FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29226/06
Ilinca Viorica MAVRIANOPOL and Eugenia MAVRIANOPOL
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15 October 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Jolien Schukking,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 July 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicants, Ms Ilinca Viorica Mavrianopol and Ms Eugenia Mavrianopol, are Romanian nationals born in 1967 and 1941 respectively. They were represented by Mr V. Şerbănescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning their inability to obtain restitution of their nationalised property or to secure compensation therefor were communicated to the Romanian Government.
Subsequently, by a letter of 14 September 2020, the applicants informed the Court that they had received compensation for their property on the basis of Law no. 165/2013. Therefore, they submitted that they would like to pursue the current application only as regards their request for 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the domestic courts and the Court.
THE LAW
The Court notes that according to the available evidence in the case‑file, following the steps the applicants have taken at national level, they received compensation for the immovable property that forms the object of the present application.
In the light of the above, the Court considers that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention regarding the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Ana Ionescu and Others v. Romania, nos. 19788/03 and 18 others, §§ 15-16, 26 February 2019) and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine.
Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list.
As regards the applicants’ request for costs and expenses, the Court notes that it has not been substantiated by any documents. Accordingly, it rejects this claim.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases;
Rejects the applicants’ claim for costs and expenses.
Done in English and notified in writing on 5 November 2020.
Liv TigerstedtArmen Harutyunyan
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy