FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 39865/05
Georgeta PUŞCAŞU
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3 September 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
Georges Ravarani,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 November 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Georgeta Puşcaşu, was born in 1949. She was represented before the Court by Ms A. Popescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest.
The application concerns mainly the applicant’s inability to recover full possession of her immovable property, in particular apartments nos. 1 and 2 and the appurtenant land of a house located at 7A Herăstrău Street in the first district of Bucharest, in spite of final court judgments acknowledging her property rights, following sale contracts concluded by the State with the tenants living in the aforementioned apartments. By final judgments of 4 May 2005 and 6 June 2005, the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s actions for annulment of the sale contracts.
In addition to the above-mentioned complaint raised under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention about an alleged breach of her right to a fair trial because the national courts refused to set aside the sale contracts concluded between the State and the tenants living in the apartments.
On 15 November 2006, the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention was communicated to the Government.
On 4 February 2015 and 25 June 2018 the applicant informed the Court that she had recovered possession of the immovable property in dispute and withdrew her claim in respect of pecuniary damages. However, she maintained her claim in respect of non-pecuniary damages and lowered the amount claimed from 200,000 euros (EUR) to EUR 50,000. The applicant did not submit a claim in respect of costs and expenses.
THE LAWComplaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
The Court notes that according to the available evidence in the case-file, following the steps the applicant has taken at national level since 1996, she has recovered possession of the immovable property that forms the object of her application under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
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 in so far as the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention is concerned (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 case should be struck out of the list in so far as the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention is concerned.Complaint under Article 6 of the Convention
The Court has examined the complaint submitted by the applicant under Article 6 of the Convention. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as this complaint falls within the Court’s competence, it finds that it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
This part of the application must therefore be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.THE Applicant’s claim for just satisfaction
As regards the applicant’s claim in respect of non-pecuniary damages, the Court notes that one part of the application has been resolved and the other has been declared inadmissible.
It follows that there is no ground on which to grant non-pecuniary damage and the Court therefore rejects her claim (see Danca v. Romania (dec.) [Committee], no. 44328/04, 14 November 2019).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases as regards the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention;
Declares inadmissible the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention;
Dismisses the applicant’s claim in respect of non-pecuniary damages.
Done in English and notified in writing on 24 September 2020.
Liv TigerstedtStéphanie Mourou-Vikström
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy