FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF LENGAUER AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 17801/04 and 22 others – see list in the appendix)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29 September 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Lengauer and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Carlo Ranzoni,
Péter Paczolay, judges,
and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the 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 below;
the decision to give notice of the applications to the Romanian Government (“the Government”);
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 8 September 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case concerns the inability of the applicants to recover possession of their properties which had been unlawfully nationalised under the former communist regime and had been sold by the State to third parties.
THE FACTS
2. The list of the applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
3. The Government were represented by their Agent, most recently Ms O.F. Ezer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
5. The factual and legal circumstances set out in the current applications are similar to those pertaining to the applicants in the case of Străin and Others v. Romania (no. 57001/00, §§ 5-18, ECHR 2005-VII), to the applicants Ms and Mr Rodan in the case of Preda and Others v. Romania (nos. 9584/02 and 7 others, §§ 35-41, 29 April 2014) and to the applicants in the case of Ana Ionescu and Others v. Romania (19788/03, §§ 6-7, 26 February 2019).
6. In short, the applicants obtained final court decisions finding that the nationalisation by the former communist regime of their properties had been unlawful and that they had never ceased to be the legitimate owners of those properties. Despite the fact that their title deeds were not disputed, the applicants were not able to recover possession of their properties, as the latter had either already been sold or were sold by the State to third parties. The applicants did not receive compensation for those properties.
RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
7. The relevant background domestic law and practice in relation to acknowledged unlawfully nationalised properties sold by the State to third parties have been summarised in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Brumărescu v. Romania [GC] (no. 28342/95, §§ 34-35, ECHR 1999-VII); Străin and Others (cited above, §§ 19-23); Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania (nos. 30767/05 et 33800/06, §§ 44 et seq., 12 October 2010); Preda and Others (cited above, §§ 68-74); and Dickmann and Gion v. Romania (nos. 10346/03 and 10893/04, §§ 52-58, 24 October 2017).
THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
8. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.LOCUS STANDI
9. The heirs of some of the applicants informed the Court of those applicants’ deaths and, as their close relatives, expressed the intention to pursue the application in their stead. The Government did not object to this. Having regard to the close family ties and the heirs’ legitimate interest in pursuing the applications, the Court accepts that the deceased applicants’ heirs may pursue the applications in their stead (see Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, § 101, ECHR 2013 and Preda and Others v. Romania, nos. 9584/02 and 7 others, § 75, 29 April 2014). It will therefore continue to deal with these applications at the heirs’ request (see the appended table for details).ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
10. The applicants submitted that their inability to recover possession of their unlawfully nationalised properties or to secure compensation, despite court decisions acknowledging their property rights, amounted to a breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”Admissibility
11. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies and/or that they could not claim to have a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, their complaints being therefore incompatible rationae materiae.
12. The applicants contested these arguments and submitted that the compensation mechanism put in place by the domestic legislation was not effective.
13. The Court reiterates that it has already considered at length and rejected the same objections concerning the alleged inapplicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to situations identical to those in the current case (see Străin and Others v. Romania, no. 57001/00, §§ 30, 31 and 38, ECHR 2005-VII).
14. It has further considered and repeatedly rejected the Government’s submissions as to the alleged effectiveness of the restitution laws, including Law no. 10/2001 and Law no. 165/2013, in cases where there are concurrent valid title deeds (see Strain and Others, cited above, §§ 54-56, Preda and Others, cited above, §§ 133 and 141, Dickmann and Gion v. Romania, nos. 10346/03 and 10893/04, §§ 72 and 78, 24 October 2017, and Ana Ionescu and Others v. Romania, nos. 19788/03 and 18 others, § 23, 26 February 2019).
15. It finds that in the instant case the Government have not put forward any new fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility of this complaint. The Government’s objection in this regard must therefore be rejected.
16. The Court further notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.Merits
17. The applicants argued that the inability to date to recover possession of their properties or to receive compensation if recovery of possession were not to be possible was in breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.
18. The Government reiterated their objection to admissibility and submitted that the applicants should have pursued the procedures set out in the restitution laws, including Law no. 165/2013.
19. The Court notes that, just like the applicants in the case of Strain and Others, cited above, and also like Ms and Mr Rodan in the case of Preda and Others, cited above, the applicants in the present case had obtained final decisions acknowledging with retroactive effect the unlawfulness of the seizure of their property by the State and their legitimate ownership over those properties. These decisions have not been challenged or quashed to date. The applicants have not been able, to date, either to recover possession of the properties mentioned in the appended table or to obtain compensation for this deprivation.
