CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 July 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 15422/21 Ozana Maria SIMIONESCU against Romania lodged on 6 March 2021 communicated on 8 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged interference with the applicant’s property rights protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, caused by the sanction imposed on her by the police on 30 May 2018 for failing to comply with the rules imposed by the Government Ordinance no.   20/1994 setting out certain measures to reduce the seismic risk of existing buildings. The applicant, co-owner of a property located in a building classified as having a high seismic risk, had loaned the said property to a company which used it as a herbal shop. In accordance with the applicable law, all permanent or temporary activities involving “large numbers of people” ( aglomerări de persoane ) in non-residential public premises ( spaţii publice cu altă destinaţie decât cea de locuinţă ) were prohibited. The applicant received a fine of 50,000 Romanian lei (RON) (approximately 10,800   euros (EUR) at that time) for the activity carried out by the herbal shop. The applicant objected to this sanction, arguing that it was applied in breach of the relevant rules, and in any event, that it was disproportionately harsh. In a final decision of 7 September 2020 (notified on 15 September 2020), the Bucharest County Court dismissed the objection and upheld the sanction. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention by reason of the sanctioning report of 30 May 2018 having imposed on her a fine of RON 50,000 (approximately EUR 10,800)?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of penalties within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis , Grifhorst v.   France , no.   28336/02, §§81-83, 26 February 2009; Krayeva v. Ukraine , no. 72858/13, §§23-24, 13 January 2022; and S.C. Zorina International S.R.L. v. Romania , no. 15553/15, §§40-44, 27 June 2023)?   3.     Having regard to the applicable domestic law, in particular Articles 2 and 24   §   1   (h) and § 2 (h) of the Government Ordinance no. 20/1994, as amended by Law no. 282/2015, as well as the provisions of Government Ordinance no.   2/2001 as in force at the relevant time, did the domestic courts have discretion to apply more lenient sanctions in relation to offences as the ones challenged by the applicant in the present case, by varying or annulling the sanction? In that connection, could the offence committed by the applicant company be considered as a “minor offence”, within the meaning of Article   7 of the Government Ordinance no. 2/2001?   The parties are invited to submit relevant information and domestic practice concerning the courts’ approach in proceedings similar to those complained of in the present case, namely, where the sanctions applied pursuant to Article 24 § 1 (h) and § 2 (h) were re-considered by the courts and more lenient sanctions were applied or, on the contrary, denied to the respective claimants.