CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 25 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4747D2E6 { width:44.09pt; display:inline-block } .s913F377E { width:252.91pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sFDD53DB9 { width:17.21pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     109   25.2.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Romania   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, neither of which is final. [1] (They are in French only).   Section 2   (1)     Popovăţ v. Romania (application no. 32265/96)   Violations Article 6 § 1   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   (2)     Szava and Others v. Romania (no. 32267/96)           Struck out   Popovăţ v. Romania Marina Nicola Popovăţ is a Romanian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Bucharest.   As the beneficiary of an estate, the applicant applied to the Bucharest Court of First Instance seeking recognition of her title to a property nationalised under Decree no. 92/1950. In a judgment of 15 January 1993 the Court of First Instance found in her favour and ordered the return of the property. In the absence of an appeal, the judgment became final.   In a judgment of 28 April 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 the application of Decree no. 92/1950 could not be reviewed by the courts. In 1996 the State sold two flats in the building to their tenants.   After a further action to secure recognition of her title, the applicant managed to regain possession of the building, with the exception of the part that had been sold. She then brought a further action for recognition of title against the new owner of one of the flats. Those proceedings are still pending in the Supreme Court of Justice.   Szava and Others v. Romania Ioan Szava, Rozalia Szava, Stefan Szava and Ioan Szava are Romanian nationals who were born in 1916, 1913, 1945 and 1949 respectively. Ioan Szava lives in Târgu Mureş and the other applicants in Braşov.   In 1950, acting under Decree no. 92/1950, the State nationalised a property in Braşov which belonged to Ioan Szava and his brother. In 1993 the first applicant and his brother’s three heirs applied to the Braşov Court of First Instance seeking recognition of their title, with a view to recovering the property. In a judgment of 2 February 1994, which became final in the absence of an appeal, the Court of First Instance allowed their application and ordered the return of the building.   In a judgment of 10 May 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 the application of Decree no. 92/1950 could not be reviewed by the courts. The applicants brought a further action for recognition of title, obtaining a judgment in their favour from the Court of First Instance. That judgment was upheld on appeal by a final judgment of 14 November 2000. An extract from the Land Register dated 12 June 2001 names the applicants as the owners of the property.   _______   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial), the applicants complained of the Supreme Court’s refusal to recognise that the domestic courts had jurisdiction to settle actions over title to property. In addition, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they argued that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice led to an infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   In the Popovăţ case the Court reiterated that the quashing of a final judgment was contrary to the principle of legal certainty. In quashing a court judgment which had become final, the Supreme Court of Justice had infringed the applicant’s right to a fair trial, in breach of Article 6 § 1. Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s refusal to recognise that the courts had jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s action to establish title to the property was in itself contrary to the right of access to a tribunal. Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in both those respects.   The Court also found that the applicant’s right of property had been established by a final judgment and had therefore been irrevocable. The judgment of the Supreme Court had had the effect of depriving her of her property. In the circumstances, the Court considered that the fair balance that had to be struck between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights had been upset and that the applicant had borne and continued to bear an individual and excessive burden. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not yet ready for decision and reserved the whole of that question.   In the Szava and Others case the Court observed that the property had been returned to the applicants and that they had failed to submit observations under Article 41 in response to the Registry’s request, prompted by the change in the factual and legal position. In view of their attitude, the Court considered that they no longer intended to pursue their application. Considering that no particular circumstance relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention required it to continue the examination of the application, the Court unanimously decided to strike it out.   ***   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.