CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 11 février 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s59389FFA { width:94.79pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sAD66F3FB { width:10.59pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     079   11.2.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING ROMANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three   Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1] (All three are in French only.)   Section 2 Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (1)     State and Others v. Romania (application no. 31680/96) (2)     Grigore v. Romania (no. 31736/96)   (3)     Tărbăşanu v. Romania (no. 32269/96)   Violations Article 6 § 1 Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   State and Others v. Romania Ion State, Teodora Paraschiva State and Venera Ileana Albu are three Romanian nationals. The first applicant lives in Bucharest and the second and third applicants in Ploieşti.   In September 1992, as the beneficiaries of an estate, they applied to the Ploieşti Court of First Instance seeking recognition of their title to two properties nationalised under Decree no.   92/1950. In a judgment of 7 January 1993 the Court of First Instance noted that the properties had been nationalised in error and ordered their return to the applicants. As no appeal was forthcoming, the judgment became final, since it could no longer be challenged by means of an ordinary appeal.   In a judgment of 24 November 1995, ruling on an application to set aside lodged by the Procurator-General, the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the judgment of the Court of First Instance on the ground that application of a decree could not be reviewed by the courts.   The applicants brought two actions for restitution of the properties. One of the two buildings was returned to them and a sum of 139,357,731 lei was awarded to them in part-compensation for the other. They appealed unsuccessfully against that decision and, according to the information in the Court’s possession, did not receive the compensation awarded. They then brought a further action seeking recognition of their title to the property which had not been returned to them, but this was declared inadmissible.   Grigore v. Romania Aurelian Grigore and his wife Alesia were Romanian nationals living at the material time in Offenburg (Germany). They died on 7 March 2002 and 24 September 1998 respectively.   In 1985 the applicants travelled to Germany, with the agreement of the Romanian communist authorities, so that Mrs Grigore could have medical treatment there. In July 1987 the State confiscated the property they owned in Bucharest under Decree no. 223/1974, on account of their refusal to return to Romania.   In a judgment of 14 November 1994 Bucharest Court of First Instance gave judgment in favour of Mr and Mrs Grigore in connection with an action they had brought seeking recognition of their title to the property and ordered its return to them. That judgment became final.   In a judgment of 7 February 1996, ruling on an application to set aside lodged by the Procurator-General, the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, inter alia on the ground that application of a decree could not be reviewed by the courts.   The applicants brought an action – ultimately unsuccessful – to have the contract for the sale of the disputed property by the State to the tenants declared null and void.   Tărbăşanu v. Romania Traian Tărbăşanu is a Romanian national who was born in 1925 and lives in Bucharest.   In December 1992, as the beneficiary of an estate, he applied to Bucharest Court of First Instance seeking recognition of his title to a property in Bucharest which had been nationalised in 1950 under Decree no. 92/1950 and restitution of the building. In a judgment of 16 February 1993 the Court of First Instance noted that the property had been nationalised in error and ordered its return to the applicant. That judgment became final, since it could no longer be challenged by means of an ordinary appeal.   In a judgment of 13 September 1995, ruling on an application to set aside lodged by the Procurator-General, the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, inter alia on the ground that application of a decree could not be reviewed by the courts.   Two further actions brought by the applicant for restitution of the property were dismissed in May 1998 and May 2000. As the State had sold the disputed property to its tenants in December 1997, the applicant also brought an action to have the contract of sale declared null and void. That action was dismissed on the ground that he had not proved that the purchasers had acted in bad faith. _____   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained of an infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions as a result of the judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice. In the Tărbăşanu case, the applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing) of the Supreme Court of Justice’s refusal to recognise that the courts had jurisdiction to settle actions over title to property. He further submitted that this refusal had infringed his right to an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the applicants’ title to the properties in issue had been established by final judgments and was therefore irrevocable. The applicants had therefore had possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The Court noted that the judgments by which the Supreme Court of Justice had set aside the final judgments had had the effect of depriving the applicants of their possessions, without any convincing justification for that state of affairs being provided by the Government. The applicants were now deprived of all or part of their property and had not been paid compensation commensurate with its real value, despite their efforts to regain enjoyment of it.   In those circumstances, the Court found that the requisite fair balance had been upset and that the applicants had borne and continued to bear an individual and excessive burden. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in all three cases.   As regards the complaint under Article 6 § 1 in the Tărbăşanu case, the Court reiterated that the quashing of a final judgment was contrary to the principle of legal certainty. In quashing a court decision that had become final, the Supreme Court of Justice had infringed the right to a fair hearing, in breach of Article 6 § 1. The Court further reiterated that the Supreme Court’s failure to recognise the courts’ jurisdiction to determine the applicant’s action to establish title was in itself contrary to the right of access to a court. Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on both counts. It also held that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.   In all three cases the Court held unanimously that Romania should return the applicants’ property to them within three months from the date on which the present judgments became final. In the case of State and Others , the Court held that in the event of failure to return the property, the State would have to pay the applicants jointly 44,000 euros (EUR). The Court also awarded them EUR 2,000 for pecuniary damage in respect of the period during which they had been deprived of title to the building that was subsequently returned to them. In the Grigore case, the Court held that in the event of failure to return the property, the State would have to pay the applicants’ heir EUR 38,000. The Court also awarded her EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage. In the Tărbăşanu case, the Court held that in the event of failure to return the property, the State would have to pay the applicant EUR 200,000. The Court also awarded him EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses.   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] .     Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 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.