THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 28285/05
Agneta MAJTENYI and Ildiko MAJTENYI
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3 December 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Ján Šikuta, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 July 2005,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the Romanian Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Agneta Majtenyi and Ms Ildiko Majtenyi, are Romanian nationals, who were born in 1947 and 1954 respectively. They are sisters and live in Bucharest.
The applicants were represented by Ms L. Cinteză, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Cambrea, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A. The circumstances of the case
The applicants used to live with their mother in an apartment rented from the State in a nationalised building. In 1997 the applicants’ mother bought the apartment from the State under Law no. 112/1995.
Subsequently, the former owner of the nationalised building lodged an action seeking annulment of the sale contract and recovery of possession.
In a final judgment of 7 February 2005 the Bucharest Court of Appeal partly allowed the plaintiff’s action. It ordered the applicants to surrender possession of the apartment to the plaintiff, despite finding the sale contract valid. The court held that the nationalised building had been acquired by the State without title and gave precedence to the previous owner.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant legal provisions regarding different aspects related to nationalised buildings purchased by tenants under Law no. 112/1995 are described in the case of Tudor Tudor v. Romania (no. 21911/03, §§ 13-21, 24 March 2009).
In a judgment of 16 May 2005, the Bucharest Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision and dismissed the action for recovery of possession and annulment of the contract concluded under Law no. 112/1995, lodged by the former owner against the applicants’ neighbours, who had bought an apartment in the same nationalised building. The lower court considered that the action for recovery was inadmissible, as the plaintiff should have followed the special procedure under Law no. 10/2001. As regards the annulment of the sale contract, the court considered that, even though the nationalised building had been acquired by the State without title, the buyers had concluded the contract in good faith.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the proceedings giving rise to the final decision had been unfair, in particular because the same Court of Appeal had adopted a conflicting decision in an identical case brought against other buyers of an apartment in the same nationalised building.
They further complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, of the loss of their property rights, as the domestic courts had ordered them to surrender possession of the apartment to the plaintiff. They also complained of discrimination, under Article 14 taken together with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as the same Court of Appeal had adopted a conflicting decision in an identical case brought against the buyers of an apartment in the same nationalised building.
THE LAW
A. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
The applicants complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the proceedings giving rise to the final decision of 7 February 2005 had been unfair, in particular because the same Court of Appeal had adopted a conflicting decision in an identical case brought against other buyers of an apartment in the same nationalised building.
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
The Government submitted that the proceedings had been fair. In their view, the court had not reached conflicting decisions, as the cases were not similar. In the neighbours’ case the plaintiff had not appealed against the first-instance court’s decision to dismiss the action for recovery of possession as inadmissible. Thus, the Court of Appeal had never pronounced a final decision on that matter. Moreover, the alleged contradictory judgment had been pronounced after the judgment of 7 February 2005. Therefore, the applicants had failed to prove that there were inconsistencies in the case-law of the domestic court.
The Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court, unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999‑I). It is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to resolve problems of interpretation of domestic legislation. The Court’s role is to verify whether the effects of such interpretation are compatible with the Convention, save in the event of evident arbitrariness, when the Court may question the interpretation of the domestic law by the national courts (see Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 13279/05, §§ 49-50, 20 October 2011).
Inconsistencies in approach may arise between the courts as part of the process of interpreting legal provisions while adapting them to concrete situations. Such inconsistencies may also arise within the same court. That, in itself, cannot be considered contrary to the Convention.
In order to assess the conditions in which conflicting decisions of domestic last-instance courts are in breach of the fair trial requirement enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court will first of all examine whether “profound and long-standing differences” exist in the case‑law of the domestic courts (see, for instance, Albu and Others v. Romania, nos. 34796/09 and 63 other applications, § 34, 10 May 2012).
Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the applicants submitted only one copy of an alleged conflicting decision of the same Court of Appeal regarding the annulment of the sale/purchase contracts concluded under Law no. 112/1995 and recovery of possession.
In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there were “profound and long‑standing differences” in the relevant case-law (see Albu and Others, cited above, § 34). Considering this aspect, the Court finds no reason to further examine whether the domestic law contained provisions for overcoming those inconsistencies, whether those provisions were applied and to what effect.
In addition, the Court notes that this case should be distinguished from the case of Tudor Tudor (cited above, §§ 28-29), in which it observed that the same Court of Appeal had given conflicting interpretations of the relevance of the buyers’ good faith in concluding sale contracts with the State, as in the instant case there is no evidence of contradictory decisions. Also, in the case of Tudor Tudor, the Court found that the principle of legal certainty had been breached as a result of the Prosecutor General’s intervention in the case. This had only been possible by means of an extraordinary appeal, which in itself had contradicted the principle of legal certainty.
Lastly, the Court notes that the applicants in the present case had the benefit of adversarial proceedings, in which they were able to adduce evidence as they deemed necessary and have their arguments properly examined by the courts. At the same time, the courts’ conclusions and their interpretation of the relevant law cannot be regarded as manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable.
Having regard to all the above-mentioned considerations, the Court considers that the applicants’ complaint is manifestly ill-founded and should be dismissed as inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
B. Other complaints
The applicants complained that the domestic courts had ordered them to surrender possession of the apartment to the plaintiff, which had led to the loss of their property rights, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They also complained of discrimination, under Article 14 taken together with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as the same Court of Appeal had adopted a conflicting decision in an identical case brought against the buyers of an apartment situated in the same nationalised building.
However, 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.
It follows that this part of the application is 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
Declares the application inadmissible.
Marialena TsirliJán Šikuta
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy