Lexploria

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF KONYA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Applications nos. 37087/03 and 24 others)

JUDGMENT

This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in a judgment of 30 August 2022.

STRASBOURG

17 November 2020

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Konya 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,

Having regard to:

the 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 below;

the decision to give notice of the applications to the Romanian Government (“the Government”);

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 20 October 2020,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

INTRODUCTION

1. The cases concern 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, most recently, Ms 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).

6. 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

7. 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 and 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

8. The Government have contested that the complaint raised by the applicant under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention had concerned the entire immovable property located at no. 9 Ion Neculce street, Arad. They argued that sales contract no. 2220/1997 on which the applicant’s complaint was based concerned only part of this property.

9. The Court notes that, even assuming that the applicant’s complaint to the Court concerned only the property mentioned in the aforementioned contract, the judgment of the national courts which had examined and dismissed the applicant’s action seeking to have the impugned contract set aside had not established that the contract had not concerned the entire property in dispute. Moreover, none of the parties have submitted a copy of the aforementioned contract to the case-file.

10. Therefore, the Court cannot accept that the applicant’s complaint to the Court concerned only part of the property in dispute.

11. In the light of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the Government’s preliminary argument must be dismissed.

12. The Government asked the Court in their submissions to take note of the fact that according to the relevant court judgment acknowledging the applicant’s property rights to the property in dispute he was not the sole owner of the property.

13. The Court notes that in his application to the Court the applicant stated that the disputed property belonged to him and three other siblings. His submissions seemed to suggest that he had intended to lodge the application to the Court both on his and his siblings’ behalf. However, he had not submitted a power of attorney authorising him to act on the other siblings’ behalf and none of the latter had signed the application to the Court themselves.

14. The Court notes further that the domestic proceedings concerning the property in dispute were initiated by the applicant and all of his siblings and that the relevant judgment of the national courts concerned all of them. Also, it does not appear from the evidence available in the case file that the applicant has become in the meantime the property’s sole owner.

15. In these circumstances, the Court finds it established that the applicant is a mere co-owner of the disputed property, and that he has introduced the application only in his own name and not on behalf of his three siblings.

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

17. 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).

18. 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:

“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.”

19. The Government argued that the applicant in application no. 6084/14 had abused her right of application by failing to inform the Court of important developments concerning her case. In particular, she had failed to disclose to the Court that by a final judgment of 24 October 2018 the Bucharest Court of Appeal had ordered the Bucharest mayor’s office to issue an administrative decision acknowledging the applicant’s right to compensation for the property in dispute.

20. The applicant argued that the above-mentioned court judgment had not changed the circumstances of her case because the authorities had still neither returned her property to her nor had they actually paid her any compensation for it.

21. The Court notes that the Government have not argued and in any event they have not submitted any evidence suggesting that following the domestic judgment indicated by them the applicant had recovered her property in kind or had actually obtained any financial compensation for it. Thus, the information at issue did not concern any core aspect of the case (see, for the relevant principles, Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014).

22. In these circumstances the Court cannot agree with the Government that the applicant’s failure to inform the Court about the impugned judgment amounted to an abuse of her right of application.

23. The Government’s objection in this regard must therefore be rejected.

24. 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 ratione materiae .

25. The applicants contested these arguments and also submitted that the compensation mechanism put in place by the domestic legislation was not effective.

26. 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).

27. It has further considered and repeatedly rejected the Government’s submissions as to the alleged effectiveness of various court proceedings as well as of the restitution laws, including Law no. 10/2001 and Law no. 165/2013, in cases where there are concurrent valid title deeds (see Popescu et Daşoveanu v. Romania , no. 24681/03, §§ 26-29, 19 July 2007; Mihai and Radu Rădulescu v. Romania , no 14884/03, § 18, 20 October 2009; 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).

28. 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 objections in this regard must therefore be rejected.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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.

32 . 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.

33. 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.

34 . 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.

35 . The applicants in applications nos. 12118/06 and 3104/07 complained about a breach of their right of access to court due to their impossibility to enforce final judgments, respectively, acknowledging Mr Toma’s property rights to the property in dispute or ordering the relevant administrative authorities to issue a decision compensating Ms Ştefănescu for the property in dispute (judgment of 17 December 2008 of the Bucharest County Court). They relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:

“1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...

...”

36. The Court notes that the applicants’ complaint is closely connected to their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Having regard to its findings above (see paragraphs 32-34), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine their complaint (see, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and Rasidescu v. Romania , no. 39761/03, §§ 31-35, 15 September 2009, with further references).

37 . The applicant in application no. 12118/06 raised also other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. The applicant in application no. 3104/07 raised a further complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the remaining part of the immovable property located at no. 15 Paleologu street, District no. 3, Bucharest. In addition, the applicants in applications nos. 8011/04, 15658/05, 41890/06, 32269/07, 48157/07, 8548/08, 27215/08, and 60788/08 raised various complaints under Article 6 of the Convention, whereas the applicants in applications nos. 15658/05 and 8548/08 also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.

38. The Court has carefully examined all these complaints. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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.”

41. The applicants submitted claims for just satisfaction on various dates between 2004 and 2019. At the Court’s request, some of the older claims have been updated between 2015 and 2019.

42. The Government made comments in reply to the applicants’ original and updated claims for just satisfaction.

43. In support of their claims and submissions in respect of pecuniary damage some of the applicants and the Government in some of the cases 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.

44. 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).

45. 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.

46. 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).

47. 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).

48. 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.

49. In so far as the applicants have claimed non-pecuniary damages, 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.

50. As concerns the applicants who have not claimed non-pecuniary damages, the Court finds no reason to award them any sum on that account (see appended table).

51. 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).

52. 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.

53. 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,

(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 shall 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;

Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 November 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

date 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 proposed for

A. pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage

B. costs and expenses/application

in euros (EUR)

1

37087/03

09/09/2003

Arpad-Ernest KONYA

German

b: 1953

Brühl

Agnes-Lotte SCHREPLER-KONYA

German

b: 1953

Brühl

Apartment no. 36, Transilvania street no. 1, Baia Mare

16 April 2003 Cluj Court of Appeal

A. EUR 73,000 (68,000 + 5,000), jointly

B. 2,000, jointly

2

8011/04

02/02/2004

Gheorghe BARBU

German

b: 1926

Ebersbach

Bernd FABRITIUS

Immovable property (house and 131 parts/173 of land sold to third parties), Grădinilor street no. 4, Bistrița-Năsăud

29 September 2003 Cluj Court of Appeal

A. EUR 70,000 for pecuniary damage alone

B. -

3

25788/04

01/06/2004

Corneliu MEDEȘAN

Romanian

b: 1930

Bucharest

Alexandru-Mihai GHIOCEL

Romanian

b: 1968

Bucharest

Elena-Tereza DOTTI

Romanian

b: 1951

Bucharest

DragoÅŸ UNGUREAN

Apartment no. 1, floor 1, Vlad Județul street no. 41, District no. 3, Bucharest

14 May 1997 Bucharest District Court

02 December 2003 Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. EUR 50,000 (45,000 + 5,000), jointly

B. -

4

28731/04

30/04/2004

Gavril BRODY

Romanian/German

b: 1927

d: 2004

pursued by heirs:

1. Rodica-Maria BRODY

German

b: 1940

Bonn

2. Cornelius BRODY

German

b: 1963

Frankfurt am Main

3 Bella-Maria BRODY

German

b: 1971

Köln

4. Christina-Georgeta BRODY

German

b: 1976

Bonn

Oana Marilena RESTEÅžAN

Apartment no. 11, Ion RaÈ›iu street nos. 10 ‑ 12, Cluj ‑ Napoca

16 March 2001

Supreme Court of Justice

7 November 2003 High Court of Cassation and Justice

A. EUR 85,000 (80,000 + 5,000) jointly

B. -

5

15658/05

25/04/2005

Victor VOROBCHIEVICI

Romanian

b: 1947

Bucharest

Cătălin VOROBCHIEVICI

Romanian

b: 1989

Bucharest

Simona Cristina CARANDA

Ground floor apartment, Prof. Nifon Bălăşescu street no. 5, District no. 2, Bucharest

04 November 2004 Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. EUR 65,000 (60,000 + 5,000), jointly

B. EUR 1,428, jointly

6

28188/05

01/07/2005

Dana Georgeta CHIFU

Romanian

b: 1954

Craiova

Gabriela DRICU

Romanian

b: 1951

Bucharest

3 apartments, Păltiniş street no. 11, Craiova

25 January 2005 Craiova Court of Appeal

29 October 2004, 25 January and 03 February 2005 Craiova Court of Appeal

A. EUR 208,000 (203,000 + 5,000), jointly

B. -

7

12118/06

11/03/2006

Viorica Georgina ROGOZ (b. HUBER)

German

b: 1927

Bad Nauheim

Johanna HUBER

Apartment no.1 on the ground floor, Intrarea Anda Călugăreanu street no. 1, District no. 1, Bucharest

31 March 2004 High Court of Cassation and Justice

12 September 2005 Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. EUR 265,000 (260,000 + 5,000)

B. EUR 5,331

8

19672/06

26/04/2006

Gregor EHRET

German

b: 1931

Heilbronn

Theodora EHRET

German

b: 1940

Heilbronn

Apartment no. 82, first floor, 1 December 1918 Blv. no. 35, building L20, entrance C, Constanța

16 February 2006 Constanța Court of Appeal

24 October 2016 Constanța Court of Appeal

16 February 2006 Constanța Court of Appeal

A. EUR 57,000 (52,000 + 5,000), jointly

B. -

9

22917/06

23/05/2006

André Henri RISMONT

French

b: 1938

Montrouge

Lucia CHERECHEÅž

Apartments nos.1 and 2 (respectively, ground and first floor), Popa Tatu street no. 18, District no. 1, Bucharest

