FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF PUŞCAŞ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 18293/13)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25 June 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Puşcaş 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 an application against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 5 March 2013.
2. The applicants were represented by Ms Cristian, a lawyer practising in Cluj‑Napoca.
3. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
4. The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. Having considered the Government’s objection, the Court rejects it.
THE FACTS5. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.
6. The applicants complained of the ineffectiveness of the restitution mechanism in respect of property confiscated or nationalised by the communist regime. The domestic decision acknowledging their right to restitution was adopted in 2002 in favour of Pușcaș Alexandru (born in 1934), Muntean Marcela (born in 1947) and Pușcaș Ioan (born in 1923).
THE LawStanding of HEIRS to pursue proceedings before the Court7. The Government argued that some of the applicants, namely Maria Pop, Adrian‑Florin Puşcaş, Vasile‑Ioan Pușcaș and Ana Puşcaş, do not have locus standi, either because they were not parties to the domestic proceedings of 2002 (see appended table), or because they did not provide sufficient evidence as to their capacity as heirs of the applicants who died while the case was pending before the Court.
8. The Court observes that Mr Ioan Pușcaș died on 26 February 2013, that is prior to lodging the present application. The applicants referred to in paragraph 7 above lodged the case in his stead (see, for similar account, Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, 12 July 2001). One of the applicants, Ms Ana Pușcaș, died after she had lodged the present application with the Court. The remaining applicants, her heirs, intended to pursue proceedings also on her behalf. The applicants Alexandru Pușcaș and Marcela Muntean lodged the present application with the Court in their own names. They died while the application was pending before the Court. Their claims are being pursued by their heirs (see appended table).
9. The present application undoubtedly concerns transferable rights, the applicants and their heirs having a “definite pecuniary interest” in the proceedings at issue (see mutatis mutandis, Marčić and Others v. Serbia, no. 17556/05, § 39, 30 October 2007); also, the alleged violation of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 could have a direct effect on their patrimonial rights (see Marie-Louise Loyen and Other v. France, no. 55929/00, §§ 29‑31, 5 July 2005). Having regard to the close family ties and the heirs’ legitimate interest in pursuing the applications, the Court accepts that the applicants’ heirs may pursue the application in the stead of their late family members. It will therefore continue to deal with this application at their request (see the appended table for details).
10. Consequently, the Court finds that all persons listed in the appended table have standing to respectively lodge and/or proceed with the application. However, for practical reasons, any findings of the Court would relate to “the estate of” each of those acknowledged by the 2002 proceedings as entitled to restitution, namely of Pușcaș Alexandru, of Muntean Marcela and of Pușcaș Ioan, respectively (see, mutatis mutandis, Dickmann and Gion v. Romania, nos. 10346/03 and 10893/04, § 118, 24 October 2017; see also paragraphs 6 and 8 above).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 of Protocol No. 111. The applicants submitted that their inability to recover possession of their unlawfully nationalised properties or obtain compensation, despite court decision acknowledging their property rights or property rights of their estate, had amounted to a breach of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They relied expressly on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
12. The Court notes that the decision of 6 February 2002 of Cluj County Court acknowledged the property rights in favour of Pușcaș Alexandru, Muntean Marcela and Pușcaș Ioan (see also paragraph 8 above). The Court therefore considers that the decision in question constitutes “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
13. In the leading case of Vǎleanu and Others v. Romania, nos. 59012/17 and 27 others, §§ 216-31, 8 November 2022, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
14. The Court observes that the Government raised several objections, most notably that the applicants failed to exhaust domestic remedies following the sale of the property in question (see appended table) to a third party, that they should have complained before the Court within six months from that event, and that in any event, the property was insufficiently identified. Having regard to the arguments and the material before it, as well as its case‑law, the Court decides that these objections should be dismissed (see Văleanu and Others, cited above, § 263).
15. To sum up, 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 acknowledging the property rights of the applicants or of their estate.
16. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS17. The applicants submitted other complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention complaining about unfair proceedings finalised by the decision of 15 May 2012 of the Cluj Court of Appeal and about the non‑enforcement of the 2002 judgment. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION18. 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 judgment given on 6 February 2002, involving the return of the property in question, the Court considers that the enforcement of that judgment 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.
19. 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. 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, jointly and as per the estate they are representing, the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of pecuniary damage.
20. 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 the 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.
21. 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, the Court awards the applicants, jointly and as per the estate they are representing, the amount indicated in the appended table in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
22. Finally, as regards costs and expenses, having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table. It dismisses the remainders of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Holds that the heirs listed in the appended table have standing to pursue the present proceedings before the Court; Declares the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 admissible and holds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the outstanding judgment in the applicants’ favour, as per each estate they represent, involving the return of the property in question and subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 20, 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, jointly and as per each estate they represent, within the same twelve months, the amount 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, jointly and as per each estate they represent, 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
Application raising complaints under Article 1 of the Convention
(ineffectiveness of restitution mechanism in respect of property confiscated or nationalised by the communist regime)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth/demise
Representative
Identification of claimed property
Relevant domestic decision confirming entitlement
Relevant domestic decision challenged by the applicant
Alleged interference with property rights
Amount awarded for pecuniary damage
(in euros)
[1]
Amount awarded for non‑pecuniary damage
(in euros)
[2]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[3]
18293/13
05/03/2013
(6 applicants)
1. Alexandru
PUŞCAŞ
1934
Died in 2015
2. Marcela
MUNTEAN
1947
Died in 2020
*****
The applicants indicated below lodged application as heirs of Ioan PUŞCAŞ
who had died in 2013:
3. Maria POP
1947
4. Adrian‑Florin
PUŞCAŞ
1981
5. Ana PUŞCAŞ
1928
Deceased – date of death unknown
6. Vasile‑Ioan
PUŞCAŞ
1979
Cristian
Camelia Alina
3,000 sq. m land located in Baciu, Cheile Baciului, Cluj County
to property, decision of 11/12/2000 of Cluj‑Napoca First Instance Court, remained final by decision of 06/02/2002 of Cluj County Court (casefile no. 2501/2001)
decision of 15/05/2012 of Cluj Court of Appeal (casefile no. 15476/211/2010)
Non‑enforcement of final judgment, restrictions on the title to property
80,392 jointly, per each of the estate of the deceased: Alexandru Pușcaș, Marcela Muntean and Ioan Pușcaș (see § 10 above).
10,000 jointly, per each of the estate of, respectively, Alexandru Pușcaș, Marcela Muntean and Ioan Pușcaș (see § 10 above).
250 jointly, per each of the estate of the deceased Alexandru Pușcaș, Marcela Muntean and Ioan Pușcaș (see § 10 above).
Pursuing the application in the stead of the deceased applicants in application no. 18293/13
Alexandru PUŞCAŞ
Born in 1934
Died in 2015
Pursued by
1) Alexandru PUŞCAŞ
Born in 1961
Died in 2019
Pursued by:
a) Anna-Kinga PUŞCAŞ
Born in 1988
b) Alexandru Ștefan PUŞCAŞ
Born in 2011
c) Antonia‑Teodora PUŞCAŞ
Born in 2017
d) Alexandra‑Ana‑Maria PUŞCAŞ
Born in 1992
e) Andreea‑Aurora LORINCZ (former PUŞCAŞ)
Born 1993
f) Felicia‑Ștefana‑Giorgiana PUŞCAŞ
Born in 1999
g) Diana-Corina PUŞCAŞ
Born in 1998
2) Elena Mariana SUCIU
Born in 1962
Died in 2023
Pursued by
a) Gheorghe-Gelu SUCIU
Born in 1960
b) Sorin SUCIU
Born in 1991
3) Ana-Felicia VĂLEAN (former PUŞCAŞ)
Born in 1967
4) Cornelia-Angelica HOPÎRTEAN
Born in 1968
5) Claudia CIORCA
Born in 1971
Ana PUŞCAŞ
Born in 1928
Deceased – date of death unknown (between 2013-2015)
As above
Marcela MUNTEAN
Died in 2020
Pursued by
a) Andrea-Camelia SAXON (former MUNTEAN)
Born in 1980
b) Oana MUNTEAN
Born in 1974
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[3] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.