The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Branko Lubarda, President,
\nCarlo Ranzoni,
\nP\u00e9ter Paczolay, judges,
\nand Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to:<\/p>\n
the applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d), on the various dates indicated in the appended table;<\/p>\n
the decision to give notice of the applications to the Romanian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d);<\/p>\n
the parties\u2019 observations;<\/p>\n
Having deliberated in private on 29 September 2020,<\/p>\n
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n
![\"INTRODUCTION\"](\"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/INTRODUCTION.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
1. The case concerns the inability of the applicants to recover possession of their properties which had been unlawfully nationalised under the former communist regime and had been sold by the State to third parties.<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 2. The list of the applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, most recently, Mrs\u00a0O.F.\u00a0Ezer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.<\/p>\n 4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 5. The factual and legal circumstances set out in the current applications are similar to those pertaining to the applicants in the case of Str\u0103in and\u00a0Others v. Romania (no. 57001\/00, \u00a7\u00a7 5-18, ECHR 2005-VII), to the applicants Ms and Mr Rodan in the case of Preda and Others v. Romania (nos.\u00a09584\/02 and 7 others, \u00a7\u00a7 35-41, 29 April 2014) and to the applicants in the case of Ana Ionescu and Others v. Romania (19788\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a06-7, 26\u00a0February 2019).<\/p>\n 6. In short, the applicants obtained final court decisions finding that the nationalisation by the former communist regime of their properties had been unlawful and that they had never ceased to be the legitimate owners of those properties. Despite the fact that their title deeds were not disputed, the applicants were not able to recover possession of their properties, as the latter had either already been sold or were sold by the State to third parties. The applicants did not receive compensation for those properties.<\/p>\n RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE<\/strong><\/p>\n 7. The relevant background domestic law and practice in relation to acknowledged unlawfully nationalised properties sold by the State to third parties have been summarised in the Court\u2019s judgments in the cases of Brum\u0103rescu v. Romania [GC] (no. 28342\/95, \u00a7\u00a7 34-35, ECHR\u00a01999-VII); Str\u0103in and Others (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 19-23); Maria Atanasiu and Others v.\u00a0Romania (nos. 30767\/05 et 33800\/06, \u00a7\u00a7 44 et seq., 12 October 2010); Preda and Others (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 68-74); and Dickmann and Gion v.\u00a0Romania (nos. 10346\/03 and 10893\/04, \u00a7\u00a7 52-58, 24 October 2017).<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 8. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. Locus standi<\/p>\n 9. The heirs of some of the applicants informed the Court of those applicants\u2019 deaths and, as their close relatives, expressed the intention to pursue the application in their stead. The Government did not object to this. Having regard to the close family ties and the heirs\u2019 legitimate interest in pursuing the applications, the Court accepts that the deceased applicants\u2019 heirs may pursue the applications in their stead (see Janowiec and Others v.\u00a0Russia [GC], nos. 55508\/07 and 29520\/09, \u00a7 101, ECHR 2013 and Preda and Others v. Romania, nos. 9584\/02 and 7 others, \u00a7 75, 29 April 2014). It will therefore continue to deal with these applications at the heirs\u2019 request (see the appended table for details).<\/p>\n III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1of protocol No. 1 tO THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 10. The applicants submitted that their inability to recover possession of their unlawfully nationalised properties or to secure compensation, despite court decisions acknowledging their property rights, amounted to a breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article\u00a01 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads:<\/p>\n \u201cEvery natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.<\/p>\n The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.\u201d<\/p>\n A. Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Application no. 22023\/03<\/em><\/p>\n 11. After the communication of the application to the Government, updated information concerning the claims under Article 1 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01 was submitted by the applicants Lucia Nasta, Egon Mihai Nasta and GeorgetaNasta in connection with apartments nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively,located on Aviator Iuliu Tetrat Street no. 2, Bucharest; this information stated that on various dates these properties have been returned to the above applicants by final court decisions. In view of that, the above applicants argued that they wished to pursue the proceedings before the Court only in respect of the loss of profit or benefit due to them for the period they have been deprived of their property over the above apartments. The Government contended that the matter raised by the present application as lodged by the above-mentioned applicants had been resolved.<\/p>\n 12. The Court reiterates that, under Article 37 \u00a7 1 (b) of the Convention, it may \u201c… at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that … the matter has been resolved …\u201d.<\/p>\n 13. The Court takes note of the parties\u2019 submissions and of the fact that the above-mentioned applicants enjoy full possession of the properties returned to them. Moreover, as regards their request in respect of loss of profit, the Court notes that such claims have constantly been rejected as speculative (see Ana Ionescu and Others, cited above, \u00a7 40 and the cases cited therein).<\/p>\n 14. The Court therefore considers that the matter giving rise to the complaints lodged by the applicants Lucia Nasta, Egon Mihai Nasta and GeorgetaNasta under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 \u00a7 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 these complaints under Article\u00a037 \u00a7\u00a01 in fine. Accordingly, the part of the application lodged by the applicants Lucia Nasta, Egon Mihai Nasta and GeorgetaNasta should be struck out of the list.<\/p>\n 2. All applications including the remainder of application no.\u00a022023\/03<\/em><\/p>\n 15. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies and\/or that they could not claim to have a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, their complaints being therefore incompatible rationaemateriae.<\/p>\n 16. The applicants contested these arguments and submitted that the compensation mechanism put in place by the domestic legislation was not effective.<\/p>\n 17. The Court reiterates that it has already considered at length and rejected the same objections concerning the alleged inapplicability of Article\u00a01 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to situations identical to those in the current case (see Str\u0103in and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 30, 31 and 38).<\/p>\n 18. It has further considered and repeatedly rejected the Government\u2019s submissions as to the alleged effectiveness of the restitution laws, including Law\u00a0no.\u00a010\/2001 and Law no. 165\/2013, in cases where there are concurrent valid title deeds (see Str\u0103in and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 54-56, Preda and\u00a0Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 133 and 141, Dickmann and Gion, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a072 and 78, and Ana Ionescu and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a023).<\/p>\n 19. It finds that in the instant case the Government have not put forward any new fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility of this complaint. The Government\u2019s objection in this regard must therefore be rejected.<\/p>\n 20. The Court further notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill\u2011founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B. Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 21. The applicants argued that the inability to date to recover possession of their properties or to receive compensation if recovery of possession were not to be possible was in breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.<\/p>\n 22. The Government reiterated their objection to admissibility and submitted that the applicants should have pursued the procedures set out in the restitution laws, including Law no. 165\/2013.<\/p>\n 23. The Court notes that, just like the applicants in the case of Str\u0103in and\u00a0Others, cited above, and also like Ms and Mr Rodan in the case of Preda and Others, cited above, the applicants in the present case had obtained final decisions acknowledging with retroactive effect the unlawfulness of the seizure of their property by the State and their legitimate ownership over those properties. These decisions have not been challenged or quashed to date. The applicants have not been able, to date, either to recover possession of the properties mentioned in the appended table or to obtain compensation for this deprivation.<\/p>\n 24. The Court reiterates that in the case of Preda and Others it found that the applicants\u2019 inability to recover possession of their properties despite final court decisions retroactively acknowledging their property rights constituted a deprivation of their possessions within the meaning of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that such a deprivation, combined with a total lack of compensation, imposed on the applicants a disproportionate and excessive burden in breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01 (see Preda and Others,cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 146, 148-49).<\/p>\n It reiterated its above findings in the similar case of Dickmann and Gion (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 103-04) and in the more recent case of Ana Ionescu and\u00a0Others (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 23, 28-30).<\/p>\n 25. The Court further finds that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.<\/p>\n 26. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.<\/p>\n IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 27. The applicants in applications nos.\u00a022023\/03, 643\/04, 18015\/05, 33320\/05 and 6931\/06 also raised various complaints under Article 6 of the Convention, which the Court has carefully examined. 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.<\/p>\n 28. It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 29. Article\u00a041 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n 30. The applicants submitted claims for just satisfaction on various dates between 2006 and 2009. At the Court\u2019s request, the claims have been updated between 2015 and 2019.<\/p>\n 31. The Government made comments in reply to the applicants\u2019 original and updated claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n 32. In support of their claims and submissions in respect of pecuniary damage the applicants and the Government submitted one or more of the following:<\/p>\n a) expert reports prepared by registered experts, either at the Ministry of Justice or members of the National Association of Valuers (ANEVAR), which is an association recognised by the Romanian Government as an association of public interest. The expert reports estimated the market value of the claimed properties after visiting them (applicants\u2019 experts), using criteria defined by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 9\/2008, which fixes the rent for State properties, the standards and recommendations determined by the National Association of Valuers (ANEVAR), and the International Valuation Standards (IVS). The Government\u2019s experts did not visit the properties.<\/p>\n b) administrative decisions pursuant to Law no. 165\/2013 awarding compensation calculated according to the criteria established by the said Law or estimated values calculated by the competent administrative bodies (see section 41 of Law no. 165\/2013, Preda and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a070).<\/p>\n c) copies of sale contracts indicating the price per square metre for neighbouring properties.<\/p>\n A. Pecuniary damage<\/strong><\/p>\n 33. As the Court has held on a number of occasions, a judgment in which the Court finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to the breach and make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no.\u00a031107\/96 \u00a7 32, ECHR 2000-XI, and Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858\/00, \u00a7 90, 22 December 2009).<\/p>\n 34. The Court considers, in the circumstances of the case, that the return of the properties in issue would put the applicants as far as possible in a situation equivalent to the one in which they would have been if there had not been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.<\/p>\n 35. Failing such restitution by the respondent State, the Court holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, in respect of pecuniary damage, an amount corresponding to the current value of their properties (see Preda and Others, cited above, \u00a7 163).<\/p>\n 36. As regards the amount of money claimed in respect of loss of profit or benefit from the applicants\u2019 possessions, the Court rejects this claim. To award a sum of money on this basis would be a speculative process, given that profit derived from possession of property depends on several factors (see Buzatu v. Romania (just satisfaction), no. 34642\/97, \u00a7\u00a018, 27\u00a0January 2005, and Preda and Others, cited above, \u00a7 164).<\/p>\n 37. The Court notes the disparity between the applicants\u2019 estimates of the value of their properties and those advanced by the Government.<\/p>\n Having regard to the information at its disposal concerning real estate prices on the local market, including the documents submitted by the parties, and to its established case-law in respect of similar cases (see Maria Atanasiu and Others, cited above, \u00a7 253; Preda and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a0164; and Dickmann and Gion, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 113-18), the Court considers it reasonable and equitable, as required by Article 41, to award the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n B. Non-pecuniary damage<\/strong><\/p>\n 38. The Court considers that the serious interference with the applicants\u2019 right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions cannot be adequately compensated for by the simple finding of a violation of Article\u00a01 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01. Making an assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article\u00a041 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n C. Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 39. Some applicants have either not submitted any claims for costs and expenses or have failed to substantiate them. Accordingly, the Court finds no reason to award them any sum on that account (see appended table).<\/p>\n 40. As concerns the claims submitted by the remaining applicants, regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table covering costs under all heads.<\/p>\n D. Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 41. 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Holds that the heirs of the applicants who have expressed the wish to pursue the proceeding in place of the late applicants have standing to doso (see appendix);<\/p>\n 2. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 3. Decides to strike out application no. 22023\/03 in so far as it concerns the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 mentioned in paragraphs\u00a011-14 of the present judgment;<\/p>\n 4. Declares the applications admissible in respect of the remaining complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01 and the remainder of the applicationsinadmissible;<\/p>\n 5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;<\/p>\n 6. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to return to the applicants their properties within three months;<\/p>\n (b) that, failing such restitution, the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within the same three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n (c) that, in any event, the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within the same three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses;<\/p>\n (d) that the aforementioned amounts shall be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n (e) 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.<\/p>\n 7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 October 2020, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Ilse Freiwirth \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Branko Lubarda <\/p>\n APPENDIX Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n Year of Birth\/Death<\/strong><\/p>\n Place of Residence<\/strong><\/p>\n Nationality<\/strong><\/td>\n A. pecuniary and non\u2011pecuniary damage<\/strong><\/p>\n B. costs and expenses\/application<\/strong><\/p>\n in euros (EUR)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n 09\/06\/2003<\/td>\n b. 1929<\/p>\n d. 2003<\/p>\n pursued by heirs:<\/p>\n Constantina NASTA,<\/p>\n Victor NASTA,<\/p>\n Niculae NASTA and<\/p>\n Alexandra-Liliana NASTA<\/p>\n all Romanian citizens residing in Bucharest<\/td>\n lawyer practising in Bucharest<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/p>\n B: EUR 5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 02\/12\/2003<\/td>\n 1927<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n Romanian<\/td>\n – one three-rooms apartment with a surface of 105.89 sq. m;<\/p>\n – one three-rooms apartment with a surface of 103.14 sq. m<\/p>\n – an attic of 25.36 sq. m and the appurtenant land of 265 sq.\u00a0m<\/td>\n <\/p>\n B: no award<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 30\/03\/2004<\/td>\n 1946<\/p>\n Torrance<\/p>\n Romanian,<\/p>\n American<\/td>\n lawyer practising in Bucharest<\/td>\n (295,000+5,000)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n B: EUR 990<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 20\/11\/2003<\/td>\n b. 1935<\/p>\n d. 2017<\/p>\n pursued by heirs:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Olivier Christian Maurice DUVAL-VALENTIN<\/p>\n 1964<\/p>\n and<\/p>\n Guy DUVAL-VALENTIN<\/p>\n b. 1959<\/p>\n d. 2012<\/p>\n pursued by heirs:<\/p>\n Sarah Ileana Marguerite DUVAL-VALENTIN<\/p>\n and<\/p>\n Lo\u00efk Robert Maurice DUVAL-VALENTIN<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n 2. Adrian Gaston Petru LANGER<\/strong><\/p>\n b. 1938<\/p>\n d. 2015<\/p>\n pursued by heirs:<\/p>\n Anna-C\u00e9line Marie LANGER<\/p>\n 1972<\/p>\n and<\/p>\n C\u00e9cile Marie B\u00e9n\u00e9dicte LANGER<\/p>\n 1977<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 3. Georges LANGER<\/strong><\/p>\n 1943<\/p>\n Romanian<\/p>\n Belgium<\/td>\n <\/p>\n B: EUR 2,300<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 04\/05\/2004<\/td>\n 1943<\/p>\n Oradea<\/p>\n Hungarian<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 2. Elena TARSOLY<\/strong><\/p>\n Oradea<\/p>\n Hungarian<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 3. Zita VEZSENYI<\/strong><\/p>\n Oradea<\/p>\n Hungarian<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 4. Janos TARSOLY<\/strong><\/p>\n Oradea<\/p>\n Hungarian<\/td>\n lawyer practising in Oradea<\/td>\n – apartment no. 4 (3 rooms, 77.13\u00a0sq. m) and the appurtenant land of 212 sq. m;<\/p>\n – apartment no. 9 (1 room, 44.05\u00a0sq. m) and the appurtenant land of 136 sq. m;<\/p>\n – apartment no. 9A (1 room, 58.12 sq. m) and the appurtenant land of 162 sq. m;<\/p>\n – apartment 11 (1\/2 rooms, 93.52\u00a0sq. m) and the appurtenant land of 270 sq. m;<\/p>\n – apartment no. 14 (2 rooms, 54.02 sq. m) and the appurtenant land of 139 sq. m;<\/p>\n – apartment no. 16 (2 rooms, 68.95 sq. m) and the appurtenant land of 174 sq. m.<\/td>\n <\/p>\n Decision of 28 June 2005 of the Oradea Court of Appeal (for apartment no.\u00a014)<\/td>\n <\/p>\n B: no award<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 28\/05\/2004<\/p>\n <\/td>\n 1936<\/p>\n Madrid<\/p>\n Romanian<\/td>\n <\/p>\n B: no award<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 27\/04\/2005<\/td>\n b. 1944<\/p>\n d. 2008<\/p>\n pursued by:<\/p>\n Judit-Reka SZ\u00d6VERDI<\/p>\n 1976<\/p>\n Cluj-Napoca<\/p>\n Romanian<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 2. Eva Ildik\u00f3 M\u00c1THE<\/strong><\/p>\n b. 1941<\/p>\n d. 2016<\/p>\n pursued by:<\/p>\n Aliz\u00c9va M\u00c1TH\u00c9<\/p>\n 1972<\/p>\n Cluj-Napoca<\/p>\n Romanian and<\/p>\n Alp\u00e1r-Zolt\u00e1n M\u00c1THE<\/p>\n 1977<\/p>\n Cluj-Napoca<\/p>\n Romanian<\/td>\n lawyer practising in Cluj-Napoca<\/td>\n composed of:<\/p>\n – at no. 11: a house and the appurtenant land of a total surface of 224 sq.\u00a0m (topographic no.\u00a0912\/1)<\/p>\n – at no. 11A: a plot of land of 327\u00a0sq.\u00a0m (topographic no.\u00a0912\/2);<\/p>\n – at no. 11: a plot of land of 500\u00a0sq. m (topographic no.\u00a0912\/3).<\/td>\n <\/p>\n B: EUR 3,600<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 07\/05\/2005<\/td>\n 1973<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n Romanian<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 2. Ion Victor FIANU<\/strong><\/p>\n 1940<\/p>\n Pite\u0219ti<\/p>\n Romanian<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 3. Ioan IONESCU<\/strong><\/p>\n 1933<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n Romanian<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 4. Verginia TODOR<\/strong><\/p>\n 1929<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n Romanian<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 5. Valeria MIHAI POENARU<\/strong><\/p>\n 1934<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n Romanian<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 6. Cornelia Georgeta ENESCU<\/strong><\/p>\n 1940<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n Romanian<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 7. Ioan Dan VASILESCU<\/strong><\/p>\n 1934<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n Romanian<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 8. Ligia DINC\u0102<\/strong><\/p>\n 1934<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n Romanian<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 9. Maria Z\u0102VOIANU<\/strong><\/p>\n 1939<\/p>\n Pite\u0219ti<\/p>\n Romanian<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 10. Teodor NICOLESCU<\/strong><\/p>\n 1961<\/p>\n C\u00e2mpulung Muscel<\/p>\n Romanian<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 11. Gheorghe NICOLESCU<\/strong><\/p>\n 1920<\/p>\n C\u00e2mpulungMuscel<\/p>\n Romanian<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 12. Alexandru-Cristian NICOLESCU<\/strong><\/p>\n 1956<\/p>\n Mice\u0219ti<\/p>\n Romanian<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 13. GheorgheGh. PANTAZESCU<\/strong><\/p>\n 1950<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n Romanian<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 14. Grigore PANTAZESCU<\/strong><\/p>\n 1954<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n Romanian<\/td>\n lawyer practising in Bucharest<\/td>\n – apartment no.1, ground floor, of 127.90 sq. m,<\/p>\n – apartment no. 2, first floor, of 127.90 sq. m<\/p>\n – apartment no. 3, second floor, of 123.90 sq. m and<\/p>\n – the appurtenant land of 320,5\u00a0sq. m.<\/td>\n <\/p>\n B: no award<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 03\/08\/2005<\/td>\n 1939<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n Romanian<\/td>\n <\/p>\n B: EUR 1,800<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 06\/02\/2006<\/td>\n 1938<\/p>\n Ontario<\/p>\n Romanian<\/td>\n <\/p>\n B: EUR 5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 17\/03\/2006<\/td>\n 1949<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n Romanian<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 2. Iosif VL\u0102DU\u021aESCU<\/strong><\/p>\n b. 1946<\/p>\n d. 2015<\/p>\n pursued by:<\/p>\n Daniela-Viviana VL\u0102DU\u021aESCU<\/p>\n 1974<\/p>\n and<\/p>\n Sofia-PetronelaVL\u0102DU\u021aESCU<\/p>\n 1976<\/td>\n <\/p>\n B: no award<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 22\/08\/2006<\/td>\n 1951<\/p>\n Bucharest<\/p>\n Romanian<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 2. Nicolae BAUER<\/strong><\/p>\n 1943<\/p>\n Dudu<\/p>\n Romanian<\/td>\n <\/p>\n B: EUR 500<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications<\/p>\n\n\n
\n No<\/strong><\/td>\n Application no.<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n Represented by<\/strong><\/td>\n Identification of property<\/strong><\/td>\n Domestic decision acknowledging the applicants\u2019 title to property<\/strong><\/td>\n Domestic decision confirming the validity of the third parties\u2019 title to property<\/strong><\/td>\n Amounts awarded for<\/strong><\/p>\n \n 1<\/td>\n 22023\/03<\/p>\n \u0218erban NASTA<\/strong><\/p>\n Eugenia CR\u00c2NGARIU,<\/p>\n Apartment no. 4 (104.20 sq.\u00a0m)located on 2nd<\/sup>\u00a0floor, Aviator Iuliu Tetrat Street no. 2, Bucharest and the appurtenant land of 28.39 sq.\u00a0m<\/p>\n Decision of 14 May 1997 of the Bucharest 1st<\/sup> District Court<\/td>\n Decision of 16 October 2015 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal<\/td>\n A: EUR 205,000 (200,000+5,000)<\/p>\n \n 2<\/td>\n 643\/04<\/p>\n Ileana BRUMU\u0218ESCU<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/td>\n House located on Bitolia Street, no.\u00a010, Bucharest composed of:<\/p>\n Decision of 5 June 2003 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal<\/td>\n Decision of 5 June 2003 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal<\/td>\n A: EUR 505,000 (500,000+5,000)<\/p>\n \n 3<\/td>\n 17707\/04<\/p>\n Anca-Rodica NICA<\/strong><\/p>\n Steliana \u0218ERBAN,<\/p>\n Apartment no. 2 (172.30 sq.\u00a0m) located on 1st<\/sup>\u00a0floor, Bitolia Street no.