CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 juin 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 109 June 2008 Dimitrescu v. Romania - 5629/03 Judgment 3.6.2008 [Section III] Article 34 Victim Loss of victim status by applicant following assignment of his rights to another applicant: struck out   Facts : The applicants are brothers. Their father purchased some real estate comprising a piece of land with two buildings containing flats. The State subsequently nationalised the property. The applicants lodged an action against the municipal council before the court of first instance to recover the property. In the meantime they notified the company responsible for managing State property not to sell it to the tenants as they had lodged an action for recovery of possession. The State nevertheless sold the flats to third parties occupying them as tenants. The appurtenant land was also sold. After the initial judgment was overturned and the case remitted, the court of first instance in a final judgment allowed the action and ordered the municipal council to return the property to the applicants. The applicants took legal action against the buyers and in some but not all cases the courts issued final decisions in their favour. Finally, the applicants asked the municipal authorities, by virtue of the law, to return their property. That request has not yet been examined, however, as the applicants failed to submit certain documents.   Preliminary observation :By an authentic deed of transfer the first applicant transferred his rights in respect of the present proceedings to his brother, the second applicant. In the same deed of transfer the parties agreed that the second applicant was thereby subrogated to all the rights of the first applicant. The Court saw no reason not to take the agreement between the parties into account and, from that time on, consider the second applicant as the only applicant. It further considered that the first applicant no longer had locus standi in the matter and that the applications concerning him should be struck out of the list. Conclusion : striking out with respect to the first applicant.   Law : Article 1 of Protocol No.1 – The applicant had a final, irrevocable court decision ordering the authorities to return the property to him, including the two flats and the appurtenant land at issue in this application. Furthermore, his title to the property under the final judgment was not conditional on any other formalities. Under Romanian legislation governing actions to recover property and the restitution of property nationalised by the communist regime, the sale by the State to third parties acting in good faith of property belonging to others, even prior to final confirmation by the courts of the others’ title to the property, was considered as a deprivation of property. That deprivation, combined with a total lack of compensation, was contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In addition, the law did not take into account the damage prolonged lack of compensation caused to persons deprived of their property. It followed that the negation of the applicant’s ownership rights to his flats and the appurtenant land, combined with the total lack of compensation, had imposed a disproportionate and excessive burden on the applicant which was incompatible with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. Conclusion : violation (unanimously).   Article 41 – The respondent State was to return the two flats and the appurtenant land to the applicant. Failing that, EUR 210,000 in respect of pecuniary damage. EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes