THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13067/03
by Vasilica CIOBANIUC
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on
9 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 January 2003,
Having regard to the decision to examine jointly the admissibility and merits of the case (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Vasilica Ciobaniuc, is a Romanian national who was born in 1936 and lives in Iaşi. The Romanian Government
(“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1985, the apartment situated in Constanţa, Aleea Hortensiei no. 7, the property of the applicant and of her husband, was seized by the State under decree no. 223/1974, which provided that properties of those who had left the country and had not returned within a certain time-limit would be transferred into the State’s ownership.
On 29 October 1996 the State sold the flat to the then tenants, under
Law no. 112/1995.
On 18 August 1997 the applicant and her husband lodged an action for the annulment of the seizure, claiming restitutio in integrum of the apartment, eviction of the tenants and damages.
On 20 March 2000 the Constanţa Court of Appeal, by a final decision, allowed in part the applicant’s action, annulled the seizure as being unlawful, but dismissed the claim for restitutio in integrum as the apartment was in the possession of third persons who were not party to the proceedings.
On 17 October 2001 the Constanţa Court of Appeal dismissed, by a final decision, the applicant’s action for recovery of possession of immovable property, lodged against those who had bought the apartment. The court considered that the tenants had made the purchase in good faith and had complied with the provisions of Law no. 112/1995.
On 14 February 2005 the Constanţa Court of Appeal, by a final decision, dismissed the request for the rescission of the sale contract on the ground that the tenants had made the purchase in good faith.
On 16 May 2005 the Mayor of Constanţa rejected the applicant’s request for restitution in kind of the apartment and proposed as compensation the equivalent of 11,074 euros. There is no indication if the applicant has received any compensation for that apartment.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the decisions in the proceedings concerning the annulment of the sale of her possession to third persons had been unfair.
The applicant alleged a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, complaining that in spite of the recognition that the seizure had been unlawful, she was unable to enjoy her possession since the State had sold it to third persons, considered by the courts as being of good faith.
THE LAW
By letter dated 30 January 2008 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit her observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 12 March 2008.
By letter dated 10 April 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 12 March 2008 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The acknowledgement of receipt was signed by the applicant and bore a Romanian postmark dated 15 May 2008. However, no response has been received.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate 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.
Stanley NaismithJosep Casadevall
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy