FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 26577/08
Eva Clara LUKACS
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 April 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President,
Egidijus Kūris,
Iulia Motoc, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 January 2008,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Ms Eva Clara Lukacs, was a Romanian national who was born in 1923. She died in 2015, in the course of the proceedings before the Court. In a letter of 11 April 2016, her two sons, Mr Paul Lukacs and Mr Iosif Carol Lukacs, have expressed their wish to pursue the application on her behalf in their capacity as her legal heirs.
2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. In 1996 the applicant started proceedings for the recovery of property that had been nationalised by Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation and that had been later sold to third parties (who had been long-time tenants) by virtue of Law no. 112/1995 on the legal status of property transferred to the State. The property consisted of a building with six apartments.
5. In a final judgment of 14 April 2010, the High Court of Cassation and Justice allowed the applicant’s action, annulled the contracts of sale concluded by the authorities with the third parties and ordered the return of the property to the applicant.
6. On 30 August 2010 the mayor of Satu Mare issued a decision to restore the applicant’s possession over the building.
1. Apartment no. 1
7. On 14 December 2012 the former tenants agreed a lease agreement with the applicant.
8. On 14 June 2013 the applicant instituted proceedings against the former tenants seeking compensation for her inability to use the apartment for the period between 30 August 2010 and 14 December 2012. On 17 October 2014 the Satu Mare District Court took note of the applicant’s waiver of the right to pursue the action and terminated the proceedings.
2. Apartment no. 2
9. On 20 September 2012 the former tenant moved out of the applicant’s apartment.
10. In a judgment of 17 July 2013, the Satu Mare District Court allowed a claim by the applicant for compensation for her inability to use the apartment for the period from 14 April 2010 to 20 October 2012 and ordered the former tenant to pay her 17,168 Romanian lei (ROL) (approximately 3,860 euros (EUR)).
3. Apartment no. 3
11. On 12 June 2012 the applicant and the former tenant concluded a lease agreement until 16 January 2013, when he vacated the apartment.
12. In a judgment of 7 April 2016 the Satu Mare County Court allowed a claim by the applicant’s heirs to be compensated for her inability to use the apartment for the period from 30 August 2010 to 12 June 2012 and ordered the former tenant to pay them ROL 11,320 (approximately EUR 2,530).
4. Apartment no. 4
13. On 12 June 2012 the applicant and the former tenants concluded a lease agreement which was valid until 27 November 2013, when the tenants vacated the apartment.
14. In a judgment of 31 March 2013 the Satu Mare District Court ordered the tenants to pay the applicant ROL 8,587 (approximately EUR 1,940) in compensation for her inability to use the apartment for the period from 30 August 2010 to 12 June 2012.
5. Apartment no. 5
15. On 14 November 2012 the applicant instituted proceedings against the former tenants for compensation for her inability to use and the damage caused to the apartment. From the parties’ observations it appears that these proceedings were still pending before the Satu Mare District Court in January 2017.
6. Apartment no. 6
16. In a judgment of 8 April 2015 the Satu Mare District Court allowed a claim by the applicant for compensation for her inability to use the apartment for the period from 30 August 2010 to 10 October 2014 and ordered the former tenants to pay her EUR 4,933.33.
17. On 25 February 2016 the applicant’s heirs sold the apartment.
B. Relevant domestic law
18. The relevant domestic legal provisions are described in Radovici and Stănescu v. Romania (nos. 68479/01, 71351/01 and 71352/01, §§ 53-59, ECHR 2006‑XIII (extracts)) and Străin and Others v. Romania (no. 57001/00, §§ 19-27, ECHR 2005‑VII).
COMPLAINT
19. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of a breach of her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.
THE LAW
20. The Court firstly notes that the applicant, Ms Eva Clara Lukacs, died on 13 April 2015 after the lodging of the application. In a letter of 11 April 2016, her sons, Mr Paul Lukacs and Mr Iosif Carol Lukacs, expressed their wish to pursue the proceedings as her legal heirs (see paragraph 1 above).
21. Having in mind the object of this application and all the material in its possession, the Court finds that Ms Lukacs’s heirs may claim to have an interest which justifies their wish to pursue the proceedings and therefore, for the purposes of the case in question, the Court is prepared to accept that the applicant’s legal heirs can further pursue the application (see, for example and mutatis mutandis, Reynolds v. the United Kingdom, no. 2694/08, § 44, 13 March 2012).
22. For practical reasons, Court will further refer to Ms Eva Clara Lukacs as “the applicant”.
23. The applicant alleged that there had been a breach of her right to property in view of her prolonged inability to use the property which had been returned to her, an inability resulting from the application of emergency legislative measures adopted in the area of tenancy agreements. She relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, 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.”
24. The Government submitted that the applicant had lost her victim status with regard to her complaints concerning apartments nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6. As for the remaining apartments, they contended that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies. They, therefore, requested that the Court reject the application pursuant to Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.
A. Complaint concerning apartments nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6
25. The Court reiterates that it falls first to the national authorities to redress any alleged violation of the Convention. In this regard, the question of whether an applicant can claim victim status is relevant at all stages of the proceedings under the Convention. The Court also reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him or her of his or her status as a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 179-80, ECHR 2006‑V).
26. In the instant case, the Court notes that the domestic courts acknowledged, at least in substance, that the inability to use apartments nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 had amounted to an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions and awarded her compensation in this connection (see paragraphs 9-14 and 16-17 above).
27. Comparing the compensation granted at domestic level in the present case with the amounts awarded by the Court for comparable lack of use of property in the similar case of Radovici and Stănescu v. Romania (nos. 68479/01, 71351/01 and 71352/01, § 95, ECHR 2006‑XIII (extracts)), the Court considers that the amounts awarded to the applicant cannot be regarded as unreasonable.
28. In the light of the above, the Court is satisfied that the compensation awarded to the applicant was in conformity with the criteria established by its case-law and considers that it constituted fair and sufficient redress for the lack of use of her property.
29. It follows that, in so far as apartments nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 are concerned, the applicant can no longer claim to be the victim of a violation of her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Ip‑Omekom invalidsko podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 69584/11, §§ 40-41, 23 September 2014). Therefore, her complaint in that regard is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
B. Complaint concerning apartments nos. 1 and 5
30. With respect to apartment no. 1, the Court notes that the applicant expressly waived her right to pursue the proceedings and in a judgment of 17 October 2014, the Satu Mare District Court took note of this waiver and decided to close the proceedings (see paragraphs 7-8 above).
31. The Court also notes that the proceedings concerning apartment no. 5 were still pending before the domestic courts at the moment of the parties’ last correspondence with the Court (see paragraph 15 above) and that no new developments have been brought to its attention since.
32. The Court reiterates that under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with an application after all domestic remedies have been exhausted (see Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014, and Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) [GC], no. 42219/07, § 85, 9 July 2015).
33. Accordingly, this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 3 May 2018.
Andrea TamiettiPaulo Pinto de Albuquerque
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy