CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 juillet 2025

.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 28 July 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 40993/22 Victor MUŞAT against Romania lodged on 19 August 2022 communicated on 9 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the proceedings initiated by the applicant against his stepmother, who had been appointed by the domestic courts as his father’s guardian since the latter suffered from Alzheimer’s disease. Discontented with the way she had administered the estate, the applicant initiated civil proceedings specific to the guardianship institution, requesting the domestic courts to order her to submit a report describing the way she had administered the estate (‘ dare de seamă’ ). His claim was rejected as inadmissible on the ground that, according to the transitional norms that were adopted after the coming into force of the New   Civil Code, matters of guardianship were temporarily attributed in the competence of administrative authorities instead of courts. The applicant challenged those legal provisions before the Constitutional Court, who, in 2020, declared them unconstitutional. To rule as such, the Constitutional Court found that the fact that the legislator instituted transitory norms that postponed sine die the creation of ‘guardianship courts’ ( instanţe de tutelă ) and attributed their competence to administrative authorities was contrary to Article   124 of the Constitution. Based on this decision, the applicant reopened the proceedings and by a final decision of 5 April 2022 (served on 28 June 2022) the Bucharest County Court rejected the applicant’s claim arguing that according to the domestic law, the guardianship procedure was non adversarial and that the applicant, in his capacity of heir, did not have locus standi to submit such a request. The domestic court argued that the guardianship procedure governed the relationship between the guardian and the guardianship court and that the applicant, in his capacity of heir, was not allowed to request, via adversarial proceedings, to have the guardian ordered to present the report. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant alleges a violation of his right of access to a court due to an alleged ‘legislative deficiency’ which led to his claim not being assessed on the merits. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant also alleges that the domestic courts deprived him of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of his father’s estate, as his legitimate heir. The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 alleging that he has no effective remedy before the domestic courts to defend his property rights as an heir. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant’s right of access to a court provided for in Article   6 §   1 of the Convention been disproportionately restricted by the Bucharest County Court’s decision of 5 April 2022? In particular, has the court’s interpretation of the domestic procedural rules, which prevented the applicant’s action being examined on the merits, secured him a practical and effective right of access to a court (see Zubac v.   Croatia [GC], no.   40160/12, §§   76 ‑ 78, 5 April 2018)?   2.     Does the applicant’s proprietary interest as argued before the Court and the domestic courts fall within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of the right to respect for property guaranteed therein (see Molla Sali v.   Greece [GC], no. 20452/14, §§ 128-32, 19 December 2018)? If so, has there been an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, was that interference lawful and did it strike a fair balance between the protection of the applicant’s right to property and the requirements of the general interest?   3.     Was the applicant provided with an effective remedy for his complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required under Article   13 of the Convention?