Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> NISTOR AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA - 26359/03 (Judgment : Protection of property : Fourth Section Committee) [2020] ECHR 549 (16 July 2020)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2020/549.html
Cite as: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0716JUD002635903, CE:ECHR:2020:0716JUD002635903, [2020] ECHR 549
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF NISTOR AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 26359/03 and 28 others)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 July 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Nistor and Others v. Romania,
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,
Applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table;
the decision to give notice of the applications to the Romanian Government (“the Government”);
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 23 June 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
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.
THE FACTS
2. The list of the applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
3. The Government were represented by their Agent, initially Mrs C. Brumar and then her successor, Mrs O. F. Ezer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
5. The factual and legal circumstances set out in the current applications are similar to those pertaining to the applicants in the case of Străin and Others v. Romania (no. 57001/00, §§ 5-18, ECHR 2005-VII), to the applicants Ms and Mr Rodan in the case of Preda and Others v. Romania (nos. 9584/02 and 7 others, §§ 35-41, 29 April 2014) and to the applicants in the case of Ana Ionescu and Others v. Romania (19788/03, §§ 6-7, 26 February 2019).
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.
RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
6. 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’s judgments in the cases of Brumărescu v. Romania [GC] (no. 28342/95, §§ 34-35, ECHR 1999-VII); Străin and Others (cited above, §§ 19-23); Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania (nos. 30767/05 et 33800/06, §§ 44 et seq., 12 October 2010); Preda and Others (cited above, §§ 68-74); and Dickmann and Gion v. Romania (nos. 10346/03 and 10893/04, §§ 52-58, 24 October 2017).
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
7. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. LOCUS STANDI
8. The heirs of some of the applicants informed the Court of those applicants’ 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’ legitimate interest in pursuing the applications, the Court accepts that the deceased applicants’ heirs may pursue the applications in their stead (see Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, § 101, ECHR 2013; and Preda and Others v. Romania, nos. 9584/02 and 7 others, § 75, 29 April 2014). It will therefore continue to deal with these applications at the heirs’ request (see the appended table for details).
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
9. The applicants complained 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 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads as follows:
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.”
A. Admissibility
10. 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 rationae materiae.
11. The applicants contested these arguments and submitted that the compensation mechanism put in place by the domestic legislation was not effective.
12. The Court reiterates that it has already considered at length and rejected the same objections concerning the alleged inapplicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to situations identical to those in the current case (see Străin and Others, cited above, §§ 30, 31 and 38).
13. It has further considered and repeatedly rejected the Government’s submissions as to the alleged effectiveness of the restitution laws, including Law no. 10/2001 and Law no. 165/2013, in cases where there are concurrent valid title deeds (see Străin and Others, cited above, §§ 54-56; Preda and Others, cited above, §§ 133 and 141; Dickmann and Gion, cited above, §§ 72 and 78; and Ana Ionescu and Others, cited above, § 23).
14. 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 these complaints. The Government’s objection in this regard must therefore be rejected.
15. The Court further notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. The Court notes that, just like the applicants in the case of Străin and Others, 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.
19. The Court reiterates that in the case of Preda and Others it found that the applicants’ 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 No. 1 (see Preda and Others, cited above, §§ 146, 148‑49).
It reiterated its above findings in the similar case of Dickmann and Gion (cited above, §§ 103-04) and in the more recent case of Ana Ionescu and Others (cited above, §§ 23, 28-30).
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.
20. 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.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
21. The applicants in applications nos. 4367/04, 17805/04 and 44130/04, 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.
22. It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
23. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“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.”
24. The applicants submitted claims for just satisfaction on various dates between 2006 and 2010. Between 2015 and 2019 they updated these claims at the Court’s request.
25. The Government made comments in reply to the applicants’ original and updated claims for just satisfaction.
26. In support of their claims and submissions in respect of pecuniary damage the applicants and the Government submitted one or more of the following:
(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’ 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’s experts did not visit the properties.
(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, § 70).
(c) copies of sale contracts indicating the price per square metre for neighbouring properties.
A. Pecuniary damage
27. 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. 31107/96 § 32, ECHR 2000-XI; and Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00, § 90, 22 December 2009).
28. 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.
29. 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, as requested (see Preda and Others, cited above, § 163).
30. As regards the amount of money claimed in respect of loss of profit or benefit from the applicants’ 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, § 18, 27 January 2005; and Preda and Others, cited above, § 164).
31. The Court notes the disparity between some of the applicants’ estimates of the value of their properties and those advanced by the Government.
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, § 253; Preda and Others, cited above, § 164; and Dickmann and Gion, cited above, §§ 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.
B. Non-pecuniary damage
32. The Court considers that the serious interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions cannot be adequately compensated for by the simple finding of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Making an assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
C. Costs and expenses
33. 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).
34. 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.
D. Default interest
35. 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 join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to return to the applicants their properties within three months;
(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;
(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;
(d) that the aforementioned amounts shalt be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 July 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Ilse Freiwirth Branko Lubarda
Deputy Registrar President
Appendix
List of cases
No. |
Application no. and date of introduction |
Applicant’s name nationality year of birth place of residence
|
Represented by |
Identification of property |
Domestic decision acknowledging the applicants’ title to property |
Domestic decision confirming the validity of the third parties’ title to property |
Amounts awarded for A. pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage/application
B. costs and expenses/application in euros (EUR) |
|
1 |
26359/03 23/06/2003 |
Ruxanda-Augustina-Georgeta NISTOR Romanian 1933 Craiova
|
Rodica RADU, lawyer, Craiova |
House and land 946 sqm (Comuna din Paris St.) |
7.7.1999 Supreme Court |
Court of Appeal Craiova 27.2.2003 |
A. 166,000 EUR (161,000 + 5,000)
B. 3,270 EUR |
|
2 |
4367/04 13/01/2004 |
Carol Mihai PETROVSZKY Romanian b: 1917 d: 2006 Horgau
pursued by 3 heirs: Richard PETROVSZKY German Speyer
Edith Helene PETROVSZKY German Horgauergreut
Edith Hertha HEIGL German Augsburg
|
Alexandra RĂZVAN MIHALCEA, lawyer |
Apartment (no. 2) and plot of land 446 sqm in Orsova St, Caransebeş |
Caransebeş County Court 7.11.2007 |
Caransebeş County Court 7.11.2007 and further pending proceedings |
A. 39,000 EUR (34,000 + 5,000)
B. 4,700 EUR |
|
3 |
17805/04 17/04/2004 |
Floarea LANG Romanian b: 1924 d: 2008 Bucharest
pursued by heir: Steluța Mirela GHIMEȘ Romanian b: 1970 Bucharest
|
Mihai Gheorghe JELERIU |
Apartment (no.2) of 92 sqm in M. Eminescu St., Bucharest |
26.3.1998 Bucharest 1st instance court |
27.4.2004 Bucharest Court of Appeal |
A. 116,000 EUR (110,000 + 5,000)
B. 500 EUR
|
|
4, |
23297/04 16/06/2004 |
1. Ioana ACHIMESCU Romanian b: 1930 d: 2012 Bucharest
pursued by heir: Mariana MOISE Romanian 1953 Bucharest
2. Daniela ANGHELUȘ Romanian 1967 Bucharest |
|
Apt. no. 10, Radu Cristian St (Universităţii Square)., 71 sqm Bucharest + appurtenant land |
16.12.2003 Bucharest Court of Appeal |
16.12.2003 Bucharest Court of Appeal |
A. 200,000 EUR (195,000+5,000)
|
|
5 |
28538/04 19/07/2004 |
Ileana Iolanda COLAN German 1930 Bonn
Sorin DUMITRESCU-POPOVICI German, Romanian 1932 Laatzen
Gabriela IRIMIA Romanian b: 1937 d: 2017 Bucharest
pursued by heir: Ioan MOHORA Romanian 1949 Bucharest
|
Eugenia CRÂNGARIU |
Ground floor in villa and land Austrului St, Bucharest, sect 2 |
11 and 30.5.1999 Bucharest Tribunal |
27.1.2004 Supreme Court |
A. 77,700 EUR (72,700+5,000)
B. 1,250 EUR |
|
6 |
44130/04 19/11/2004 |
Dumitru UNGUREANU Romanian 1931 Mainz-Kostheim
Magdalena UNGUREANU German 1938 Mainz-Kostheim
|
|
Building and appurtenant land 433 sqm, 69-71 Barbu Văcărescu St., 2ème arr., Bucharest |
27.6.2001 Bucharest Court of Appeal |
31.5.2004 Supreme Court |
A. 265,000 EUR (260,000+5,000)
B. 2,500 EUR |
|
7 |
9010/05 04/03/2005 |
Darius Martin MORGAN Romanian 1930 Miami
|
Cristian Constantin DRAGHICI |
Building 149 sqm and appurtenant land 100 sqm in Pache Protopopescu 55 St, Bucharest |
Supreme Court (ICCJ) 18.10.2004 |
Supreme Court (ICCJ) 18.10.2004 |
A. 765,000 EUR (760,000 + 5,000)
B. 7,900 EUR |
|
8 |
21094/05 02/06/2005 |
Viktor Ionel DRAGITSCH German, Romanian 1929 Kaufbeuren
Rodica DRAGITSCH German, Romanian 1939 Kaufbeuren
|
Valentina Violeta TOPOR VÂRBAN |
House 142,62 sqm in Bd. Balcescu, sect 1, and appurtenant land, Bucharest |
10.9.1998 by Bucharest First instance court |
4.1.2005 Bucharest Court of Appeal |
A. 127,000 EUR (122,000+5,000) |
|
9 |
26636/05 21/06/2005 |
Mihail Dan LAZAR German 1941 Denzlingen
|
Adrian VASILIU |
Flat 63 sqm, Bld. Camil Ressu 51 (former 113 Bld. Ion Sulea), Bucharest |
14.2. 2005 Bucharest Court of Appeal |
14.2. 2005 Bucharest Court of Appeal |
A. 64,000 EUR (59,000+5,000)
B. 830 EUR |
|
10 |
35749/05 02/09/2005 |
Șerban RIZESCU Romanian b: 1940 d: 2017 Bucharest
pursued by 2 heirs: Irina ROSETTI Romanian 1937 Bucharest
Stan RIZESCU Romanian 1935 Bucharest
|
|
Flat B 4th floor in immovable at 3bis J. Gutenberg St., Bucharest sect. 5 |
