FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF FARCHESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 47257/19 and 9 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 April 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Farchescu and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Anne Louise Bormann, President,
Sebastian Răduleţu,
András Jakab, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 26 Mars 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE1. The case originated in applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the ineffectiveness of restitution mechanism in respect of property confiscated or nationalised by the communist regime.
THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 of Protocol No. 16. The applicants submitted that their inability to recover possession of their unlawfully nationalised properties or obtain compensation, despite court decisions acknowledging their property rights or their entitlement to obtain a decision on their restitution claims, had amounted to a breach of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
7. The Court notes that in respect of application no. 1819/24 the Government raised a preliminary objection of abuse of the right of individual application because the applicant had allegedly failed to provide the Court with important information regarding the course of the domestic proceedings at issue, notably that the execution of the judgment rendered in his favour (see appendix) could not be concluded because the applicant had failed to submit the original version of the compensation decision.
8. The Court reiterates that an application may only be rejected as an abuse of petition in specific circumstances (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014, and Nowak v. Poland, no. 60906/16, § 20, 13 October 2022). Having regard to its case-law (see, mutatis mutandis, Dickmann and Gion v. Romania, nos. 10346/03 and 10893/04, § 72, 24 October 2017), the Court finds no grounds on which to hold that the present case was brought in abuse of the right of application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It follows that the Government’s preliminary objection must be dismissed.
9. The Court further notes that the decisions in the present applications acknowledged the applicants’ property rights or their entitlement to obtain a decision on their restitution claims (see the appended table for details of court orders). The Court therefore considers that the decisions in question constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
10. In the leading case of Vǎleanu and Others v. Romania (nos. 59012/17 and 29 others, §§ 216-31, 8 November 2022), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
11. Hence, having examined all the material submitted to it in the present cases, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour.
12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Vǎleanu and Others v. Romania (just satisfaction), nos. 59012/17 and 27 others, 7 January 2025), with regard to the non-enforcement of the outstanding judgments in the applicants’ favour, involving the return of the properties in question, the Court considers that the enforcement of those judgments would place the applicants, as far as possible, in a situation equivalent to that which they would have been in if there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
14. Failing such enforcement by the respondent State, the Court holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, in respect of pecuniary damage, an amount calculated according with the methodology established in Văleanu and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, §§ 114-18. In this connection, the Court finds that the calculation criteria set out in the Emergency Ordinance no. 38/2025[1], in force since 8 August 2025, are not relevant for the present cases, which had been lodged with the Court prior to and relating to outstanding domestic decisions delivered before the entry into force of those new provisions. Hence, having regard to the information at its disposal, notably the relevant notarial grids, the documents submitted by the parties and its established case-law (ibid, § 116), the Court considers it reasonable and equitable, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, to award the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of pecuniary damage.
15. The Court must reiterate, however, that the applicants cannot derive any right to double compensation or unjust enrichment from the Court’s judgment. Therefore, in so far as domestic administrative and/or judicial proceedings relating to the applicants’ claims to their property were still pending before the relevant authorities at the date of the latest information available to the Court, and in order to prevent any unjust enrichment from the present judgment, the Court considers that all amounts relating to the compensation due to the applicants which are relevant to the present case and which would have already been enforced in their favour by the date of the present judgment, should be deducted, as the case may be, from the amounts listed in the appendix.
16. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the serious interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions cannot be adequately compensated for by the simple finding of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Making an assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, and in view of the ne ultra petita principle, the Court awards the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
17. Finally, as regards costs and expenses, having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants (applications nos. 55707/20 and 23261/21) the amounts indicated in the appended table covering costs and expenses incurred before this Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants on that amount. In so far it concerns application no. 10100/23, the Court rejects the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses as unsubstantiated.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to join the applications;Dismisses the Government’s preliminary objection in respect of application no. 1819/24;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non‑enforcement of domestic decisions acknowledging the applicants’ property rights;Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the outstanding judgments in the applicants’ favour, involving the return of the properties in question (applications listed under nos. 1-9 in the appendix) and subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 15, within twelve months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention; that, failing such enforcement in the above-mentioned cases, the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within the same twelve months, the amounts indicated in the appendix (last column), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage; that in respect of application listed under no. 10 in the appendix, the respondent State is to pay the applicant within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the amount indicated in the appendix (last column), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage; that, in any event, the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the amounts indicated in the appendix, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses; that from the expiry of the above-mentioned twelve, or respectively three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 April 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Anne Louise Bormann
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(ineffectiveness of restitution mechanism in respect of property confiscated or nationalised by the communist regime)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Identification of claimed property
Relevant domestic decision confirming entitlement
Alleged interference with property rights
Amount awarded for pecuniary damage per applicant/household
(in euros)
[2]
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage
(in euros)
[3]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses
(in euros)[4]
47257/19
26/08/2019
Liviu FARCHESCU
1968
equivalent plot of land to 380 sq. m intra muros land located at 19 Suceava Street, Timișoara County
to property, Decision of 7/04 2011 of the Timiș County Court, casefile no. 3134/325/2010
non‑enforcement of final judgment
98,800
10,000
Not requested
55707/20
02/12/2020
Andreas HEITLER
1969
Răzvan-Mihalcea Alexandra-Emanuela
Timisoara
original plot of land (2,140 sq. m) identified in the Timișoara land register no. 12685 with the topographical no. 23587
to property, Decision of 18/07/2018 of Timiș County Court, casefile no. 19846/325/2015
non-enforcement of final judgment
14,980
5,000
250
22384/21
15/04/2021
Teofil BOLEA
1940
plot of land intra muros (1.4061 ha) in Perieni, Vaslui County
to property, decision of 25/11/2015 of the Vaslui County Court, casefile no. 896/189/2014
non-enforcement of final judgment
98,427
10,000
Not requested
23261/21
21/04/2021
Tiberiu CEUTĂ
1956
Ileana-Carmen IAROŞCENCO
1955
Nedelcu Paul-Iulian
Craiova
equivalent plot of land (37 ha) located in Dolj County
to property, Decision of 14/12/2020 of Dolj County Court, casefile no. 11518/215/2016*
non-enforcement of final judgment
148,000,
jointly
10,000, jointly
250,
jointly
16528/22
17/05/2022
Mircea-Silviu BĂRDAȘU
1942
property or compensation for 1.75 ha plot of land intra muros and 1.72 ha plot of land extra muros located in Eriu Sâncrai, Satu-Mare County
to property, decision of 22/12/2006, Carei County Court, casefile no. 1863/2006
non-enforcement of final judgment
50,196
10,000
Not requested
10100/23
22/02/2023
Ioana-Lucia HARCA
1938
Ispravnic Roxana Valentina
Bucuresti
equivalent plot of land or compensation to 1.4 ha land located in the 1st District of Bucharest, occupied by Străulești Cemetery, according to the applicant’s share of estate
to property, decision of 16/06/2017 of Bucharest Tribunal, casefile no. 16174/299/2011
non-enforcement of final judgment
1,274,000
10,000
Unsubstantiated
1819/24
27/12/2023
Titu DUŢĂ
1954
2.5 ha vineyard or equivalent land located in Urechești, Vrancea County, according to the applicant’s share of the estate
to property, final decision of 19/02/1993 of Focșani District Court, casefile no. 9022/1993
non-enforcement of final judgment
10,000
10,000
Not requested
7313/24
29/02/2024
Vasile DINESCU
1941
1/2 of 0.24 ha land in Bujoreni commune, Vâlcea County
to property, final decision of 11/07/2016, Râmnicu Vâlcea District Court, casefile no. 5634/288/2015
non-enforcement of final judgment
972
970,
amount to be paid jointly with the applicant Mihai Dinescu application no. 7317/24, case no. 9 below
Not requested
7317/24
29/02/2024
Mihai DINESCU
1943
1/2 of 0.24 ha land in Bujoreni commune, Vâlcea County
to property, final decision of 11/07/2016 of Râmnicu Vâlcea District Court, casefile no. 5634/288/2015
non-enforcement of final judgment
See under case no. 8. above, application no. 7313/24
Not requested
4091/25
28/01/2025
(3 applicants)
Horst Nikolaus KOHL
1950
Gerlinde FISCH-KOHL
1944
Gertrud Hedwig JÄGER
1929
Lazăr Mirela-Simona
Timisoara
520,787.98 points for ½ of property located in Timișoara, Bd. Brâncoveanu, no. 38, CF no. 4605, Timiș County
to compensation, final decision of 16/03/2022, Timiș County Court, casefile no. 134/30/2021
non-enforcement of final judgment
130,724.48, jointly
10,000, jointly
Not requested
[1] Emergency Ordinance No. 38 of 8 August 2025 for amending and supplementing Law No. 165/2013 on measures for the finalisation of the process of restitution, in kind or by equivalent compensation, of immovable property abusively taken during the communist regime in Romania, published in the Official Gazette on and in force as of 8 August 2025.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable.
[3] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[4] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.