20. The Court reiterates that in the case of Preda and Others it found that the applicants’ inability to recover possession of their properties despite final court decisions retroactively acknowledging their property rights constituted a deprivation of their possessions within the meaning of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that such a deprivation, combined with a total lack of compensation, imposed on the applicants a disproportionate and excessive burden in breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Preda and Others, cited above, §§ 146, 148-49).
It reiterated its above findings in the similar case of Dickmann and Gion (cited above, §§ 103-04) and in the more recent case of Ana Ionescu and Others (cited above, §§ 23, 28-30).
21. The Court further finds that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
22. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.REMAINING COMPLAINTS
23. The applicants in applications nos. 40887/04, 18699/05, 34609/05, 20500/06, 38097/06, 45088/06, 28971/07, 32864/07, and 15269/08 also raised various complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and in application no. 18699/05, an additional complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court has carefully examined these complaints. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
24. It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
25. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
26. The applicants submitted claims for just satisfaction on various dates between 2006 and 2018. At the Court’s request, the older claims have been updated between 2015 and 2019.
27. The Government made comments in reply to the applicants’ original and updated claims for just satisfaction.
28. In support of their claims and submissions in respect of pecuniary damage the applicants and the Government submitted one or more of the following:
a) expert reports prepared by registered experts, either at the Ministry of Justice or members of the National Association of Valuers (“the ANEVAR”), which is an association recognised by the Romanian Government as an association of public interest. The expert reports estimated the market value of the claimed properties after visiting them (applicants’ experts), using criteria defined by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 9/2008, which fixes the rent for State properties, the standards and recommendations determined by the ANEVAR, and the International Valuation Standards (IVS). The Government’s experts did not visit the properties.
b) administrative decisions pursuant to Law no. 165/2013 awarding compensation calculated according to the criteria established by the said Law or estimated values calculated by the competent administrative bodies (see section 41 of Law no. 165/2013, Preda and Others, cited above, § 70).
c) copies of sale contracts indicating the price per square metre for neighbouring properties.Pecuniary damage
29. As the Court has held on a number of occasions, a judgment in which the Court finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to the breach and make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96 § 32, ECHR 2000-XI, and Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00, § 90, 22 December 2009).
30. The Court considers, in the circumstances of the case, that the return of the properties in issue would put the applicants as far as possible in a situation equivalent to the one in which they would have been if there had not been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
31. Failing such restitution by the respondent State, the Court holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, in respect of pecuniary damage, an amount corresponding to the current value of their properties (see Preda and Others, cited above, § 163).
32. As regards the amount of money claimed in respect of loss of profit or benefit from the applicants’ possessions, the Court rejects this claim. To award a sum of money on this basis would be a speculative process, given that profit derived from possession of property depends on several factors (see Buzatu v. Romania (just satisfaction), no. 34642/97, § 18, 27 January 2005, and Preda and Others, cited above, § 164).
33. The Court notes the disparity between the applicants’ estimates of the value of their properties and those advanced by the Government.
Having regard to the information at its disposal concerning real estate prices on the local market, including the documents submitted by the parties, and to its established case-law in respect of similar cases (see Maria Atanasiu and Others, cited above, § 253; Preda and Others, cited above, § 164; and Dickmann and Gion, cited above, §§ 113-18), the Court considers it reasonable and equitable, as required by Article 41, to award the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of pecuniary damage.Non-pecuniary damage
34. 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, the Court awards the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of non-pecuniary damage.Costs and expenses
35. Some applicants have either not submitted any claims for costs and expenses or have failed to substantiate them. Accordingly, the Court finds no reason to award them any sum on that account (see appended table).
36. As concerns the claims submitted by the remaining applicants, regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table covering costs under all heads.Default interest
37. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Holds that the heirs of the applicants who have expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings in place of the late applicants have standing to do so (see appendix); Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to return to the applicants their properties within three months;
(b) that, failing such restitution, the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within the same three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;
(c) that, in any event, the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within the same three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses;
(d) that the aforementioned amounts shall be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(e) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned 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’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 September 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Ilse Freiwirth Branko Lubarda
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications
No.
Application no. and date of introduction
Applicant’s name
nationality
year of birth (and demise where applicable)
place of residence
heirs
Represented
by
Identification of property
Domestic decision acknowledging the applicants’ title to property
Domestic decision confirming the validity of the third parties’ title to property
Amounts awarded for
A. pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage/application
B. costs and expenses/application
in euros (EUR)
1.
17801/04
14/04/2004
Ana and Constantin LENGAUER
Austrian
1947 and 1976
Vienna
S.I. Gidro
Cluj Napoca,
no. 13
Donath Street,
flat no. 51 of 101.81 sq. m
16 October 2003
Cluj Napoca Court of Appeal
16 October 2003
Cluj Napoca Court of Appeal
A: EUR 85,000
(80,000 + 5,000)
B: EUR 3,900
2.
22748/04
18/02/2004
Maria SADRAPELI
Romanian and USA
1946
Winnetka, USA
Nicolae SADRAPELI
Romanian and USA
1937
Winnetka, USA
Constanta,
no. 15
Ecaterina Varga Street,
flat no. 1 of 69.73 sq. m
1 October 2003
Constanta Court of Appeal
1 October 2003
Constanta Court of Appeal
A: EUR 30,000 (25,000+5,000)
B: EUR 500
3.
40887/04
30/07/2004
Lucian Ion IVANOV
Romanian
1943
Bucharest
Petre CERNEA
Romanian
b: 1924
d: 2011
pursued by heir:
Mirela Ileana IVANOV Romanian
Bucharest
Georgeta Florentina BORA
1932
Bucharest
Teodora ROTARU
b: 1946
d: 2012
pursued by heir:
Manuela CROITORU
Romanian
Bucharest
Bucharest,
no. 12
Gh. Dem Teodorescu Street,
flat no. 1
27 May 1999
Bucharest County Court
19 September 2003
Bucharest Court of Appeal
A: EUR 54,000 (50,000+4,000)
B: not requested
4.
6805/05
27/01/2005
Nikolaos Marinos MOUSATOS
Romanian
1958
Athens
D. Costof
Bucharest,
no. 9
Radu Beller Street,
flats nos. 4 and 8 of 182.54 sq. m in total, according to the applicant, and 179.14 sq. m in total, according to the Government and appurtenant land of 62.50 sq. m
9 March 2004
High Court of Cassation and Justice
9 March 2004
High Court of Cassation and Justice
A: EUR 355,000 (350,000+5,000)
B: EUR 2,800
5.
18699/05
14/04/2005
Sylvia PETRESCU
Romanian
b: 1916
d: 2016
Stefania Alice PENESCU
Romanian
b: 1914
d: 2012
pursued by heirs of both applicants:
Sorin Corneliu PETRESCU and
Victoria Mura PETRESCU
Romanian
Bucharest
Bucharest,
no. 54
Ţepeş Vodã Street
building C, flat no. 1 of 139.63 sq. m and appurtenant land of 127.35 sq. m
18 October 2004
Bucharest Court of Appeal
25 January 2008
Bucharest Court of Appeal
A: EUR 175,000 (170,000+5,000)
B: EUR 5,444
6.
26563/05
14/07/2005
Anneliese Aurelia
MOLDOVAN
Romanian and German 1956
Stuttgart, Germany
Făgăraş,
no. 60 Stadionului Street,
a house of 270 sq. m and the appurtenant land of 135 sq. m
10 November 2003
Braşov County Court
10 November 2003
Braşov County Court
A: EUR 55,000 (50,000+5,000)
B: EUR 250
7.
34609/05
20/09/2005
Livia VÂCLEA
Romanian
1929
Bucharest
Liviu-Valentin VÂCLEA
Romanian
1951
Bucharest
Bucharest,
no. 18 Vasile Lascar Street,
flat no. 3 of 64.69 sq. m,
an annex and the appurtenant land of 14.50 sq. m
21 March 2001
Bucharest District Court
18 May 2005
Bucharest Court of Appeal
A: EUR 80,000 (75,000+5,000)
B: no award
8.
