FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application s no s . 44427/04 and 22662/06 Stere NACHI and O thers against Romania and Ioan Oituz FINICHIU an d Elena Aurora Adriana BOTOȘIU against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3 September 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Stéphanie Mourou -Vikström, President,

Georges Ravarani,

Jolien Schukking, judges,

and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application s lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1 . The list of applicant s is set out in the appended table.

2 . The applicants ’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning their inability to obtain restitution of their nationalised properties or to secure compensation therefor were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”) . The applicants also raised other complaints under various provisions of the Convention and its Protocols.

3 . At various dates after notice of the above-mentioned applications had been given to the Government, the parties informed the Court that the claimed property had been returned to the applicants, either in whole (application no. 44427/04), or in part (application no. 22662/06, concerning property no. 1, see appended table).

4 . The applicants in application no. 44427/04 claimed that they were still entitled to obtain compensation in respect of loss of benefit from their possession.

5 . The applicants in application no. 22662/06 argued that the matter had not been resolved in respect of property no. 2 (see the appended table), and that they had never ceased to be the legitimate owners of that property.

THE LAW

6 . Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision .

7 . The Court considers that, in view of the above and having regard to its well-established case-law on the matter (see Ana Ionescu and Others v. Romania , nos. 19788/03 and 18 others, § § 15-16, 26 February 2019), in so far as it concerns the applicants ’ pro perty claims in application no. 44427/04 as well as those of the applicants in application no. 22662/06 concerning property no. 1, as specified in the appended table, the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 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 the application s under Article 37 § 1 in fine .

8 . Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of the list as regards all of the applicants ’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of application no. 44427/04 and as regards the applicants ’ similar complaints concerning property no. 1, as identified in the appended table, in respect of application no. 22662/06 .

9 . Concerning the applicants ’ complaint under Articl e 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention relating to property no. 2, as identified in the appended table, the Court considers that the applicants have not shown that they have met the statutory conditions required in order to qualify for reparatory measures, i n so far as they fail ed to show that they had a title to the claimed property (see, by way of contrast, Dickmann and Gion v. Romania , nos. 10346/03 and 10893/04 , § 93, 24 October 2017).

10 . Having regard to the fact that the Convention does not guarantee the right to acquire property (see, among many other authorities, Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004 ‑ IX), the applicants ’ complaints relating to property no. 2 are incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejecte d in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

11 . The applicant s also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.

12 . In particular, the applicants in application no. 44427/04 claimed that they were also entitled to obtain compensation in respect of loss of benefit from their property, namely for the period between 2004 and 2006, when the impugned judgment was quashed. Furthermore, the applicants in both applications complained about the fairness and/or the outcome of the proceedings which did not allow them to obtain restitution of their nationalised properties or to secure compensation therefor .

13 . The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto (see also Dickmann and Gion v. Romania , nos. 10346/03 and 10893/04 , § § 107 and 115, 24 October 2017) .

14 . It follows that this part of the application s must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

15 . The applicants in application no. 22662/06 claimed 700 euros (EUR) in respect of legal costs and expenses. However, they did not submit any documents showing that their claim is justified. The Court finds therefore no basis on which to accept that the costs and expenses claimed by the applicants have actually been incurred by them.

16 . It follows that the claim must be rejected.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Decides to strike the application s out of its list of cases as regards the complaints concerning the restitution of the applicants ’ property in respect of application no. 44427/04, and of the applicants ’ property no. 1, in respect of application no. 22662/06 ;

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

Rejects the claim for cost and expenses in application no. 22662/06.

Done in English and notified in writing on 24 September 2020 .

Liv Tigerstedt Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (restitution of nationalised property)

No.

Application no.

date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Year of Birth

Representative ’ s name

Identification

of property

Domestic decision acknowledging the applicants ’ title to property

Domestic decision confirming the validity of the third parties ’ title to property

Matter has been resolved

1.

44427/04

26/10/2004

Stere NACHI

b: 1908 ; d: 2009

pursued by heir

Dumitru Nachi

Mihail NACHI

b: 1918 ; d: 2007

pursued by heirs:

Nicolae Nachi

1952Ileana Cepi

1956Foti NACHI

b:1930 ; d: 2018

pursued by heir

Aida Tescaru

Adrian VASILIU

Apartment no. 3, Pompiliu Eliade str , no. 3, Bucharest

05/04/2000

Supreme Court of Justice

21/09/2004

High Court of Cassation and Justice,

quashed on 12/12/2006

11/05/2007 when the property was returned to the applicants

2.

22662/06

27/05/2006

Ioan Oituz FINICHIU

1926Elena Aurora Adriana BOTOȘIU

1932Property no. 1:

House with one floor and 327 sqm of land, land register number 1621/1/1

Sf. Gheorghe

Property no. 2 :

Property located under 1623/4/2/1 in the Sf Gheorghe land register

19/03/2002

Sf. Gheorghe District Court

03/03/2010

High Court of Cassation and Justice

29/11/2005

Brasov Court of Appeal

---

For property no. 1 on 03/03/2010, when the property was returned to the applicants