CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 mai 1998

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. May 1998 Vasilescu v. Romania - 27053/95 Judgment 22.5.1998 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Retention of valuables unlawfully seized by the miliţia in 1966: violation Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Independent tribunal Lack of a tribunal that could order their return: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Government’s preliminary objection (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) Not raised before the Commission – estoppel. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits of the complaint Supreme Court of Justice had held that because applicant’s application for restitution had been tantamount to an appeal against a criminal investigation measure, State Counsel for the county of Argeş had sole jurisdiction to deal with it – even where State Counsel for a county exercised powers of a judicial nature, he acted as a member of the Procurator-General’s department, subordinated firstly to the Procurator-General of Romania and then to the Minister of Justice – dependence on the executive. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Article 6 § 1 a lex specialis in relation to Article 13, whose requirements are absorbed by those of Article 6 § 1. Conclusion : no need to rule on the complaint (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 Common ground that retention of the property in issue by the miliţia had been unlawful and that applicant was owner of that property – applicant had consequently remained owner of it – Romania had not recognised Court’s jurisdiction until 20 June 1994, but applicant’s complaint related to a continuing situation which still obtained, and the Supreme Court of Justice’s judgment dated from after 20 June 1994. In view of lack of any basis in law, the continuing retention of the items in issue could not be interpreted as a deprivation of possessions or control of the use of property allowed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Applicant had obtained a court decision ordering authority concerned to return to her the items claimed – decision quashed by Supreme Court of Justice – earlier approaches to State Counsel for the county, who had been held to have exclusive competence, had had no greater success. The loss of all ability to dispose of the property in issue, taken together with failure of attempts made so far to have situation remedied had entailed sufficiently serious consequences for it to be held that there had been a de facto confiscation. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION Having regard to finding in respect of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Court did not consider it necessary to examine case under Article 8. Conclusion : no need to rule on complaint (unanimously). V.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage Pecuniary damage: Government unable to return property in issue – compensation awarded on equitable basis. Non-pecuniary damage: compensation awarded on equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to applicant for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (unanimously). B.   Costs and expenses Claim not quantified – reimbursement on equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sum to applicant for costs and expenses (unanimously).   © 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