FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 6898/04 and 19781/11
Maria COLCERIU and Others against Romania
and Anamaria-Iulia PITIȘ against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8 September 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Carlo Ranzoni,
Péter Paczolay, judges,
and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 28 November 2003 and 18 January 2011 respectively,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently Ms Oana Florentina Ezer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.The circumstances of the case
3. 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).
4. In short, the applicants claimed to have 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. The applicants further argued that despite the fact that their title deeds were not disputed, they 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, and that they did not receive compensation for those properties.Relevant domestic law and practice
5. 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).
COMPLAINT
6. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention 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 as follows:
“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.”
THE LAWJoinder of the applications
7. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.Standing of the applicant Anamaria-Iulia Pitiş’ heir
8. Following the introduction of the application, the applicant in application no. 19781/11 passed away and her heir expressed the wish to pursue the application. Having regard to the close family ties and the heir’s legitimate interest in pursuing the application, the Court accepts that he has standing to pursue the application. It will therefore continue to deal with that case at the heir’s request.Admissibility
9. The Government submitted that the applicants 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.
10. The applicants contested these arguments, holding that they had never ceased to be the legitimate owners of the claimed properties.
11. The Court reiterates that an applicant can allege a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 only in so far as the impugned decisions related to his “possessions” within the meaning of this provision. “Possessions” can be either “existing possessions” or assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicant can argue that he or she has at least a “legitimate expectation” of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right. By way of contrast, the hope of recognition of a property right which it has been impossible to exercise effectively cannot be considered a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, nor can a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition (see, among many other authorities, Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004‑IX).
12. The Court has examined the present applications: in the light of all the materials in its possession, it concludes that the applicants have not shown that they had met the statutory conditions required in order to qualify for reparatory measures, in so far as the domestic courts have not confirmed in a final decision that they had title to the claimed property (see, by way of contrast, Dickmann and Gion v. Romania, nos. 10346/03 and 10893/04, § 93, 24 October 2017). Consequently, the applicants cannot claim to have “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
13. It follows that the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 1 October 2020.
Ilse FreiwirthBranko Lubarda
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
No.
Application no.
date of lodging
Applicant
Date of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
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
1.
6898/04
28/11/2003
Maria COLCERIU
1931
Bucharest
Romanian
Ioan UDRIȘTE
1938
Brașov
Romanian
Lelia Mioara ANTONIU
1932
Bucharest
Romanian
Mihail Sever CĂLUGĂRU
1940
Cluj-Napoca
Romanian
Manuela Carmen Margareta Adriana STOICESCU
1938
Bucharest
Romanian
Elena STĂNOIU
1928
Bucharest
Romanian
Sabina SCHWEITZER
1933
Timișoara
Romanian
Adriana PANTAZI
apartment no. 7 (attic),
Grigore Mora str. no. 19, sector 1, Bucharest
-
06/06/2003
Bucharest Court of Appeal
2.
19781/11
18/01/2011
Anamaria-Iulia PITIȘ
b:1918; d: 2014
Pursued by heir
Șerban Alexandru ALTENLIU
1943
Bucharest
Bogdan Sever Alexandru GRABOWSKI
apartment no. 9 (former 7) and garage,
Cavafii Vechi str. no. 17, district 3, Bucharest
-
24/03/2010 (drafted on 21/07/2010)
Bucharest Court of Appeal
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy