FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 8725/06
Vasile LIMBIDE and Ecaterina Viorica NICULESCU
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 March 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Jolien Schukking,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 February 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicants, Mr Vasile Limbide and Ms Ecaterina Viorica Niculescu were born in 1938 and 1921, respectively. The first applicant lived in Bucharest. He died in 2015 and his heir, Ms Ecaterina Limbide (his widow) expressed an intention to pursue the application on his behalf. The second applicant lives in Constanţa.
2. The applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning their inability to obtain restitution of their nationalised properties or to secure compensation therefor were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). The first applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the unfavourable outcome of the property-related proceedings resulting from the incorrect application of the domestic law and improper assessment of evidence and parties’ arguments by the courts.
3. The applicants are E.L.’s heirs. In a final decision of 26 October 2005, the Constanţa Court of Appeal acknowledged that the property situated in Constanţa, no. 45-45A, Mamaia street, had been unlawfully nationalised from E.L. under the former communist regime and then sold to third parties. The court also found that that sale had been lawful.
4. In 2008 the second applicant, Ms Ecaterina Viorica Niculescu, transferred her rights pertaining to the above property to M.H. who did not inform the Court whether he wished to pursue the present application. No communication was received by the Court from either the second applicant or M.H. after that date.
5. On 19 August 2009 the first applicant designated M.H. as his representative in the domestic proceedings concerning the property at issue.
6. On 18 November 2009 the authorities issued a decision granting the first applicant and M.H. compensation of 163,500 Romanian leu (RON) (approximately EUR 40,000 at that time) for the property in question. On 2 February 2010 M.H. received that decision.
7. On 20 November 2020 the Government informed the Court that the beneficiaries of that decision had not contacted the authorities in order to receive payment of the compensation granted. On 22 January 2021 the first applicant’s widow confirmed that information.
THE LAWComplaints raised by the second applicant
8. The Court observes that already in 2008 the second applicant transferred all her rights pertaining to the property, that is the object of the present application, to M.H. (see paragraph 4 above). Thus, since 2008 and long before the domestic courts dealt with the matter of compensation the second applicant lost any interest to pursue the application before the Court. The Court further notes that M.H., the new bearer of the property claim, did not manifest his wish to take the second applicant’s place in the proceedings before the Court.
9. In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application insofar as it concerns the second applicant as it is evident that she lost any interest to pursue the application.
10. Accordingly, this part of the application related to the second applicant should be struck out of the list.Complaints raised by the first applicant
11. The Court further observes that, since the first applicant, along with M.H., were offered compensation for the immovable property in question, the matter related to their property claims has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine (see Ana Ionescu and Others v. Romania, nos. 19788/03 and 18 others, §§ 15-16, 26 February 2019, and Mavrianopol v. Romania (dec.), no. 29226/06, 15 October 2020).
12. Accordingly, the complaints raised by the first applicant under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 should be struck out of the list.
13. The first applicant also complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, about the alleged unfairness of the civil proceedings leading to the final decision of 26 October 2005, having been unhappy about the outcome of the proceedings and examination of evidence and parties’ arguments.
14. The Court does not consider it necessary to address an issue of the locus standi of Ms Ecaterina Limbide, the widow of the first applicant, to pursue the application after his death, as the complaint is in any event inadmissible. It considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
15. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases insofar as it concerns the complaints raised by the second applicant and as regards the complaint raised by the first applicant under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 1 April 2021.
Viktoriya MaradudinaArmen Harutyunyan
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy