Last Updated on January 18, 2022 by LawEuro
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF KOMAROMI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 30075/03 and 23 others)
JUDGMENT
(Revision)
STRASBOURG
18 January 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Komaromi and Others v. Romania, (request for revision of the judgment of 29 September 2020),
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Carlo Ranzoni,
Péter Paczolay, judges,
and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in twenty-four applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”).
2. In the judgment Komaromi and Others v. Romania, delivered on 29 September 2020, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account the applicants’ inability to recover possession or to be compensated for the loss of their properties, despite the existence of final domestic court decisions retroactively acknowledging their property rights. As regards application no. 46114/06 (Munster v. Romania), the Court decided to award the applicant in that case 420,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage corresponding to the value of her properties (apartments nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8) located Decebal Blvd no. 7, Arad, and EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage; it further dismissed the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction (see §§ 25-26 of the judgment, point 6 of its operative part and no. 12 of the table appended thereto).
3. On 30 December 2020 the Government informed the Court that they had learned that at the time when the judgment had been delivered, apartment no. 5 situated at the above-mentioned address had already been returned to the applicant. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.
4. On 16 February 2021 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicant three weeks in which to submit any observations. Those observations were received on 11 March 2021.
THE LAW
THE REQUEST FOR REVISION
5. The Government requested revision of the judgment of 29 September 2020, which they had been unable to execute because the applicant had already had her property claims partially redressed at the domestic level before the judgment had been delivered (see paragraph 3 above). They therefore considered that the award granted under Article 41 should be amended accordingly.
6. The applicant’s heir, who had pursued the main proceedings in her stead (see § 9 of the judgment) confirmed that apartment no. 5 had been given back to her; however, in her view, the award granted by the Court under Article 41 in respect of pecuniary damage was just, having regard to the fact that the value of the other five apartments which had not been returned to her was EUR 466,000, according to the 2020 values of property transactions.
7. The Court considers that the judgment of 29 September 2020 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, the relevant parts of which provide:
“A party may, in the event of the discovery of a fact which might by its nature have a decisive influence and which, when a judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court and could not reasonably have been known to that party, request the Court … to revise that judgment.
…”
8. The Court considers at the outset that the information submitted by the Government with reference to the return to the applicant of apartment no. 5 constitutes a fact of “decisive influence” on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 § 1, which, admittedly, could not reasonably have been known to them, in view of the large number of similar cases which involved numerous restitution of property related claims, pending both before the Court as well as before the domestic authorities in general.
9. Furthermore, having regard to the fact that apartment no. 5 had already been returned to the applicant, the Court finds that this aspect of her complaint has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and that respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, does not require it to continue the examination of that part of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list, in so far as it relates to this complaint (see for instance Ana Ionescu and Others v. Romania, nos. 19788/03 and 18 others, §§ 15‑16, 26 February 2019).
10. The Court further decides to amend its findings under Article 41 of the Convention accordingly, namely, by deducting the amount corresponding to the value of apartment no. 5 from the award initially granted; it therefore awards Ms Ardelean, the applicant’s heir, the amount of EUR 370,000 as pecuniary damage and it maintains the award of EUR 5,000 granted to her in respect of non‑pecuniary damage (see, mutatis mutandis, Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania (revision), nos. 604/07 and 3 others, § 11, 4 November 2014).
11. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to revise the judgment Komaromi and Others of 29 September 2020 as regards the application Munster v. Romania (no. 46114/06);
accordingly
2. Decides to strike out the application no. 46114/06 in so far as it concerns the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 relating to apartment no. 5 located in Arad, Bdul Decebal no. 7;
3. Holds,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay to the applicant’s heir, Ms Ardelean, within three months, EUR 370,000 (three hundred and seventy thousand euros) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 (five thousand) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 January 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Ilse Freiwirth Branko Lubarda
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply