Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 91
November 2006
Radovici and Stănescu v. Romania - 68479/01
Judgment 2.11.2006 [Section III]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1
Control of the use of property
Extension of lease agreed with former landlord, with no rent paid for several years, as a consequence of the failure by the new owner to comply with formalities for termination of lease: violation
Facts: The applicants are the owners of blocks of flats which were returned to them in 1997 after a period of nationalisation. Some of the tenants, who had signed leases with the State before the property was returned, refused to sign fresh leases with the new owners. The applicants tried to have them evicted. After an initial set of proceedings, their claim was dismissed because they had failed to comply with the formalities governing the drawing-up of lease agreements, as laid down in Emergency Government Order no. 40 of 8 April 1999 concerning the protection of tenants and the fixing of rents for housing. That failure meant that the previous lease agreements with the State were automatically prolonged, without affording them any realistic prospect of being paid rent. After a second set of proceedings, the applicants succeeded in having the tenants evicted. However, they had not been receiving any rent up to that time.
Law: Simply because they had failed to comply with the formal conditions imposed by the emergency provisions concerning residential leases, the applicants had been unable, for a number of years, to charge any rent to the occupants of their flats or to enjoy any contractual relations with them. Whilst the emergency measures pursued the aim, in the public interest, of protecting tenants during the housing shortage inherited from the communist regime, and although the system thus introduced could not be criticised per se, having regard in particular to the wide margin of appreciation afforded to States in such matters, some of the emergency provisions had been deficient and imprecise to the detriment of the applicants, and there was nothing to indicate that the tenants had deserved particular protection. As owners of their flats, the applicants had been penalised, for simply failing to comply with a formality in drawing up a lease agreement, by the obligation to keep the tenants in their property for five years, without being able to sign a lease agreement with them and without any realistic prospect of receiving rent. The provisions at issue, as interpreted by the courts, had placed them under an individual and excessive burden.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – EUR 23,000 was awarded in respect of the various damage sustained.
See also Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, 19 June 2006, in Information Note no. 87.
© 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