THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27899/03
by Elisa FILOTTI and Alexandru Gabriel FILOTTI
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on
13 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 June 2001,
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 applicants, Mrs Elisa Filotti and Mr Alexandru Gabriel Filotti, are both Romanian and Canadian nationals who were born in 1928 and 1924 respectively and live in Oakville. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R.-H. Radu.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1975, the apartment situated in Bucharest, Pache Protopopescu blvd. no. 19, the applicants’ property, was seized by the State under
Decree no. 223/1974, which was providing that real estates of those who had left the country and had not returned within a year would be transferred in the State’s ownership.
On 20 December 1996 the State sold the flat to the tenants, under
Law no. 112/1995.
On 23 June 1998 the applicants lodged an action claiming recognition of continuity of their property right, annulment of the sale by the State and restitutio in integrum of the apartment.
On 21 March 2003 the Bucharest Court of Appeal, by a final decision, dismissed the applicants’ action, considering that in spite of the fact that the nationalisation had been unlawful and therefore the State could not have sold the apartment under Law no. 112/1995, Law no. 10/2001 gave priority to the sale performed in good faith.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant legal provisions and jurisprudence are described in the judgments Străin and Others v. Romania (no. 57001/00, §§ 19-26, 21 July 2005), Păduraru v. Romania (no. 63252/00, §§ 38-53, 1 December 2005), Porteanu v. Romania (no. 4596/03, §§ 23-25, 16 February 2006), and Radu v. Romania (no. 13309/03, §§ 18-20, 20 July 2006).
COMPLAINTS
The applicants alleged a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, complaining that in spite of the recognition of the property right in their favour, they were unable to enjoy their possessions since the State sold them to third persons, considered by the courts as being of good faith.
The applicants complained under Article 6 about the refusal of the courts to declare void the sale of their possessions, considering this refusal as an infringement of their right to a fair trial, and of the violation of the right to have their civil rights determined within a reasonable time.
The applicants complained under Article 13 of the lack of an effective remedy in internal law against their alleged violations of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The applicants complained under Article 7 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 that they had been punished for a crime that was not a crime even in 1975.
THE LAW
On 17 March 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“Je soussigné, Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu, Agent du gouvernement roumain devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, déclare que le gouvernement roumain offre de verser à Mme Elisa Filotti et M. Alexandru Gabriel Filotti, conjointement, à titre gracieux, la somme de 130 000 (cent trente mille) 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 tout préjudice matériel et moral ainsi que les frais et dépens, sera exempte de toute taxe éventuellement applicable. Elle sera payée en euros dans les trois mois suivant la date de la notification de la décision 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.”
On 5 February 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicants:
“Nous soussignés, Elisa Filotti et Alexandru Gabriel Filotti, notons que le gouvernement roumain est prêt à nous verser, conjointement, à titre gracieux, la somme de 130 000 (cent trente mille) 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 tout préjudice matériel et moral ainsi que les frais et dépens, sera exempte de toute taxe éventuellement applicable. Elle sera payée en euros dans les trois mois suivant la date de la notification de la décision 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.
Nous acceptons cette proposition et renonçons par ailleurs à toute autre prétention à l’encontre de la Roumanie à propos des faits à l’origine de ladite requête. Nous déclarons l’affaire définitivement réglée.”
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). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case 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