CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 juillet 2022

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 29 August 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 41493/19 Alin-Adrian ALEXA and Monica-Nicoleta ALEXA against Romania lodged on 26 July 2019 communicated on 14 July 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application originated in a decision by the authorities to seize from 30   June 2009 to 16 May 2013 (on the latter date the measure was lifted following court proceedings brought by the applicants) 21,566 square metres (sq.m.) of land owned by the applicants within the site of a future industrial parc. The land was seized pending the expropriation of 5,619 sq.m. of the land in question for the purposes of building a motor way. By a final judgment of 14 February 2019 the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the applicants’ action in tort against the authorities seeking 4,900,000 lei (an estimated 1,104,000 euros) in respect of pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damages for alleged losses suffered by them because of the impossibility to use the land in question and to pursue the business investments for which they had purchased it. The court held that the applicants had failed to prove that they had suffered any concrete losses and that the losses in question had been caused exclusively because of the measure taken by the authorities. The applicants alleged under Article 6 of the Convention that their right to a fair hearing was violated by the national courts. In particular, the courts had refused their requests for additional evidence to be adduced to the case file which was relevant and necessary for them to prove their claim, namely to have more than two witnesses called and to extend the scope of the expert report produced in the case. The applicants alleged under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention that by ignoring the available evidence and dismissing their action in tort against the authorities, the national courts had violated the applicants’ right to property given that the authorities had seized their entire land and that the applicants could no longer use or dispose of it and pursue the business investments for which they had purchased it. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicants’ right to a fair hearing as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention violated in the present case, having regard to the national courts’ refusal to accept the applicants’ requests for additional evidence to be adduced to the case file which, according to the applicants, was relevant and necessary for them to prove their claim, namely to have more than two   witnesses called and to extend the scope of the expert report produced in the case?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention on account of the fact that the national courts have dismissed the applicants’ action in tort by allegedly ignoring the available evidence and even though the domestic authorities had seized the entire 21,566 sq.m. of land owned by the applicants and have deprived them of the possibility of using or disposing of it? If so, was that interference in compliance with the conditions set out in Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, as interpreted in the Court’s jurisprudence (see G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and   2   others, § 302, 28 June 2018)?