FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42912/05
Decebal Ovidiu LĂZUREANU and Camelia LĂZUREANU against Romania
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 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 the various dates indicated in the appended table,
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 cases
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).
COMPLAINTS
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.”
7. The applicants in applications nos. 42912/05 and 66710/09 also raised various complaints under Article 6 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
THE LAWJoinder of the applications
8. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.Locus standi
9. The heirs of the applicant Decebal Ovidiu Lăzureanu (application no. 42921/05) informed the Court of the applicant’s death and, as their close relatives, expressed the intention to pursue the application in his stead. The Government did not object to this. Having regard to the close family ties and the heirs’ legitimate interest in pursuing the application, the Court accepts that the deceased applicant’s heirs may pursue the application in his stead (see Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, § 101, ECHR 2013; and Preda and Others v. Romania, nos. 9584/02 and 7 others, § 75, 29 April 2014). It will therefore continue to deal with the application at the heirs’ request.AdmissibilityThe complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
10. The Government submitted that the applicants in the case no. 42921/05 could not claim to have a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, their complaint being therefore incompatible rationae materiae.
11. The applicants contested these arguments, holding that they had never ceased to be the legitimate owners of the claimed property.
12. The Court notes that the Government did not raise such objections in cases nos. 66710/09 and 65591/14. However, an objection of incompatibility ratione materiae is an objection which goes to the Court’s jurisdiction and the Court is obliged to examine whether it has jurisdiction at every stage of the proceedings (see, Tănase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, § 131, ECHR 2010; see also, mutatis mutandis, Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006‑III).
13. 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).
14. 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.
15. 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.Other complaints
16. The applicants in applications nos. 42912/05 and 66710/09 also raised various complaints under Article 6 of the Convention which the Court has carefully examined. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
17. It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Holds that the heirs of the applicant Decebal Ovidiu Lăzureanu who have expressed the wish to pursue the proceeding in place of the late applicant have standing to do so;
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 22 October 2020.
Ilse FreiwirthBranko Lubarda
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
List of applications
No.
Application no.
Date of lodging
Applicant
Year of Birth/ Death
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
42912/05
24/11/2005
Decebal Ovidiu LĂZUREANU
1941-2016
Miercurea Ciuc
Romanian
Pursued by heirs
Ana-Ileana LĂZUREANU
1946
Miercurea Ciuc Romanian;
Natalia-Simona LĂZUREANU
1975
Bucharest Romanian; and
Ovidiu LĂZUREANU
1976
Miercurea-Ciuc Romanian
Camelia LĂZUREANU
1963
Bucharest
Romanian
Eva Ștefania DOCZY ROSSLER
Building (apartment), Tudor Vladimirescu Street no. 72, Constanţa
-
4/07/2005
Constanţa Court of Appeal
2
66710/09
10/12/2009
Raula-Daniela FLEISCHMAN
1952
Bucharest
Romanian
Narcis Marcel DRAGOMIR
Building (apartment), Vasile Lascăr (formerly Galaţi) Street no. 21,
Bucharest
-
11/06/2009
Bucharest Court of Appeal
3
65591/14
25/06/2014
Cora RADULIAN
1968
Bucharest
Romanian
Dana CHELARU
1971
Bucharest
Romanian
Adrian VASILIU
Building (apartment), Sfânta Treime Street no. 30, Bucharest
-
28/01/2014
Bucharest Court of Appeal
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy