CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 décembre 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   892 9.12.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT VIAŞU v. ROMANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its lead Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Viaşu v. Romania (application no. 75951/01).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning Mr   Viaşu’s inability to benefit from compensation for a plot of land.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Mr Viaşu’s son 115,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.   In its judgment delivered today the Court noted the existence of a deficiency in the Romanian legal order as a result of which a large number of people were in the same situation as the applicant. More than a hundred applications pending before the Court lodged by people affected by the restitution laws could in future give rise to further judgments concluding that there had been a violation of the Convention. Accordingly, the Court considered that general measures should be taken by Romania, under Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments). The Court also specified measures that may be appropriate in order to guarantee effective and rapid implementation of the right to restitution. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Gheorghe   State   Viaşu, now deceased, was a Romanian national born in 1924 and living in Drobeta Turnu Severin (Romania).   The case concerned Mr Viaşu’s inability to benefit from his right to compensation for a plot of land under the Romanian restitution laws.   The applicant had been the owner of land in the municipality of Cǎtunele (Romania) which he had been obliged to transfer to the State in 1962.   In June 2000 the Cǎtunele Municipal Council informed the applicant that his application for restitution of the land, lodged under the Restitution Act (Law no. 1/2000), had been granted.   By two administrative decisions of 5 April and 17 May 2002, he was acknowledged as being entitled to compensation under that Act as the confiscated land itself could not be returned to him because it was now being used as a mine.   The applicant applied to the authorities several times for payment of the compensation, but was unsuccessful because the Romanian Government had not adopted the regulations necessary to implement the Act.   In March 2007 the applicant was informed that the land to which he was entitled might be returned to him before the end of 2007, whereupon his compensation claim against the State would no longer be enforceable.   To date the land has not been returned and no compensation has been paid.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27 February 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), Luis López Guerra (Spain), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Mr Viaşu relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Decision of the Court   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The Court observed that several years had passed without the applicant obtaining enforcement of the decisions given in his favour. The authorities had thus deprived the applicant of enjoyment of the possession to which he was entitled.   The Government advanced as justification for this situation the difficulties related to the organisation of the administration in charge of implementing the restitution laws. However, the Court observed that the organisational difficulties encountered by the relevant authorities had been caused by a series of legislative changes to the mechanism for restitution. The Court had already found these changes to be ineffective in practice and to have created a climate of legal uncertainty. The Court now seized this opportunity to point out that various Romanian courts, including the Supreme Court, had complained about this uncertainty and had attempted – without any lasting success – to eliminate “the ambiguousness of uncertain legal situations” and “penalise the lack of diligence on the part of the authorities”.   As no argument had been advanced by the Government to justify the negation of the applicant’s right, the Court was forced to conclude that this situation had arisen as a result of overabundant – and ultimately largely ineffective – legislative activity, as could be seen from the relevant statistics.   Consequently, the Court considered that the fair balance that had to be struck between the protection of the applicant’s property and the demands of the general interest of the community had been upset and that the applicant had borne an individual and excessive burden. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Adrien Raif-Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.