the appendix to that judgment. 5.     Since the question of the application of Article   41 of the Convention was not ready for decision as regards pecuniary damage, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicants to submit, within three months, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify it of any agreement they might reach (ibid., § 278, and point 5 of the operative provisions). 6 .     The parties did not reach an agreement. Some of the applicants submitted claims in respect of pecuniary damage, while others confirmed that they were maintaining the claims previously submitted to the Court. The respondent Government filed observations in this regard. RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THE PRINCIPAL JUDGMENT General remarks by the Government 7.     The Government indicated that, despite being overwhelmed by the extremely high number of pending restitution claims (more than 2.7 million requests), massive efforts had been made by the domestic authorities to speed up the processing of pending requests and the issuing of decisions based on existing files. For instance, the National Commission for Property Compensation (hereinafter “the NCPC”) had taken 6,489 such decisions in 2021 and 9,351 decisions in 2022. Additional information had been requested in 8,017 files in 2021 and in 7,536 files in 2022. Submissions concerning individual applications Cases concerning non-enforcement of final judgments 8.     The Court found in its principal judgment that, in the cases listed below, the applicants had obtained final decisions in their favour which had not been (fully) enforced (see paragraphs 15, 229-30 and 262 of the principal judgment). Those decisions concerned the local commissions’ obligation to issue title deeds (ownership titles) and/or grant the applicants possession of the property to which they were entitled (applications listed under nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 21, 22, 24, 28 in the appendix below) or pay them appropriate compensation instead (applications listed as nos. 13, 15 and   27 in the appendix below); or to provide a legal response to their restitution claims (applications listed under nos. 18, 19 and 26 in the appendix below). 9.     The relevant updated factual details of each application, where available, are set out below. Failure of the authorities to issue title deeds and/or to grant possession (a)    Argintaru, application no. 12854/18 (listed under no.   2 in the appendix) 10 .     The applicant submitted that, even though the outstanding judgment in her favour had not yet been enforced, since 2021 she had been notified of her obligation to pay taxes in the amount of 43,505.25 Romanian lei (RON) on the property, despite it not yet being in her possession. In reply to the Government’s submissions (see paragraph 11 below), she reiterated that she had cooperated with the relevant local authorities at every step of the procedure. However, there was no need to further identify the plots of land claimed, since they had been identified as such during the court proceedings terminated by the outstanding judgment given in 2012 (see paragraph 16 of the principal judgment). Moreover, those plots of land were unoccupied and had not been given to other third parties. They were therefore ready to be given back in natura to their rightful owner. 11 .     The Government submitted that, as at 9 May 2023, no relevant progress had been achieved in relation to the applicant’s claims, since she had failed to participate in meetings held by the local commission aimed at facilitating the identification of the plots of land to which she was entitled. (b)    Onu, application no. 32541/18 (listed under no.   4 in the appendix) 12 .     The applicant’s heirs submitted that the land at Şovârca Lake was owned by the town of Oancea and was not public property of the State. It was therefore available to be given back to them. 13 .     The Government submitted that because the land claimed by the applicant’s heirs was public property, it first had to be transferred from public to private property of the State with a view to its subsequent transfer to them. They did not provide any details as to whether such a procedure had been initiated and, if so, what stage it had reached. (c)    Todea and Others, application no. 38992/18 (listed under no.   5. in the appendix) 14 .     One of the applicants, Romulus Nicolae Todea, died on 16 August 2023. His heir, Mircea Romulus Todea, expressed his wish to pursue the proceedings in his stead. The applicants submitted that their refusal to accept another (neighbouring) plot of land in exchange for their own (see paragraph 15 below) was justified: on the land proposed to them as an alternative there was a derelict building which had been the headquarters of a fisheries office. Unsuccessful negotiations with the authorities on the handing over of that land, which had lasted until June 2023, had revolved around the fate of the building, with the authorities asking for part of the land to be deducted in exchange for the building and the applicants wanting the building to be demolished at the authorities’ expense. 