Information Note on the Court’s case-law 211
October 2017
Dickmann and Gion v. Romania - 10346/03 and 10893/04
Judgment 24.10.2017 [Section IV]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Deprivation of property
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions
Inability to obtain restitution of nationalised properties or to secure compensation:violation
Facts – The Court’s pilot judgment Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania (30767/05 and 33800/06, 12 October 2010, Information Note 134), indicated that general measures were required to address the deficiencies of the restitution mechanism enacted in Romania after the fall of the communist regime. In May 2013 Law no. 165/2013 came into force, setting out various procedures available to petitioners seeking settlement of their restitution claims. In Preda and Others v. Romania (9584/02 et al., 29 April 2014, Information Note 173) the Court considered the new law and found that the mechanism established offered a range of effective remedies that needed to be exhausted in certain cases but that the law did not contain any provisions of a procedural or substantive nature affording redress on the matter of the existence of final judgments validating concurrent titles to property with respect to the same residential property.
The applicants complained that their inability to obtain restitution of their nationalised properties or to secure compensation amounted to a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Law – Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The applicants had obtained final decisions acknowledging the unlawfulness of the seizure of their property by the State. The domestic courts had confirmed their entitlement to reparatory measures in view of their status as former owners or successor in title to the former owners.
Having established that the applicants had a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court was further called upon to examine whether the impugned deprivation of those possessions as a result of the sale by the State of the property to third parties had been appropriately remedied and compensated for via the mechanism created for that purpose by the State. Although Law no. 165/2013 had generally reformed the restitution mechanism by setting out precise time-limits for each administrative stage, as well as clear criteria for the functioning of the compensation mechanism, it had not amended the administrative procedure to make it effective for claimants such as the applicants. It followed that the applicants whose title to residential property had been acknowledged and their entitlement to reparatory measures confirmed by the courts, but who could not enjoy their possessions because the State had sold the property, did not benefit from any mechanism allowing them to obtain appropriate compensation for the deprivation of their possessions.
That deprivation, in combination with the total lack of compensation, imposed on the applicants a disproportionate and excessive burden in breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 96,000 to Ms Dickmann and EUR 60,000 jointly to Mr and Ms Gion in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy