THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 56395/00
by Tiberiu Mircea CATALINA
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on
13 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura-Sandström,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 October 1999,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Tiberiu Mircea Cătălina, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1922 and lives in Timişoara.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1950, the house owned by the applicant's father was nationalised by the communist regime under Decree No. 92/1950.
In 1993, the applicant lodged with Timişoara County Court an action against the Local Council and Public Administration of the Housing Fund, by which he sought a declaration that his father's house had been unlawfully nationalised. He also sought the recording of his name in the land register as the present owner of the house, which he had lawfully inherited from his father.
On 16 May 1995, the County Court rejected the action as unfounded on the ground that examining the lawfulness of the nationalisation would exceed its competence. The applicant appealed this decision.
On 17 February 1997, despite the fact that the entire house was the subject of litigation and that the applicant had informed, by letter, all the tenants and the authorities about the pending proceedings, the latter concluded a contract by which one of the flats in the house was sold to its tenants under Law No. 112/1995.
On 19 February 1997, Timiş District Court allowed the applicant's appeal and found that the house had been unlawfully nationalised because Decree No. 92/1950 did not apply to his father. In the same decision, the court ordered that the applicant's name be entered in the land register as the owner of the property. The Local Council appealed this decision.
On 18 September 1997, the Timişoara Court of Appeal upheld the
19 February 1997 judgment, reiterating that the applicant's father should have been exempted from nationalisation measures.
In 1997, the applicant lodged an action for the annulment of the sale contract, pointing out to the fact that the flat had been sold despite the notice given to them as to the litigation pending before the courts.
On 28 April 1998 the District Court rejected the action on the ground that the contract had been lawfully concluded under Law No. 112/1995 and had entered into force before the final decision of the Timişoara Court of Appeal of 18 September 1997.
On 7 April 1999, the Timişoara Court of Appeal upheld the previous court decision.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains, relying in substance on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that the dismissal of his action seeking the annulment of the contract by which tenants purchased one of the flats in the house which had been returned to him in its entirety by an earlier judgment of 18 September 1997, constituted an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and, thus, that his right to property has been violated.
THE LAW
On 15 June 2007, the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
« Je soussigné, Tiberiu Mircea Catalina, note que le gouvernement roumain est prêt à me verser, à titre gracieux, la somme de 75 000 euros en vue d'un règlement amiable de l'affaire ayant pour origine la requête susmentionnée pendante devant la Cour européenne des Droits de l'Homme.
Cette somme, qui couvrira aussi les frais et dépens, sera payée dans les trois mois suivant la date de la notification de la décision de radiation de la Cour rendue conformément à l'article 37§1 de la Convention européenne des Droits de l'Homme. A compter de l'expiration dudit délai et jusqu'au règlement effectif de la somme en question, il sera payé un intérêt simple à un taux égal à celui de la facilité de prêt marginal de la Banque centrale européenne, augmenté de trois points de pourcentage.
J'accepte cette proposition et renonce par ailleurs à toute autre prétention à l'encontre de la Roumanie à propos des faits à l'origine de ladite requête. Je déclare l'affaire définitivement réglée.
La présente déclaration s'inscrit dans le cadre du règlement amiable auquel le Gouvernement et moi-même sommes parvenus. »
On 13 September 2007, the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
« Je soussigné, Razvan-Horatiu RADU, co-agent du gouvernement roumain auprès de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, déclare que le gouvernement roumain offre de verser à M. Tiberiu Mircea Catalina, à titre gracieux, la somme de 75 000 euros en vue d'un règlement amiable de l'affaire ayant pour origine la requête susmentionnée pendante devant la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme.
Cette somme couvrira aussi les frais et dépens et sera payée dans les trois mois suivant la date de la notification de la décision de radiation de la Cour rendue conformément à l'article 37§1 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme. A défaut de règlement dans ledit délai, le Gouvernement s'engage à verser, à compter de l'expiration de celui-ci et jusqu'au règlement effectif de la somme en question, un intérêt simple à un taux égal à celui de la facilité de prêt marginal de la Banque centrale européenne, augmenté de trois points de pourcentage. Ce versement vaudra règlement définitif de l'affaire. »
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy