CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 septembre 2024

.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 } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s47B46F7 { width:8.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE41723A { width:29.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9B73C5B1 { width:22.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB3308C3 { width:20.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF83DA51F { width:18.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4E42D546 { width:8.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s915740E4 { width:29.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6BEEE4C { width:22.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1169A383 { width:20.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s59D5C041 { width:18.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 30 September 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 38194/22 Jozsef-Beniamin PUSKÁS and Others against Romania lodged on 26 July 2022 communicated on 13 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants’ father was recognised by administrative decisions issued in 1991 and 1994, respectively, by the national competent authority as a “political detainee” with respect to two imprisonment periods running: a) from 21 May 1949 to 29 April 1954, and b) from 27 February 1971 to 6 July 1976. Based on these recognitions, he was awarded the benefits provided by the Legislative Decree no.   118/1990 which granted certain rights to those who had been persecuted by the dictatorial regime established starting with 6   March 1945. After the entry into force of Law no. 232/2020, which extended the benefits provided by the Legislative Decree no. 118/1990 also to the children of the political detainees, the applicants, who are siblings, lodged with the competent local authorities separate claims – since they are residing in different counties – in order to receive these benefits. Two of the applicants (Mr. Jozsef-Beniamin Puskás and Mrs.   Maria ‑ Magdalena Puskas) initially received favourable administrative decisions granting them these benefits, but these administrative decisions were later modified on 28 May 2021 and the two applicants’ claims in respect of the first detention period were dismissed on ground that that detention following a conviction for disobedience was not “political”. The applicants’ judicial challenges against this administrative decision were dismissed by a decision of 21 October 2021 of the Mureș County Court. The applicants’ appeal on points of law was dismissed as ill founded by the Târgu-Mureș Court of Appeal on 31 January 2022 (served on 23 February 2022). The third applicant, Puskas Ionadab-Francisc, received an administrative decision from the local competent authority recognising his rights only for the second period, between 27 February 1971 to 6 July 1976, and dismissing his claim for the first detention period, on ground that this detention following a conviction for disobedience was not “political”. His challenge against this administrative decision was dismissed by a decision of 22 July 2021 of the Teleorman County Court. His appeal on points of law was dismissed as inadmissible by the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 13 January 2022 (served on 18 February 2022). The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the arbitrary interpretation of evidence and legislation by the domestic courts, in breach of the Constitutional Court and High Court of Cassation and Justice decisions on this matter and of the principle of legal certainty by infringing the final administrative decisions issued in favour of their father and their respective “possessions” in the sense of Article 1 of Protocol. No. 1. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the third applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Was the dismissal of the applicants’ claim by decisions of 31   January 2022, issued by Târgu-Mureș Court of Appeal, and of 22 July 2021, issued by the Teleorman County Court, despite a final administrative decision to the effect that the applicant’s father was a political detainee, in breach of the principle of legal certainty and thus of the applicants’ rights under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention?   3.     Having regard to the applicants’ claims that they were entitled to the benefits provided by the Legislative Decree no.   118/1990, can the applicants be considered have a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   4.     If so, have the applicants been deprived of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? Did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Bélané Nagy v.   Hungary [GC], no.   53080/13, §§ 72-127, 13   December 2016, and Beeler v. Switzerland [GC], no. 78630/12, § 57, 11 October 2022)   APPENDIX Application no. 38194/22   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Jozsef-Beniamin PUSKÁS 1977 Romanian Târgu Mureș 2. Maria-Magdalena PUSKAS 1981 Romanian Târgu Mureș 3. Ionadab-Francisc PUSKAS 1968 Romanian Conţești