\u00a011, Bucharest, with garage (15 sq. m) and the appurtenant land<\/td>\n Decision of 30\u00a0September 2003 of the Supreme\u00a0Court of Justice<\/td>\n Decision of 30\u00a0September 2003 of the Supreme\u00a0Court of Justice<\/td>\n A: EUR 300,000<\/p>\n \n 4<\/td>\n 22543\/04<\/p>\n 1. Mariana Alexandra Zoe Lucia DUVAL-VALENTIN<\/strong><\/p>\n Vincent COUSSIRAT – COUST\u00c8RE<\/td>\n Three plots of land of a total surface of 22,765 sq.\u00a0m (topographic nos. 2148\/b, 2149 and 2150\/b) located on Aurora Street nos. 2 and 4, Timi\u0219oara<\/td>\n Decision of 1\u00a0October 2003 of the Timi\u0219oara Court of Appeal<\/td>\n Decision of 1\u00a0October 2003 of the Timi\u0219oara Court of Appeal<\/td>\n A: EUR 3,000,000 (2,995,000+5,000)<\/p>\n \n 5<\/td>\n 26971\/04<\/p>\n 1. Anna HATFALUDY<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00c1rp\u00e1d\u0218tefan KOLOZSI,<\/p>\n Apartments located on Tudor Vladimirescu Street no. 25, Oradea as follows:<\/p>\n Decision of 18 April\u00a02001 of the Oradea Court of Appeal<\/td>\n Decision of 5\u00a0November 2003 of the Oradea Court of Appeal (for apartments nos. 4, 9, 9A, 11 and 16)<\/p>\n A: EUR 500,000 (495,000+5,000)<\/p>\n \n 6<\/td>\n 32009\/04<\/p>\n Roxana Isabella Lya GHIA\u021a\u0102<\/strong><\/p>\n Mirela CHELARU, lawyer practising in Bucharest<\/td>\n Apartment no. 9 (of 153,64 sq.\u00a0m) and the appurtenant land located on Atena Street no. 22 (formerly Aleea Zoe), Bucharest<\/td>\n Decision of 6 May 1999 of the Bucharest County Court<\/td>\n Decision of 27\u00a0January 2004 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal<\/td>\n A: EUR 151,000 (146,000+5,000)<\/p>\n \n 7<\/td>\n 18015\/05<\/p>\n 1.Vasile-Csaba SZ\u00d6VERDI<\/strong><\/p>\n Constantin Eugen IORD\u0102CHESCU,<\/p>\n Property located on Gheorghe Bilascu Street no. 11-11\/A (formerly RepubliciiStreet, no.\u00a011), Cluj-Napoca<\/p>\n Decision of 12\u00a0November 2004 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice<\/td>\n Decision of 12\u00a0November 2004 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice<\/td>\n A: EUR 370,000 (365,000+5,000)<\/p>\n \n 8<\/td>\n 25957\/05<\/p>\n 1. Andreea HREAM\u0102T\u0102<\/strong><\/p>\n Maria TURCU,<\/p>\n Building located on Dr. MihailMirinescu Street no. 10, Bucharest composed of:<\/p>\n Decision of 30\u00a0November 2004 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal<\/td>\n Decision of 30\u00a0November 2004 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal<\/td>\n A: EUR 680,000<\/p>\n \n 9<\/td>\n 33320\/05<\/p>\n Teodor MIRON<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/td>\n House (51.25 sq. m) and the appurtenant land of 261 sq.\u00a0m located on Ronda Street no.\u00a039, Bucharest<\/td>\n Decision of 11\u00a0January 1996 of the Bucharest 2nd<\/sup>\u00a0District Court<\/td>\n Decision of 9\u00a0February 2005 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal<\/td>\n A: EUR 225,000 (220,00+5,000)<\/p>\n \n 10<\/td>\n 6931\/06<\/p>\n Emil CIUREA<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/td>\n House (60.64 sq. m), cellar (14\u00a0sq. m) and garage (22.59\u00a0sq.\u00a0m) located on R\u0103zoare Street, no. 30 bis, Constan\u021ba<\/td>\n Decision of 17\u00a0October 2005 of the Constan\u021ba Court of Appeal<\/td>\n Decision of 17\u00a0October 2005 of the Constan\u021ba Court of Appeal<\/td>\n A: EUR 65,000 (60,000+5,000)<\/p>\n \n 11<\/td>\n 16776\/06<\/p>\n 1. Silvia P\u00c2RVULESCU<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/td>\n Apartment no. 1 (100.55 sq.\u00a0m), building A (corp A), located on Acumulatorului Street, no.\u00a013, 1st<\/sup>\u00a0district, Bucharest and the appurtenant land of 103,12 sq.\u00a0m<\/td>\n Decision of 14\u00a0September 2005 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal<\/td>\n Decision of 14\u00a0September 2005 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal<\/td>\n A: EUR 55,000 (50,000+5,000)<\/p>\n \n 12<\/td>\n 37266\/06<\/p>\n 1. Adriana Paula POA\u0218C\u0102<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/td>\n Apartment no. 2 (81.71 sq.\u00a0m) located on first floor, Carpa\u0163i Street, no. 44, 1st<\/sup>\u00a0District, Bucharest<\/td>\n Decision of 27\u00a0January 2006 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal (drafted on 21 February 2006)<\/td>\n Decision of 27\u00a0January 2006 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal (drafted on 21 February 2006)<\/td>\n A: EUR 75,000 (70,000+5,000)<\/p>\n