15 .     The information submitted to the Government by the Cluj County Prefecture referred to the fact   that the plot of land originally owned by the applicants had changed in its factual and legal parameters and could therefore no longer be granted to them. Instead, an alternative (neighbouring) plot had been proposed and the applicants had been invited to sign the record of possession on 6 February 2020. They had refused that proposal. The Government argued that, given the circumstances, no compensation should be awarded to the applicants. (d)    Iuga, application no. 42182/18 (listed under no.   6 in the appendix) 16 .     The applicant died on 28 February 2023. No heir expressed any wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court in his stead. 17 .     The Government informed the Court that they had learned of the applicant’s death on 13 June 2023 from the General Directorate for Personal Records and Database Management ( Direcția pentru Evidența Persoanelor și Administrarea Bazelor de Date ) pending their attempts to execute the Court’s principal judgment. Neither the applicant’s representative nor any potential heir had informed them or the Court of his death. (e)    Pintea, application no. 45732/18   (listed under no.   7 in the appendix) 18 .     In reply to the position expressed by the Government in their letter of April 2024 (see paragraph 85 below), the applicant submitted his just satisfaction claims on the basis of the relevant 2024 notarial grids. 19.     A letter from the Cluj County Prefecture dated 19 September 2022, submitted to the Court by the Government, stated that an exchange of documents relating to the applicant’s request had taken place between the local and county commissions. At the date of the latest information available to the Court (August 2023), the procedure was ongoing. (f)      Enescu and Others, application no. 52852/18 (listed under no.   9 in the appendix) 20 .     The applicants indicated that they had been given possession of the land on 27   September 2021. 21 .     The Government pointed out that on 9 November 2021 the Bucharest mayor’s office had issued the title deed for the plot of land claimed by the applicants and identified by an expert report issued in 2020, a plot of land which they had already received on 27 September 2021. They therefore asked that the applicants’ just satisfaction claims be struck out. (g)    Marcu, application no. 59503/18, and Albuleţ, application no. 2556/19 (listed under nos. 10 and 12 in the appendix respectively) 22 .     The applicants submitted that the 23 ha of forest land to which they were entitled was available and free to use and that they should therefore be given back their land. 23 .     The Government indicated that, out of the 23 ha of forest land to which the applicants were entitled, 5 ha had been returned to them on 7   October 2013; a further 6 ha, currently owned by the town of Predeal, had been proposed for transfer and the proposal was in the process of being validated before the Brașov county commission; the same procedure was ongoing in respect of a total of 6.50 ha of grassland (two plots of 5 ha and 1.50 ha respectively); and, lastly, 5 ha of forest land was being managed by the State entity Azuga Forest Administration ( Romsilva ). (h)    Ifrim, application no. 1369/19 (listed under no.   11 in the appendix) 24.     The applicant did not submit any updated information or claims relating to her property (0.27 ha of forest land). 25 .     The Government indicated that, according to the information received from the relevant local authorities, while the applicant had been in de facto possession of the land, the Podul Turcului and Boghești local commissions had referred to each other the authority to enforce the outstanding judgment in her favour. The procedure was still pending. (i)      Association “Composesoratul Borșa”, application no. 16060/19 (listed under no. 14 in the appendix) 26.     Following a civil action initiated by the applicant association in 2016 seeking the annulment of a title deed and ancillary documents unlawfully issued to a different association ( composesorat ) in respect of a 6,056.95 ha plot of forest land, claims allowed by the domestic courts on 28 June 2023, the applicant association became the owner of the relevant plot of land. However, according to the applicant association, the national authorities had not identified the appropriate procedure for the actual handing over of that forest. 27 .     The applicant association reiterated that, since the very purpose of an association was to ensure sustainable forest management, its very existence was undermined by the fact that it did not own any forest (land). It therefore asked that the forest land be returned in kind. Such action by the relevant authorities was feasible, as also evidenced by the expert report submitted by the applicant association indicating that the public property of the State included sufficient forest land in the relevant area enabling it to make the required forest land (10,943.08 ha) available to the applicant association. The report also indicated various plots of forest land that could potentially satisfy the applicant association’s claims. 