CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 janvier 2009

.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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   46 20.1.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KATZ v. ROMANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its lead judgment [1] in the case of Katz v. Romania (application no. 29739/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to the failure to compensate the applicant for the sale of property which they had had to donate to the State.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 50,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   800 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in French. )   Furthermore, the Court observed the existence of a widespread structural problem with regard to the Romanian legislation on restitution of nationalised immovable property sold by the State to third parties purchasing in good faith. The Court noted that it had already dealt with around a hundred similar cases, that many more were still pending before it and that this shortcoming on the part of the Romanian State posed a threat to the future effectiveness of the Convention machinery. It observed that the legislation needed to be changed at the earliest opportunity in order to prevent these situations from arising and to put an end, in accordance with Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments), to the violation found by the Court.   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Yesaiahu Jonatan Katz, is a Romanian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Rehovot (Israel). His parents owned a house and some land in Satu Mare, which they handed over to the State in December 1966.   On 27 November 1973 the State sold the property to S.M., who had been occupying it as a tenant since its forced donation to the State.   On 13 August 2001 Mr Katz lodged a request with the Satu Mare municipal authority seeking restitution of the property under Law no. 10/2001. The request has not been examined by the authorities to date.   In 2002 Mr Katz brought an action before the Court of First Instance seeking to have the 1966 donation declared null and void for lack of consent. He also sought to establish his title to the property and to have the contract of sale of 27 November 1973 rescinded.   On 25 June 2002 the court declared the donation of the property null and void, but rejected the other two requests on the ground that S.M. had acted in good faith in signing the contract of sale in 1973. Mr Katz appealed unsuccessfully against the court’s decision.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 July 2003.   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 Stanley Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), complaining that his inability to recover ownership of the immovable property sold by the State had infringed his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   Decision of the Court   The Court reaffirmed that, in the context of the Romanian legislation governing actions brought in relation to property nationalised under the communist regime, the sale by the State of another’s property to a third party purchasing in good faith amounted to a deprivation of property.   It observed again that the Proprietatea fund, which was in charge of payment of compensation on the basis of Law no. 10/2001, did not operate effectively. The Court noted that the legislation, including the amending legislation, did not take into account the damage resulting from individuals’ inability to make use of property returned to them by a final decision and from the failure to obtain compensation over a long period.   The Court therefore held that the frustration of Mr Katz’s right of ownership, combined with the complete absence of compensation for over six years, had infringed his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.