European Court of Human Rights

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 34249/04
by Gavril SZASZ and others
against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on
26 August 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura-Sandström,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 July 2004,

Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Mr Gavril Szasz, Mr Petru Szeremy and Mrs Ilona Bauer, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1922, 1949 and 1947 respectively and live in Cluj-Napoca, Satu Mare and Düsseldorf respectively. They were represented before the Court by Ms Mihaela Liliana Chiş, a lawyer practising in Cluj-Napoca. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

In 1950, the real estates situated in Cluj-Napoca, on the streets V. Fulicea nos. 6 and 13, and Memorandumului no. 16, the property of the applicants’ parents, were seized by the State under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation.

In 1996-1997, the State sold to the tenants the six apartments that had made up these real estates, under Law no. 112/1995.

On 14 December 1998 the applicants’ action for recovery of possession of immovable property was upheld by an enforceable judgment which acknowledged that the nationalisation of the buildings had been unlawful and ordered the administrative authorities to return them to the applicants.

In 2001-2002, in three different sets of proceedings, the applicants requested the court to find that the sale by the State of the six apartments was null and void. They considered that, as the nationalisation had been unlawful, the State was not the rightful owner and consequently it could not lawfully have sold any part of the real estates.

On 30 January 2004, 4 and 9 February 2005 the Cluj Court of Appeal, by final decisions, dismissed the requests for the rescission of the sale contracts on the ground that the State had complied with the provisions of Law no. 112/1995 and that the tenants had made the purchase in good faith.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the solutions given in the proceedings concerning the annulment of the sale of their possessions to third persons had been unfair and that the judges had not been impartial.

The applicants alleged a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, complaining that in spite of the recognition of the property right in their favour, they were unable to enjoy their possessions since the State sold them to third persons, considered by the courts as being of good faith.

THE LAW

On 18 June 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“I, Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu, Agent of the Government of Romania before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government of Romania offer to pay jointly ex gratia 160 000 euros (one hundred sixty thousand euros) to Mr Gavril Szasz, Mr Petru Szeremy and Mrs Ilona Bauer with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into New Romanian Lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

On 2 June 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the representative of the applicants:

“I, Mihaela Liliana Chis, representative of Mr Gavril Szasz, Mr Petru Szeremy and Mrs Ilona Bauer, note that the Government of Romania are prepared to pay jointly ex gratia the sum of 160 000 euros (one hundred sixty thousand euros) to Mr Gavril Szasz, Mr Petru Szeremy and Mrs Ilona Bauer with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into New Romanian Lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Romania in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. We declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall
Registrar President