CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 mai 2006

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom: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. 86 May 2006 Weissman and Ohers v. Romania - 63945/00 Judgment 24.5.2006 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Dismissal of action for failure to pay stamp duty of an excessive amount: violation   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Impossibility to pursue a claim before the courts due to an excessive amount of stamp duty: violation   Facts : In their capacity as heirs to the former owners, the applicants brought an action against the State in 1998 seeking to recover possession of real property consisting of a building and the adjacent land in Bucharest, which had been occupied by an embassy. Noting that the State had taken possession of the building in 1949 without legal authority and that it continued to enjoy possession of it without title, the Romanian courts allowed the applicants’ claim. The latter obtained possession of the building in October 1999. The applicants also brought proceedings seeking reimbursement of the equivalent of around EUR 30,000,000 in respect of loss of earnings, based on the rental income received by the State for the building since its confiscation. Their claim was struck out by the Romanian courts on the ground that they had failed to pay a sum of more than EUR 320,000 due as stamp duty for bringing the proceedings. Law : Article 6(1) – The Court noted that the amount payable by the applicants in respect of stamp duty, which was undoubtedly very high for any ordinary litigant, had not been justified either by the particular circumstances of the case or by the applicants’ financial position; it had been calculated on the basis of a set percentage, laid down by law, of the sum at stake in the proceedings. While it was true that the amount claimed by the applicants in respect of loss of earnings had been considerable, it had been neither exorbitant nor unfounded, given the value of the property. The amount required from the applicants for initiating their action, on the other hand, had been excessive. As a result, they had been implicitly obliged to abandon the action and hence been deprived of the right to have their case heard by a court. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, and in particular to the fact that the restriction had been imposed at the initial stage of the proceedings, the Court considered that it had been disproportionate and had thus impaired the very essence of the right of access to a court. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The Court considered that the applicants could argue that they had a “legitimate expectation” that their claim to repayment of the lost income from the property would be realised, in line with the provisions of the Civil Code and the case‑law of the Supreme Court of Justice. The striking-out of the action for reimbursement of the rental income had deprived the applicants in practice of any possibility of securing repayment of the rent in question. There had therefore been interference with their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. In the absence of a convincing explanation from the Romanian Government as to why the applicants had received no compensation in return for the State’s use of the building, the Court held that the fair balance which had to be struck between the protection of the applicants’ property rights and the requirements of the general interest had been upset. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicants jointly EUR 40,000 for pecuniary damage. Non-pecuniary damage: finding of a violation sufficient.   © 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