4.3. 2005 Court Cassation (former Supreme Court, ICCJ) |
4.3. 2005, Court of Cassation |
A. 75,000 EUR (70,000+5,000)
|
|
11 |
9431/06 01/03/2006 |
Richard Viktor FOLGER Romanian 1950 Bindlach
|
|
Flat 43 sqm in building at 47 Brezoianu St, Bucharest |
14.9.2005 Bucharest Court of Appeal |
14.9.2005 Bucharest Court of Appeal |
A. 175,000 EUR (170,000+5,000) |
|
12 |
18694/06 04/05/2006 |
Constanţa PAP Romanian 1956 Bucharest
Daniela Sebastiana LIUŞNEA Romanian b: 1951 d: 2006 Bucharest
pursued by 2 heirs: Octav LIUŞNEA Romanian 1939 Bucharest
Sebastian Marius LIUŞNEA Romanian 1979 Bucharest
|
|
Apartments (nos. 2 and 5) D. Cantemir St., s. 4, Bucharest |
11.5.1999 Bucharest County Court |
6.2.2006 and 7.12.2005 Bucharest Court of Appeal
|
A. 135,000 EUR (130,000+5,000)
B. 775 EUR |
|
13 |
21670/06 17/05/2006 |
Elisabeta HEUMANN Israeli 1927 Petah Tikva
Adela KOMLOS Israeli b: 1923 d: 2011 Givatan
pursued by heir: Julia WESTPHAL Israeli Tel Aviv
|
Ecaterina Maria DATCA |
Apartment 137 sqm in villa, Crisan St, Cluj Napoca |
1.2.2006 Cluj Court of Appeal |
1.2.2006 Cluj Court of Appeal |
A. 135,000 EUR (130,000+5,000)
B. 1,000 EUR |
|
14 |
30850/06 14/07/2006 |
Bernadette-Dorina BEILICH Italian, Romanian 1948 Barlassina
|
Narcis Marcel DRAGOMIR |
Apartment (no. 8), Ionescu Gion St, sector 3, Bucharest
|
6.2. 2006, Bucharest Court of Appeal |
6.2. 2006, Bucharest Court of Appeal |
A. 205,000 EUR (200,000+5,000) |
|
15 |
38965/06 21/09/2006 |
Aurel Ioan Ştefan BLAGA Romanian Bucharest
|
|
2,094 sqm land, Calea Dorobanţilor 33, Cluj-Napoca |
10.10.2005, Cluj Court of Appeal |
10.10.2005, Cluj Court of Appeal |
A. 324,000 EUR (319,000+5,000)
|
|
16 |
40750/06 28/09/2006 |
Lucia BECȘAN Romanian, Medias b : 1941 d : unknown date
Ovidiu BECȘAN Romanian 1943 Mediaș
Livius Ionel TELEA Romanian 1936 Sibiu
|
|
5 apartments (2,4, 6, 8 and 10) and apurtenant land and plot, Horea St, Medias |
2.10.1996, Mediaş First instance court |
21.6.2006, Alba-Iulia Court of Appeal |
A. 149,000 EUR (144,000+5,000)
B. 4,969 EUR |
|
17 |
45880/06 02/11/2006 |
Maria ARĂU Romanian, American 1948 Winettka
|
|
Apartment 59 sqm, aleea Hortensiilor, Constanţa |
13.9.2006 Constanţa Court of Appeal |
12.10. 2005 Constanţa Court of Appeal |
A. 59,000 EUR (54,000+5,000)
B. 2,000 EUR |
|
18 |
926/07 21/09/2006 |
Friedrich Hans CLOOS Romanian 1939 Wemding
Erika Else PUSTEJOVSKY German 1942 Waakirchen
|
Eduard Jürgen PREDIGER |
Apartment (no. 1), Nisipului St., Braşov |
25.4.2006 Braşov County Court |
25.4.2006 Braşov County Court |
A. 70,000 EUR (65,000+5,000) |
|
19 |
8626/07 15/12/2006 |
Lucia TOLAN German b: 1922 d: 2017 Frankfurt am Main
pursued by heir: Dan Lucian Mirel TOLAN Romanian 1949 Frankfurt am Main
|
Vasile ARHIRE |
Apartment 188 sqm and 245 sqm appurtenant land, O. Goga St., Cluj-Napoca |
21.6. 2006, Oradea Court of Appeal |
21.6. 2006, Oradea Court of Appeal |
A. 205,000 EUR (200,000+5,000)
B. 2,119 EUR costs |
|
20 |
23950/07 05/06/2007 |