28 .     The Government indicated that proceedings were pending before the domestic courts challenging the applicant association’s right to the 17,000   ha of forest land; in particular, the proceedings concerned the annulment of the applicant association’s title deeds in respect of the forest land and a review of the judgment that had granted them property rights over the 17,000 ha of forest land relevant in the present case. (j)      Danci, application no. 20341/19 (listed under no. 16 in the appendix) 29 .     The applicant’s heir maintained her claims for just satisfaction as submitted in the previous stages of the proceedings. 30 .     The Government indicated that following the applicant’s refusal to accept the Borșa local commission’s invitation of 15   March 2016 aimed at clarifying her position on the possibility of being granted another plot of land or receiving compensation in accordance with Law no. 165/2013 (hereinafter “the Law”), no further steps could be taken with regard to her claims (see also paragraph 59 of the principal judgment). (k)    Ovidiu Paul Ştefǎnescu, application no. 27761/19 (listed under no. 21 in the appendix) 31 .     In reply to the Government’s updated submissions sent in April 2024 (see paragraph 32 below), the applicant also updated his just satisfaction claims on the basis of the relevant 2024 notarial grids, referring only to 66.22 ha of land. 32 .     The Government indicated that on 21 October 2022 the applicant had received a title deed for the 8.80 ha plots of agricultural land and pastureland of which he had been granted possession in 2015 (see paragraph   63 of the principal judgment). As regards the remaining land to which he was entitled, namely 66.22 ha of forest land, a procedure was underway with a view to transferring it from public to private property of the State. (l)      Şendroiu, application no. 28615/19 (listed under no. 22 in the appendix) 33.     The applicant confirmed that he had applied for the annulment of the two title deeds referred to by the Government (see paragraph 34 below) and that the relevant proceedings were ongoing. He submitted that, to date, the outstanding judgments in his favour had not been enforced, even though since 1991 he had been paying property tax on the land to which he was entitled but which he still did not own. Without indicating a specific tax amount or otherwise substantiating the latter assertion, the applicant requested that it should be taken into account by the Court as an element justifying his entitlement to just satisfaction. 34 .     The Government reiterated that the authorities had issued two title deeds in respect of the agricultural land, the first for 2.90 ha of land (dated 7   March 2019) and another for 0.21 ha of land (dated 11 June 2019; see also paragraph 70 of the principal judgment). The procedure for issuing the corresponding title deeds in respect of the forest land to which the applicant was entitled (1.25 ha) was still ongoing, pending the transfer of the land from public to private property of the State. (m) Stoiculescu, application no. 33596/19 (listed under no.   24 in the appendix) 35 .     The applicant requested that the outstanding judgment in his favour be enforced. In his latest letter to the Court, dated 4 December 2023, he did not expressly refer to the information submitted by the Government about the 2023 title deed. He did, however, again refer to various other plots of land which were not part of the subject matter decided by the Court in its principal judgment and to which he claimed to be entitled. 36 .     The Government submitted that on 27 November 2023 the relevant county commission had issued a title deed for 0.25 ha of land in accordance with the outstanding judgment of 22 June 1998. On 30 October 2023 the applicant was granted possession of that land. However, he challenged the 2023 title deed before the domestic courts as regards its location. Those proceedings were pending before the Caracal First Instance Court. Pending the outcome of those proceedings, on 13 March 2024 the applicant leased ( arendǎ ) 0.15 ha of the land included in the 2023 title deed. (n)    Lie, application no. 43586/19 (listed under no. 28 in the appendix) 37 .     The applicant submitted that the domestic proceedings seeking to challenge the alternative proposals made by the local commission were still pending before the domestic courts. 38 .     The Government submitted that because the applicant and other heirs did not know the exact location of the plot of land that had belonged to their predecessor, the authorities had offered them land as compensation; the applicant was the only one of all the heirs who had refused the proposal and had not signed the minutes confirming the taking possession of the land. Failure of the authorities to establish an amount in respect of compensation and/or to pay such compensation (a)    Nicolaiescu, application no. 15930/19 (listed under no. 13 in the appendix) 39.     