Information Note on the Court’s case-law 195
April 2016
Lukats v. Romania - 24199/07
Judgment 5.4.2016 [Section IV]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions
Facts – Through various international treaties signed at the relevant time the Romanian State undertook the obligation to compensate former owners or their successors in title who had lost buildings, land or crops abandoned on certain territories following border changes before and during the Second World War. A compensatory mechanism set up by three different laws (nos. 9/1998, 290/2003 and 393/2006) was subject to a number of successive legislative amendments, the most recent being a law (no. 164/2014) which came into force in 2014 and provided for a five-year instalment payment plan and adjustment of the amounts granted as compensation in relation to the consumer price index. It also prescribed binding time-limits for each administrative step, as well as opportunities for an effective review by the courts in case of non-compliance on the part of the responsible authorities.
In 2009 the National Authority for Property Restitution confirmed the applicant’s entitlement to compensation in the amount of approximately EUR 117,000. While its decision stated that the payment would be made in two annual instalments, at the date of delivery of the Court’s judgment the applicant had not received any compensation. In accordance with the new 2014 law, the compensation granted to the applicant was to be paid in five equal annual instalments, starting on 1 January 2015.
Law – Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: Regardless of whether it might be characterised as an interference or as a failure to act, or a combination of both, the assessment of the conduct of the Romanian authorities called upon the Court to determine whether the time necessary for them to pay the applicant the compensation to which she was entitled had placed an excessive burden on her.
In view of the large number of Romanian citizens who had suffered considerable material losses caused by expropriation and nationalisation both before and after the Second World War and under totalitarian regimes, and given the considerable impact of the restitution mechanism on the country as a whole, it was necessary to examine the case also from the perspective of the general measures that were taken in the interest of other potentially affected individuals, in particular, in response to the requirements set out in the Court’s pilot judgment of Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania (30767/05 and 33800/06, 12 October 2010, Information Note 134). In such circumstances, the national authorities had to be allowed to retain full discretion in choosing the general measures.
The Court took note of the Romanian authorities’ constructive attempts to improve the efficiency of the relevant compensation mechanism by seeking to continue payments while also maintaining a proper budgetary balance.* There was no reason to consider that the new procedure set out by the 2014 law would lack clarity and foreseeability. The Court had already held that paying compensation awards in instalments over a longer period might also help to strike a fair balance between the interests of former owners and the general interest of the community, as long as the authorities managed to implement and enforce such measures with the required diligence. The mechanism put in place by the 2014 Law should in principle be considered as able to offer redress in respect of all the relevant claims.
Given that the payment of compensation granted to various claimants had been delayed on account of the successive legislative changes, the authorities’ similar conduct in respect of the applicant could not be regarded as lacking justification. The burden on the applicant could not be considered either disproportionate or excessive, as long as the State ensured that the payment in question would be made under the conditions prescribed by law.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
* See Law no. 165/2013 ; Preda and Others v. Romania, 9584/02 et al., 29 April 2014, Information Note 173.
© 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