Nicolae Costel APOSTOL Romanian 1959 Stuttgart
|
|
Apartment 64 sqm, Bd. Mamaia, Constanţa |
31.1.2007 Constanţa Court of Appeal |
31.1.2007 Constanţa Court of Appeal |
A. 88,000 EUR (83,000+5,000)
B. 2,000 EUR
|
|
21 |
29317/07 17/05/2007 |
Alexandru Vlad MICODIN French, Romanian 1952 Emerainville
|
|
Apartment 98 sqm in villa, Negru Voda St, Eforie Sud |
21.11.2006 Constanţa Court of Appeal |
21.11.2006 Constanţa Court of Appeal |
A. 65,000 EUR (60,000+5,000)
B. 1,700 EUR |
|
22 |
36402/07 14/08/2007 |
Paul HAMSEA German 1934 Mannheim
|
Eduard Jürgen PREDIGER |
Apartment 30 sqm in villa, Petru Maior St. Brașov
|
2.3.2007, Brașov Court of Appeal |
2.3.2007, Brașov Court of Appeal |
35,000 EUR (30,000+5,000) |
|
23 |
17444/08 23/12/2006 |
Silvia Maria Antonia GYULAY German 1919 Ludwigsburg
|
Adrian SCRIDON |
Two-storey house (four apartments) and 731 sqm land, Braşov St (former Mitropolit Metianu St.), Timişoara |
23.6. 2006 Timişoara Court of Appeal
|
23.6. 2006 Timişoara Court of Appeal
|
A. 312,600 EUR (307,600+5,000)
B. 2,500 EUR |
|
24 |
23261/08 30/04/2008 |
Anca Viorica COSTA-FORU Romanian b: 1928 d: 2011 Bucharest
pursued by heir: Ioana NICOLAU Romanian 1955 Bucharest
|
Valentin Florian CONSTANTINOF |
Property Nicolae Iorga St. 32, sector 1 Bucharest |
19.10. 2007, Bucharest Court of Appeal |
19.10. 2007, Bucharest Court of Appeal; further litigation pending, Court of Appeal decision 19.10.2018 |
A. 5,000 EUR non pecuniary
|
|
25 |
19115/09 01/04/2009 |
Niculae FIROIU German 1939 Dusseldorf
Doina Sabina Irina FIROIU German 1943 Dusseldorf
|
Elena STOIAN lawyer |
Apartment, Brașov St 15, Bucharest
|
6.10. 2008 Bucharest Court of Appeal |
6.10. 2008 Bucharest Court of Appeal |
A. 52,100 EUR (47,100+5,000)
B. 2,500 EUR |
|
26 |
30337/10 17/05/2010 |
Taşu TAȘU Romanian 1935 Van Noord
Zoița TAȘU Romanian 1936 Van Noord |
Florin GHEORGHE |
House and 110 sqm land Principatele Unite St., Bucharest |
19.11.2009, High Court of Cassation and Justice |
19.11.2009, High Court of Cassation and Justice |
A. 170,000 EUR (165,000+5,000) |
|
27 |
29054/11 14/04/2011 |
Alexandru GOȚIA Romanian 1974 Buziaș
Eda-Ioana KURZ German, Romanian 1975 Ramsau |
Ioan LAZĂR, lawyer |
Historical property, protected building (15 apartments, land and outbuildings) bd. 3 August 11, Timișoara |
14.10. 2010, Alba Iulia Court of Appeal |
14.10. 2010, Alba Iulia Court of Appeal |
A. 705,000 EUR (700,000+5,000) |
|
28 |
35373/12 25/05/2012 |
Emilian C-tin Anin MARINESCU Romanian 1970 Château-Landon
|
Marius TAMAŞ and Virginia BEREZEANU lawyers |
Apartment Armenească St. 4, Bucharest |
21.9.2009, Bucharest Court of Appeal |
26.1.2012, Bucharest County Court |
A. 42,000 EUR pecuniary damage |
|
29 |
17357/15 02/04/2015 |
Rolf WINTER German, Romanian 1944 Seeshaupt |
Building (apartment and two commercial offices) Ilarie Chendi St., Sighişoara |
2.12. 2008 Targu-Mureş Court of Appeal |
3.10.2014 Court of Cassation (ICCJ) |
A. 125,000 EUR (120,000+5,000)
B. 2,500 EUR |