FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF MOISE AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 61328/19 and 10 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25 June 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Moise and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Anne Louise Bormann, President,
András Jakab,
Corinna Wissels, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 June 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 LAWJOINDER 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.
LOCUS STANDI6. The Court notes that Ms Doina Antonescu had died after lodging her application and that her heir wished to continue the proceedings. Having regard to the close family ties and the heirs’ legitimate interest in pursuing the application, the Court accepts that the deceased applicant’s heir may pursue the application in her stead. It will therefore continue to deal with the application of Ms Doina Antonescu at the heir’s request (see the appended table for details).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 17. 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.
8. The Court notes that in respect of application no. 22615/22 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 on 6 September 2019 a compensation decision had been issued in the applicant’s favour. Since that information was reflected in the application form and documents submitted to the Court and, furthermore, payment for the aforementioned decision was not made, the applicant cannot be considered as having abused the right of individual application. The Court therefore dismisses the Government’s objection to that effect.
9. The Court further notes that in respect of application no. 14929/23 the applicant informed the Court on 27 November 2025 that he did not seek any pecuniary damage in respect of the second plot of land of 1,747 sq. m located in Splaiul Zamorei no. 7F, Prahova County, noting that the matter had been resolved. He insisted in his claim for non-pecuniary damage. Having regard to the Court’s leading case (see Vǎleanu and Others v. Romania, nos. 59012/17 and 29 others, § 203, 8 November 2022), the Court decides to strike out this part of the application.
10. The Court considers further 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.
11. In the leading case of Vǎleanu and Others, cited above, §§ 216-31, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present cases.
12. 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, listed in the appended table, in the applicants’ favour.
13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14. 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.
15. 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. 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.
16. 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.
17. As regards the amount of money claimed in respect of loss of profit or benefit by the applicants in applications nos. 54903/22 and 23655/23, the Court rejects these claims. 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 (ibid., § 119).
18. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, 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.
19. Finally, as regards costs and expenses, having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant in application no. 23742/21 the amount indicated in the appended table covering costs and expenses incurred before this Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on that amount. In so far it concerns application no. 567/20, the Court rejects the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses as unsubstantiated.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that Ms Delia Anda Olar has standing to pursue the proceedings (application no. 65153/19) in the late applicant’s stead; Dismisses the Government’s preliminary objection in respect of application no. 22615/22; Decides to strike application no. 14929/23 out of its list of cases in the part related to the plot of land of 1,747 sq. m located in Splaiul Zamorei no. 7F, Prahova County; Declares the applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in relation to the final court orders described in the appended table, admissible; Holds that these complaints disclose a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; 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, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 in the appendix) and subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 16, 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, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage; that in respect of applications listed under nos. 5, 6, 9, 11 in the appendix, 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, 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 25 June 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
(in euros)[2]
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage
(in euros)[3]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[4]
61328/19
18/11/2019
(6 applicants)
Cleopatra-Maria MOISE
1971
Carolina-Elena GĂZDOESCU
1980
Elena GĂZDOESCU
1951
Răzvan-Vasile GĂZDOESCU
1967
Teodora GĂZDOESCU
1954
Klaudia-Magdalena LUCULESCU
1969
Cosmin Dan Grădinaru
Ploiești
original plot of intra muros land (27,437 sq. m) and equivalent plot of intra muros land (22,375 sq. m), both situated in Berca village, Buzău County
to property, Decision of 30/10/1998 of Bucharest County Court, casefile no. 112/1998
non-enforcement of final judgment
187,293, jointly
10,000, jointly
No claim was made
65153/19
02/12/2019
Doina ANTONESCU
1944
Died in 2024
Pursued by heir:
Delia Anda OLAR
1969
Liliana Lupan
Bucharest
equivalent plot of intra muros land (1.48 ha) located in Fălticeni Municipality, Suceava County
to property, Decision of 19/01/2010 of Suceava County Court, casefile no. 1201/227/2008
non-enforcement of final judgment
56,240
10,000
No claim was made
567/20
23/12/2019
Edit HILPERT
1961
3.4668 ha of intra muros land located in Cluj-Napoca, Cluj County (according to her share of the estate)
to property, Cluj County Court’s final decision of 23/04/2008
non-enforcement of final judgment
112,911 (representing the applicant’s share of 7/180 of the property)
10,000
Unsubstantiated
21552/20
04/05/2020
Catinca PLUMB
1950
Andreea Girigan
Iași
equivalent plot of extra muros land (2.50 ha) located in Lețcani village, Iași County
to property, Decision of 10/06/1992 of Iași District Court, casefile no. Illegible
non-enforcement of final judgment
112,500
10,000
No claim was made
23742/21
27/04/2021
Penelopy GROSS
1930
Anelis-Vanina Istrătescu
Bucharest
compensation for 138.78 sq. m of intra muros land and (demolished) building located on 3 Aviator - Ștefan Protopopescu Street, C5, Bucharest
to compensation, decision of 13/12/2019 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, casefile no. 25898/3/2017
non-enforcement of final judgment
278,800
10,000
250
22615/22
27/04/2022
Mirela-Maiana MLADIN
1953
compensation for property (2,458 sq. m of intra muros land) located at no. 171‑173 (currently no. 155), Calea Victoriei, District no. 1, Bucharest
to compensation, Decision of 11/05/2018 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, casefile no. 24284/3/2017
non-enforcement of final judgment
2,556,320
10,000
No claim was made
54903/22
22/11/2022
Ion DRAGOMIR
1946
1 ha of forest land near Topoloveni, Argeș County
to property, Argeș County Court’s final decision of 05/05/2008
non-enforcement of final judgment
6,000
6,000
No claim was made
14929/23
25/03/2023
Valer COVRIG-CUDREC
1957
Otilia-Claudia Covrig-Cudrec
Bistrița
2,000 sq. m of intra muros land (Bușteni, Valea Cerbului, Tarlaua 2, Parcela 32/2 - lot 1)
to property, decision of 23/11/2015 of the Prahova County Court, casefile no. 10500/105/2011
non-enforcement of final judgment
122,000
10,000
No claim was made
23655/23
30/05/2023
Gheorghe-Doru CONTRAŞ
1961
Gheorghe Ştef
Baia Mare
compensation for 6.96761 ha of extra muros arable land located near Căuaș, Satu Mare County
to compensation, Satu Mare County Court’s final decision of 23/06/2022
non-enforcement of final judgment
58,525
10,000
No claim was made
36838/23
28/09/2023
Mihai CHINDRIŞ
1947
Florin Druhora
Cluj-Napoca
plot of forest land, extra muros (57.83 ha, located in Vișeul de Sus, Maramureș County), if available, or an equivalent plot of land
to property, decision of 8/10/2008 of the Maramureș District Court, casefile no. 2198/336/2008
non-enforcement of final judgment
260,235
10,000
No claim was made
6374/24
16/02/2024
(3 applicants)
Ariana-Paula MIRON-PRESAN
1979
Andreea PRESAN
1989
Patricia PRESAN
1990
Alexandru Radu Cristian Georgescu
Bucharest
compensation for a number of 176 shares held at “Moara cu sul” SPA Iohanisfeld evaluated by AAAS in 2020 on the basis of the 2018 judgment (see column no. 6) at RON 48,913.14
to compensation, final decision of 17/12/2018 of Bucharest Court of Appeal; casefile no. 2069/3/2018, decision of 29/09/2020 issued by AAAS
non-enforcement of final judgment
14,530, jointly
(amount adjusted for inflation as of 2018-2025)
10,000, jointly
No claim was made
[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.