CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;FRA;FRE — 24 juin 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sACBC61AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 24 June 2020 Published on 15 July 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 45213/17 Emanoel MIHAI against Romania lodged on 19 June 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged de facto deprivation of the applicant’s property by the State authorities without any compensation, as set out in the domestic court’s final decision of 18 October 2016 (notified to the applicant on 20 January 2017). The applicant is co-owner of a plot of land of 242 sqm, on which the city authorities had carried out public works relating to the use of a public park. The applicant has lodged civil claims against the said authorities, asking the court to order the removal of the works carried out on his land. While accepted by the first instance court, his claims were however dismissed by the Bucharest County Court on 18 October 2016, on account of the fact that the works had been done in good faith and that the applicant had been de facto deprived of his property in so far as the works had been carried out in accordance with urban planning measures (public park works).   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, taking into account the domestic court’s decision of 18   October 2016? In the affirmative, has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see for instance Vergu v. Romania , no. 8209/06, § 53, 11 January 2011)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In the affirmative, has the applicant appropriately exhausted the said remedy?