The applicant did not submit any updated information or claims relating to his property. 40 .     The information submitted to the Government by the local relevant authorities indicated that they were unable to return to the applicant in kind the 1,820 sq.   m of land to which he was entitled, as there was no land (reserve) available within their jurisdiction. On 12 February 2021 the local commission’s proposal to award the applicant compensation was forwarded to the National Agency for Property Restitution ( Autoritatea Naţională pentru Restituirea Proprietăţilor   – “the NAPR”) for further assessment. (b)    Mihaela Ştefǎnescu, application no. 16337/19 (listed under no. 15 in the appendix) 41.     The applicant did not submit any just satisfaction claims or comments in reply to the Government’s submissions. 42 .     The Government indicated that on 8 February 2023 the applicant, on the one hand, and the Ploiești mayor’s office, on the other, had signed an agreement for the taking over of a plot of land ( protocol de predare ‑ preluare ) which had been granted to the applicant as compensation. In particular, in a decision issued by the mayor on 12 December 2022, the applicant had been granted possession of two equivalent plots of land, covering a total surface area of 10,865.56 sq.   m, as indicated in the outstanding decision of the Prahova County Court issued in 2014 (see paragraph 88 of the principal judgment). As at 28 April 2023 the applicant’s right of ownership had not yet been registered in the Land Register, so no record of possession of the land had yet been issued. Given that the applicant had taken over an equivalent plot of land, the Government asked the Court not to award the applicant any compensation in respect of pecuniary damage. (c)    Marcea, application no. 36372/19 (listed under no. 27 in the appendix) 43 .     In a letter dated 8 February 2023, the applicant’s heirs requested to be awarded half the amount of RON 1,428,734.50, as per the NCPC’s compensation decision issued on 18   November 2009 on the basis of the final decision given on 9 February 2007 by the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“the HCCJ”). 44 .     The Government indicated that on 18 November 2019 a compensation certificate for the amount of RON 257,183.63 had been issued in favour of one of the applicant’s heirs, Mr Mihai Marcea. On 2   May 2023 the (first) payment certificate had been issued to him for RON   71,436.73. Its execution had been suspended pursuant to Emergency Government Ordinance no. 90/2023 (hereinafter “the EGO”, see paragraph   76 below). Failure of the authorities to issue a decision on the applicants’ restitution claims under the Law (a)    Moisǎ, application no. 23253/19, and Ţiplea, application no. 23256/19 (listed under nos. 18 and 19 in the appendix) 45 .     The applicants submitted an updated expert report in support of their claims in respect of pecuniary damage. 46 .     The Government confirmed that the applicants’ file was pending before the NCPC (see also paragraph 102 of the principal judgment). (b)    Tǎtǎrǎu, application no. 34474/19 (listed under no. 26 in the appendix) 47 .     On 23 April 2024 the applicant informed the Court that the NAPR had issued a compensation decision on 10 August 2023 for a total amount of RON   785,294. On 1 April 2024 the (first) payment certificate had been issued in her name in the amount of RON 157,058.80 (approximately 31,600 euros (EUR)). She submitted that the amount awarded in the compensation decision was not in accordance with the market value of the property (EUR 220,000, according to her calculations). 48 .     The Government indicated that on 16 May 2022 the Bucharest mayor had issued a compensation decision awarding the applicant points in respect of the 307 sq.   m of land to which she was entitled. That decision and the relevant documents had been submitted to the NAPR for further action and a decision. Cases concerning insufficient compensation 49.     In the principal judgment (see paragraphs 242-44 and 262 of that judgment), the Court found, in the applications listed under nos. 1, 8 and 17 in the appendix below, that the amounts awarded to the applicants in compensation had not been reasonably related to the value of the property within the meaning of the Court’s case ‑ law. 50.     The relevant submissions put forward by the parties are set out below. Vǎleanu, application no. 59012/17 (listed under no. 1 in the appendix) 51 .     The applicant argued that the only acceptable compensation for the property she had lost would be an amount calculated in accordance with the current market value of that property. 52 .     The Government pointed out that the most recent valuation of the applicant’s property, based on the 2022-2023 notarial grids, indicated a value almost twice as high as the sum of RON 13,301 calculated using the 2013 notarial grid. In any event, they submitted that the applicant had already cashed in the above-mentioned amount, which had been awarded to her as compensation by the NCPC (see paragraph 111 of the principal judgment). Strugaru, application no. 47070/18 (listed under no. 8 in the appendix) 53 .     The applicant reiterated her submissions as detailed in the principal judgment (see paragraphs 113-116 of that judgment), arguing that the amount awarded by the domestic courts in compensation had been derisory and that she should have been awarded an amount in accordance with the real market value of the property. 54 .     The Government indicated that the 5 July 2018 compensation decision issued by the NCPC awarding the applicant 15,200 points (the equivalent of RON   15,200) had not been enforced by her, as she had not yet cashed it in. Cobzaru, application no. 21500/19 (listed under no. 17 in the appendix) 55 .     The applicant maintained that amount awarded to her by the NCPC in compensation for her predecessors’ property had been much lower than the market value of that property and therefore unfair. 56 .     The Government indicated that the amount awarded in compensation to the applicant on 31 January 2017 by the NCPC had been issued in the form of five payment certificates on 11   March 2019, 13 April 2020, 12   April 2021, 28 March 2022 and 6 February 2023 respectively. While the first four had been cashed in by the applicant, the execution of the last had been suspended in accordance with the EGO (see paragraph 76 below). Cases concerning the annulment of the applicants’ titles   57.     With regard to the applications listed under nos. 3, 20 and 25 in the appendix below, the Court found in its principal judgment that the annulment of the applicants’ titles on account of the State authorities’ failure to comply with the legal provisions governing the procedure for issuing title deeds, without any compensation, had placed an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see paragraphs 252-53 and 262 of the principal judgment). 58.     The relevant factual and/or legal updates submitted by the parties, if any, are set out below. Ionescu and Others, application no. 28856/18 (listed under no. 3 in the appendix) 59.     The applicants did not submit any updated information or observations relating to the Article 41 proceedings. At the merits stage of the procedure before the Court, they submitted a valuation report of the land claimed, which was carried out in 2021. 60 .     The Government submitted that on 3 February 2022 the Craiova local commission had asked the county commission to approve the applicant’s request for land. The latter commission had examined the request on 29 June 2023. The procedure for granting/taking possession of the land was currently pending before the County Prefecture ( Instituţia Prefectului ). Nicolicea and Others, application no. 25503/19 (listed under no. 20 in the appendix) 61 .     Three of all applicants, namely Maria Grigorescu, Floarea Oltean and Lucreţia Boarti, died respectively in 2019, 2021 and 2023. Their heirs, listed under 20 in the appendix, expressed their wish to pursue the proceedings in their stead. The applicants submitted that they had been in possession of the land since 1991 and 1992 and that their right had not been challenged by any State authority or other third party until 2004, when the State had claimed that their land was part of its public property (see paragraph 123 of the principal judgment). They claimed that their right of ownership should be acknowledged and that the land should be given back to them in kind, since it was free of any hydrotechnical or water-related infrastructure that would justify a public interest in keeping the land in public ownership. 62 .     The Government submitted that, according to information provided by the Florești mayor’s office on 3 May 2023, the annulment of the applicants’ title deeds had not been recorded in the Land Register. Ciotu, application no. 34359/19 (listed under no. 25 in the appendix) 63 .     The applicant argued that her possession of the land was a strong argument for her claim to have the property returned to her in kind. 64 .     The Government submitted that even though the applicant’s title deed to the land had been annulled in 2018, she was still in possession of the land and continued to use it. Case concerning lack of compensation for loss of use Botez, application no. 31613/19 (listed under no. 23 in the appendix) 65 .     In the principal judgment, the Court found with regard to the case of Botez v. Romania (application no. 31613/19, listed under no. 23 in the appendix below) that the domestic courts had failed to acknowledge her right to compensation for loss of use of property to which she had long been entitled but of which she had not yet been granted possession owing to the deficiencies of the restitution mechanism (see paragraphs 260 and 262 of the principal judgment). This had placed a disproportionate and excessive burden on her. 66.     The relevant updated submissions of the parties are summarised below. 67 .     