17599/06
17/04/2006
Eugenia CLEPCEA
Romanian
1948
Bucharest
Elena CLEPCEA
Romanian
b: 1924
d: 2014
pursued by heirs
Carmen Maria DIRINA,
Alice Mihaela Genoveva DIRINA,
Narcis Bogdan CLEPCEA
Romanian
Bucharest
Zina CLEPCEA
b: 1931
d: 2010
pursued by heir
Valerica PADINA, Romanian
Galaţi
Carmen Maria DIRINA
Romanian
1945, Bucharest
Bucharest,
nos. 32-34,
Nicolae Filipescu Street,
flat no. 9 of 32.26 sq. m
8 August 1997
Bucharest District Court
18 October 2005
Bucharest Court of Appeal
A: EUR 35,000 (30,000+5,000)
B: no award
9.
19979/06
21/03/2006
Eugenia CLEPCEA
Romanian
1948
Bucharest
Elena CLEPCEA
Romanian
b: 1924
d: 2014
pursued by heirs
Carmen Maria DIRINA,
Alice Mihaela Genoveva DIRINA,
Narcis Bogdan CLEPCEA
Romanian, Bucharest
Zina CLEPCEA
b: 1931
d: 2010
pursued by heir
Valerica PADINA, Romanian
Galaţi
Carmen Maria DIRINA
Romanian
1945
Bucharest
Bucharest,
nos. 32-34,
Nicolae Filipescu Street,
flat no. 17of 35.10 sq. m
8 August 1997
Bucharest District Court
23 September 2005
Bucharest Court of Appeal
A: EUR 40,000 (35,000+5,000)
B: no award
10.
20500/06
22/05/2006
Gerda STURMER-BARES
German
1941
Naumburg Saale, Germany
Georg-Reinhard STURMER
German
1946
Grafrath, Germany
E.J. Prediger
Braşov,
no. 27
Stejarului Street;
flat no. 1of 157.88 sq. m and the appurtenant land of 922.29 sq. m according to the applicant and 857.88 sq. m according to the Government
22 November 2005
Braşov Court of Appeal
22 November 2005
Braşov Court of Appeal
A: EUR 160,000 (155,000+5,000)
B: not requested
11.
30156/06
19/07/2006
Ann Cornelia SCHIAU
US national
1928
Rocky River Ohio, USA
Timisoara,
no. 1
Narciselor Street
five flats of 375.34 sq. m in total
9 February 2006
Timisoara Court of Appeal
9 February 2006
Timisoara Court of Appeal
A: EUR 5,000
B: EUR 250
12.
38097/06
08/09/2006
Silvia Maria SULICA
Romanian
b: 1913
d: 2010
Eugen Dan SULICA
Romanian
b: 1940
d: 2009
pursued by heirs of both deceased applicants:
Dan SULICA and
Maria Cristina IANCU
Romanian
Bucharest
Maria Cristina IANCU
Romanian
1972
Bucharest
R.M. Protopopescu
Bucharest,
no. 7
Stefan Mihaileanu Street,
flat no. 1 in building C, of 94.03 sq. m and appurtenant land of 43.88 sq. m
13 March 2006
Bucharest Court of Appeal
13 March 2006
Bucharest Court of Appeal
A: EUR 80,000 (77,000+3,000)
B: EUR 100
13.
45088/06
02/11/2006
Susana DENGJEL
German
b: 1920
d: 2014
pursued by heir
Susanna PETER
Romanian
Munich, Germany
B. Fabritius
Seica Mare, Sibiu
no. 41,
house and the appurtenant land of 925 sq. m,
and garden of 854 sq. m
25 May 2006
Alba Iulia Court of Appeal
25 May 2006
Alba Iulia Court of Appeal
A: EUR 55,000 (52,000+3,000)
B: EUR 500
14.
8624/07
02/12/2006
Maria Yolanda Elena
TACHE-RADU
Romanian
1937
Bucharest
Bucharest,
no. 2bis
Leon
Voda Street,
flat no. 2, of 33.49 sq. m and the appurtenant land of 16.75 sq. m
25 September 2000
Bucharest District Court
22 Jun 2006
Bucharest Court of Appeal
A: EUR 40,000
B: EUR 250
15.
28971/07
02/07/2007
Gheorghe GHIDRAI
Romanian
b: 1930
d: 2012
pursued by heir
George Liviu GHIDRAI
Romanian
Cluj Napoca
Z. L. Codoban
Cluj Napoca,
no. 12
Crişan Street,
five flats of 433.9 sq. m, and appurtenant land of 71 sq. m.
Co-owners with equal shares (2/4 cf. final decision of 9 October 2014 of the Cluj Napoca Court of Appeal): Mr Ghidrai (application no. 28971/07) and Ms Kovats (application no. 32864/07)
28 February 2007
Cluj Napoca Court of Appeal
28 February 2007
Cluj Napoca Court of Appeal
A: EUR 402,500
(400,000 + 2,500)
B: no award
16.
32864/07
21/09/2006
Ágotha-Maria-Eva KOVÁTS
Romanian
1939
Cluj-Napoca
Z.L. Codoban
Cluj Napoca
no. 12
Crişan Street,
five flats of 433.9 sq. m, and appurtenant land of 71 sq. m.
Co-owners with equal shares (2/4 cf. final decision of 9 October 2014 of the Cluj Napoca Court of Appeal): Mr Ghidrai (application no. 28971/07) and Ms Kovats (application no. 32864/07)
28 February 2007
Cluj Napoca Court of Appeal
28 February 2007
Cluj Napoca Court of Appeal
A: EUR 402,500
(400,000 + 2,500)
B: no award
17.
49652/07
08/11/2007
Nastasia COMAN
Romanian
1960
Focșani
F.V. Ştefan
Bucharest,
no. 8
Mendeleev Street,
flat no. 7 of 235 sq. m and appurtenant land of 13.19 sq. m
6 March 1996
Bucharest District Court
(as rectified on 6 April 1998)
11 May 2007
Bucharest Court of Appeal
A: EUR 124,000
B: not requested
18.
15269/08
28/11/2007
Nicolae ATANASIU
Romanian and French
b: 1928
d: 2011
Gheorghe ATANASIU
Romanian
b: 1927
d: 2014
Rucsandra Irina Elena PRATZ
Romanian and French 1956
Bucharest
acting on her own behalf and as heir of the other applicants
N.T. Popescu
Constanţa,
no. 2
Luntrei Street (present Ion Teodorescu Valahu street), two flats of 135.92 sq. m in total
30 May 2007
Constanţa Court of Appeal
30 May 2007
Constanţa Court of Appeal
A: EUR 95,000 (90,000+5,000)
B: EUR 1,451.35
19.
17747/09
26/03/2009
Maria RĂDOI
Romanian
1951
Bucharest
A. Moţatu
Bucharest,
no. 34,
Branarul Street
first floor of the house, of 71.96 sq. m and the plot of land of 127.50 sq. m
30 October 2008
Bucharest Court of Appeal
11 February 2009
Bucharest County
Court
A: EUR 28,000 (24,000+4,000)
B: not requested
20.
30211/10
05/04/2010
Mihai George Dominic
GEORGESCU
Romanian
1954
North Vancouver, Canada
N. Ciurel
Bucharest,
no. 19
Dr. Burghelea Street,
flat no. 6 of 105.33 sq. m and the appurtenant land
2 July 1997
Bucharest District Court
12 October 2009
Bucharest Court of Appeal
A: EUR 85,000 (80,000+5,000)
B: EUR 250
21.
19914/11
21/03/2011
Eugenia NEDELCU
Romanian
1938
Constanța
Octavian ȘTEFANESCU
Romanian
1940
Constanța
Constanța,
no. 107
Stefan cel Mare Street,
first floor flat of 54.18 sq. m
16 September 1997
Constanța Court of Appeal
27 September 2010
Constanța Court of Appeal
A: EUR 35,000 (30,000+5,000)
B: EUR 820
22.
22540/12
04/04/2012
Maria Rodica VOICU
Romanian
b: 1936
d: 2015
Pursued by heir
Francisc-Iosif PAJORIN
Romanian
Braşov
D. Bratianu
Brasov,
no. 10,
Fantana Rosie Street
a house of 451.80 sq. m, appurtenant land included
11 November 2011
Brasov County Court
11 November 2011
Brasov County Court
A: EUR 300,000 (295,000+5,000)
B: EUR 250
23.
76693/14
03/12/2014
Damian FÂRTAT
Romanian
1942
Dobroeşti
Drobeta Turnu Severin,
no. 44
Aurelian Street (former Lenin),
building of 846.62 sq. m, land of 419 sq. m and
annexes of 205.14 sq. m
23 June 2014
Craiova Court of Appeal
23 June 2014
Craiova Court of Appeal
A: EUR 375,000 (370,000+5,000
B: no award
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy