(Application no. 33055/09)
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 v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 November 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The property consisted of a building placed on a 458 sq. m plot of land. The building was divided into five apartments.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
I. 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.”
Government pointed out that the final judgment of 11 February 2005
(see paragraph 10 above) did not acknowledge that the seizure had
been unlawful. They invoked that the higher courts had examined the
applicant's 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.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. 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 applicant alleged that the expert report submitted by the Government had not taken into account the plots of appurtenant land.
They also considered that the claim for loss of profit should be dismissed. 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 applicant 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
Deputy Registrar President