The applicant claimed the amount of RON 43,312.38 awarded to her by the Focșani District Court for loss of use of the land for the period 2012 ‑ 2015 (see paragraph 136 of the principal judgment), which she argued had to be adjusted in line with the rate of inflation. Furthermore, given that the 3.3455 ha of land to which she was entitled had still not been given back to her, she claimed compensation at the market value of that land. She further asked to be given back the amount she had paid as tax for the land she had never been able to use. 68 .     The Government indicated that the land in the present case, for which a title deed had been issued in 2017, belonged to the applicant and had been declared in her tax proceedings. Relevant domestic law and practice 69 .     With regard to the calculation and payment of compensation due for properties claimed under the restitution laws, Article 21 § 6 and Article 41 of Law no. 165/2013 play a significant role. In their current version, they read as follows: Article 21 “...(6) The value of the immovable property for which compensation is awarded is expressed in points and is established by applying the notarial grids in force for the year preceding the decision of the [NCPC], taking into account the location and technical specifications of the property (including land use and type of construction) relevant at the time of the deprivation/expropriation. One point is worth RON 1 ...” Article 41 “(1) The amount of compensation awarded and approved by the NCPC prior to the entry into force of the Law, or by the courts in judgments which have become final by that date, shall be paid in equal annual instalments over a period of five years, as of 1   January 2014. (2 1 ) As of 1 January 2017, the amount of an instalment may be no less than RON 20,000 ...” 70.     In addition to the body of legislation and relevant practice summarised and referred to in the principal judgment (see paragraphs   139 ‑ 176 of that judgment), there are several other legal provisions which are relevant to the present case and which are set out below. LAW NO. 165/2013 – RELEVANT LEGAL UPDATES Article 6 § 5, as amended on 14 July 2023, establishing clearer responsibilities in the procedure for the transfer of land from public to private property of the State 71 .     Following the latest amendments to Article 6 of Law no.   165/2013, the relevant institutions authorised to initiate the transfer procedure are the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and the NAPR in the case of agricultural land, and the Ministry of Environment, Water and Forests and the NAPR in the case of forest land. These authorities act on the proposal of the county land commission or, where appropriate, of the Bucharest municipality land commission. The identification data of the land proposed for transfer must be provided by the owners of the land. Article 43 1 72.     On 20 October 2023 Article 43 was supplemented by a new paragraph, Article 43 1 . Under that provision, persons in respect of whom the courts had issued final court decisions on the existence and extent of the right and on the status of the person entitled, and who had not submitted claims under Law no.   10/2001 (see paragraph 75 below), could submit applications for the granting of compensatory measures by points to the NAPR. Such applications had to be lodged within six months of the entry into force of the law. Article 31 § 1 73 .     On 10 December 2023 Article 31 § 1 of the Law was amended to provide for a time-limit of three years from the date of notification (and not from the date of issue, as previously provided for by the Law) of the compensation decision within which the holder of the points could ask for their redemption in cash. Amendments underway 74 .     According to the Government, further amendments are underway to ensure that beneficiaries of compensatory measures receive compensation calculated in accordance with the notarial grids closest to the date of actual receipt of that compensation. In particular, draft legislation PL-x no. 354/2023, which was adopted by the Senate on 16 May 2023, is currently pending before the Chamber of Deputies. It aims to amend Article 21 § 6 of the Law with a new paragraph, Article 21 § 6 3 , which provides that in the event that the domestic courts allow the claimants’ challenge against the NCPC’s compensation decision, the property will be valued on the basis of the notarial grids relevant for the year preceding the date of the court decision. Other related amendments are proposed to Article 35 § 3 of the Law, which refer back to the new paragraph Article 21 § 6 3 . Law no. 10/2001 75 .     Article 10 of Law no. 10/2001 refers, inter alia , to the situation of buildings which have been unlawfully taken over and the structures erected on the land have been wholly or partially demolished. It provides that, in such situations, restitution in kind is to be ordered for vacant land and buildings which have not been demolished, and that restitution in the form of compensation is to be determined for demolished buildings and occupied land. Under Article 21 of Law no. 165/2013, that compensation is to be calculated as per the notarial grids relevant for the year preceding the date of the court decision. Emergency Government Ordinance no. 90/2023 76 .     EGO no. 90/2023, which aimed to reduce public expenditure in 2023 and entered into force on 27 October 2023, established in its Article V § 2 that the issuance of payment certificates pursuant to Law no. 165/2013 (see paragraphs 69 and 71-73 above) would be suspended from 1 November 2023 until 31 March 2024. Likewise, Article V § 1 stated that the amounts determined by the payment certificates issued by the NAPR until 31   October 2023 and not paid by the Ministry of Finance would be paid as of 1 April 2024. Relevant legal provisions regulating the valuation of property by means of notarial grids Tax Code 77 .     The notarial grids are referred to and defined in Article 111 § 5 of the Tax Code, which came into force on 1 January 2016. It reads as follows: Article 111 “(5) At least once a year, the Chambers of Notaries shall update the notarial grids (market surveys) carried out by legally authorised valuers, which shall include information on the minimum values recorded on the specific property market during the previous year, and shall send them to the Regional General Directorates of Public Finance of the National Tax Administration Agency (ANAF).” The previous version of the Tax Code, which remained in force until 31   December 2015, made general reference to valuations based on the market values of property, without specifying a minimum value. Explanatory Rules ( norme metodologice ) for the application of the Tax Code 78.     The Explanatory Rules ( norme metodologice ) for the application of the Tax Code, which have been in force since 13   January 2016, provide a description and explanation of the relevant concepts used in the Tax Code, as well as guidance on the application of those concepts. Article 33 § 4 provides as follows: “The notarial grids (market surveys) are a collection of information from the real estate market regarding the supply/demand and market values of property subject to transfer of ownership in accordance with the provisions of Article 111 of the Tax Code. They shall contain information on the minimum values recorded on the real estate market in the previous year, by type of property, category of locality... or areas within the locality or locality district. The market surveys are sent by the Chambers of Notaries to the Regional General Directorates of Public Finance of [ANAF] after each update. They are then used from the first day of the following month.” Decision no. 74/2022 of the Board of the National Association of Authorised Valuers of Romania (ANEVAR) approving the recommendations for the notarial grids (market surveys) referred to in Article 111 of the Tax Code 79 .     The above-mentioned decision no. 74/2022, which has been in force since 18   October 2022, approved the recommendations set out in its annex on the preparation of market surveys referred to in Article 111 of the Tax Code (see paragraph 77 above). 80 .     The relevant information included in the annex emphasises repeatedly that the aforementioned market surveys cannot be assimilated to regular property valuation reports, as they are based on information about the minimum values recorded on the specific real estate market in the previous year. In other words, market surveys do not involve a value estimation process, but rather a presentation of market information, different from the “market value” of the property, collected according to the types of properties being surveyed and selected by the authorised valuer on the basis of the requirements of the Chambers of Notaries. These market surveys are based on various sources of information referring to prices of transactions recorded in the previous year, such as data/information from property transfer documents recorded in the registers of the territorial administrative unit and the Land Register in whose geographical area the property subject to the market survey is located, and information collected from bailiffs, courts, liquidators, notaries and so forth. If information from the above sources is not available, verified and unadjusted price offers may also be used. All sources are specified in the market surveys. For property types/sub-types for which there is no information on minimum values recorded in the previous year, a minimum value is not selected. Relevant Domestic practice Decision no. 57 of 5 December 2022 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“the HCCJ”) 81.     Following a request for a preliminary ruling settling legal matters ( hotărâre prealabilă pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept ), the HCCJ delivered judgment no. 57 of 5 December 2022. The dispute concerned a challenge to a compensation decision issued by the NCPC. The HCCJ stated that the correct application of Article 21 § 6 of Law no. 165/2013 (see paragraph   69 above) required the valuation of the property to be carried out on the basis of the notarial grids in force in the year preceding the issue of the com