CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 janvier 2001

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 26 January 2001 Brumărescu v. Romania (just satisfaction) [GC] - 28342/95 Judgment 23.1.2001 [GC] Article 41 Just satisfaction Restitutio in integrum (extract from press release) Facts – The case concerned an application brought by a Romanian national, Dan Brumărescu, who was born in 1926 and lives in Bucharest. Mr   Brumărescu is retired. In 1950 the applicant’s parents’ house in Bucharest was nationalised without payment of compensation. On 9 December 1993, in proceedings brought by the applicant, the Bucharest Court of First Instance held that the nationalisation had been unlawful. As there was no appeal, the judgment became final and enforceable. In 1994 the applicant regained possession of the house. On an unknown date, the Procurator-General of Romania lodged an application to have the judgment of 9 December 1993 quashed. In a decision of 1   March 1995 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the judgment of 9 December 1993 on the ground that the house had passed into State ownership by virtue of a legislative instrument and that the manner in which such an instrument was applied could not be reviewed by the courts, that being a matter for the executive or the legislature. The applicant complained that his right of access to a court, as secured by Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, had been violated in that the Supreme Court of Justice had held that the lower courts had no jurisdiction to deal with a claim for recovery of possession such as his. He also complained that the Supreme Court of Justice’s judgment had deprived him of one of his possessions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No.   1. Law – The Court held unanimously that the respondent State was to return to the applicant, within six months, the house in issue and the land on which it was situated, except for the flat and the corresponding part of the land already returned. It further held that, failing such restitution, the respondent State was to pay the applicant 181,400 United States dollars (USD) for pecuniary damage. It also awarded the applicant USD 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage and USD 2,450, less 3,900 French francs received by way of legal aid, for legal costs and expenses. Those sums were to be converted into Romanian lei at the rate applicable on the date of settlement. In its principal judgment, delivered on 28 October 1999, the Court had found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention (access to a court and fair trial) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and had not decided the question of just satisfaction.   © 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