(Application no. 30105/05)
24 November 2009
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Petroiu and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Stanley Naimith, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 November 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
Mrs Maria-Alexandra Sterian died on 23 April 2007. However, her son and only heir, Mr Bogdan-Andrei Sterian, expressed the wish to pursue the application.
Mr Florin-Constantin Stăncescu died on 10 March 2006; his daughter and only heir, Mrs Ruxandra-Mariana Stavre, expressed the wish to pursue the application.
Mr Doru Dănuţ Dumitru Popescu died on 20 January 2006; his cousin and only heir, Mrs Didona Emilia Didea, expressed the wish to pursue the application.
practical reasons Mrs Maria-Alexandra Sterian, Mr
Florin-Constantin Stăncescu and Mr Doru Dănuţ Dumitru Popescu will continue to be called “the applicants” in this judgment, although
Mr Bogdan-Andrei Sterian, Ms Ruxandra-Mariana Stavre and Mrs Didona Emilia Didea are now to be regarded as such (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999 VI).
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicants Mihaela-Iuliana Vintilescu, Ana-Maria Apetrei and Paraschiva Vintilescu are the heirs (wife and daughters) of M.C.V. who, according to a certificate of inheritance, died on 15 April 2002.
The judgment made no reference to the plaintiff M.C.V., except to mention him among the plaintiffs who had lodged the action.
It is not mentioned in that judgment whether the applicants Mihaela-Iuliana Vintilescu, Ana-Maria Apetrei, Paraschiva Vintilescu and Ena Rizescu (Georgescu) had made any reference in their appeal to the fact that the previous judgment had not mentioned M.C.V. either in its operative part or in its reasoning, or that it had declared their action null and void.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
I. THE GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
“Every 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.
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.”
The Government pointed out that the judgment of 28 June 2004 of the Bucharest County Court (see paragraph 12 above), which had declared the sale null and void, was invalidated by a subsequent judgment. They invoked that the higher courts had examined the applicants' requests also from the perspective of the provisions of section 46 of Law no. 10/2001 regarding the validity of sales performed in good faith and in compliance with the laws in force at that moment.
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“If 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.”
In a letter of 30 November 2007 the applicants alleged that the expert report submitted by the Government had not taken into account the plot of land appurtenant to that apartment.
They also considered that the claim for loss of profit should be dismissed, as well as the claim related to the plot of 824 sq. m of land, which has no connection with the object of the present application. Further, the claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage was highly excessive.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
(a) reserves the said question;
(b) invites the Government and the applicants to submit, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, their written observations on the matter and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement that they may reach;
(c) reserves the further procedure and delegates to the President of the Chamber the power to fix the same if need be.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 November 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stanley Naismith Josep Casadevall
Deputy Registrar President