06 December 2005 Bucharest Court of Appeal

04 July 2013 Bucharest Court of Appeal

06 December 2005 Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. EUR 270,000 (266,000 + 4,000)

B. EUR 5,000

10

41890/06

16/08/2006

Mihail-Dan TOMA

Romanian

b: 1939

Craiova

Apartment no. 2 on the first floor, Spătarului street no. 29, District no. 2, Bucharest and 1/5 of the 218 m 2 of the appurtenant land

16 November 2001 Supreme Court of Justice

09 January 2006 (available on 16 February 2006) Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. EUR 101,159 (96,159 + 5,000)

B. EUR 2,300

11

3104/07

09/01/2007

Nadège ŞTEFĂNESCU

Romanian/French

b: 1937

Royan

Arnaud FRIEDERICH

Apartments nos. 1-5 in the apartment building, Paleologu street no. 15, District no. 3, Bucharest

07 May 1998 Bucharest District Court

-

A. EUR 605,000 (600,000 + 5,000)

B. EUR 4,773

12

15507/07

05/03/2007

Otilia OÅ¢ELEA

German

B: 1948

Waldkraiburg

Veronica BÄ‚RBAT

Apartment no. 28, Cpt. Dobrilă Eugeniu street no. 5, building N, entrance. B, Constanța

13 November 2006 Constanța County Court

A. EUR 70,680 (65,680 + 5,000)

B. EUR 4,200

13

26485/07

22/05/2007

Tabita BORA

Romanian/German

b: 1955

Engelskirchen

House and 586 m 2 of land, Ion Neculce street no. 9, Arad

07 December 2006 TimiÅŸoara Court of Appeal

A. EUR 105,000 (100,000 + 5,000)

B. -

14

32269/07

23/07/2007

Steliana-Aurora IONESCU

Romanian

b: 1927

Bucharest

Maria PITICESCU

Romanian

b: 1923

Bucharest

Sergiu Florin ROÅžCA

Apartment no. 1 ground floor, Av. Sănătescu street no. 31, District no. 1, Bucharest

22 January 2007 (available on 26 January 2007) Bucharest Court of Appeal

22 January 2007 Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. EUR 70,000 for pecuniary damage, jointly.

B. -

15

44956/07

27/09/2007

Alexander Georg [Mihail] Michael Albert ZINK

Romanian/German

b: 1940

Ried Eisemannsberg

[Eugen] Hans Gustav Paul [Ioan] ZINK

Romanian/German

b: 1938

München

Diana Steluța NERE

Apartment no. 1, Rahmaninov street no. 15, District no. 2, Bucharest

28 March 2007 Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. EUR 185,000, for pecuniary damage, jointly

B. -

16

48157/07

12/10/2007

Romulus BARDELLI

Romanian

b: 1942

PloieÅŸti

Otilia-Monalisa STOICA

Apartment no. 5, Braziliei street no. 9, District no. 1, Bucharest.

12 March 1998 Bucharest District Court

12 April 2007 Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. EUR 105,000 (100.000 + 5,000)

B. EUR 5,000

17

8548/08

19/02/2008

André Paul Konstantin LAHOVARY

Romanian / Swedish

b: 1948

Visby

Co-owner of immovable property Nicolae Iorga street nos. 58-60 (currently Dacia Boulevard no. 24), District no. 1, Bucharest

14 May 2007 Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. EUR 230,000 (225,000 + 5,000)

taking into account that the applicant is one of four co ‑ owners.

B. -

18

19581/08

19/12/2007

Dan Andrei PETRAÅžCU

Romanian

b: 1958

Bucharest

Nicoleta-Tatiana Popescu

Ground floor apartment Căderea Bastiliei street no. 1, District no. 1, Bucharest

04 July 2007 Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. EUR 75,000 (70,000 + 5,000)

B. 1,000

19

27215/08

30/04/2008

Luminița Gabriela ILIE

Romanian

b: 1942

Le Chesnay

Lucian ILIE

Romanian

B: 1939

Le Chesnay

Radu Cristian VOLOAGÄ‚

Apartment no. 27, Valea Călugărească street no. 3, building D4, entrance C, District no. 6, Bucharest

23 November 2007 Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. EUR 85,000 (80,000 + 5,000), jointly

B. EUR 1,651, jointly

20

60778/08

05/12/2008

Adrian IUNCU

Romanian

b: 1946

d: 2015

Monica BÄ‚LTEANU

Romanian

b: 1952

Bucharest

pursued by heir:

Cristian IUNCU

Romanian

b: 1976

Bucharest

Apartments nos. 1 and 2, Andrei MureÅŸanu street no. 23 (former 23A), District no. 1, Bucharest

05 May 1997 Bucharest District Court

29 May 2006 Bucharest Court of Appeal

25 June 2008 Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. EUR 405,000 (400,000 + 5,000), jointly

B. EUR 200, jointly

21

4885/09

23/10/2008

Romulus BARDELLI

Romanian

b: 1942

PloieÅŸti

Otilia-Monalisa STOICA

Apartments nos. 4 (3) and 6, Braziliei street no. 7B, District no. 1, Bucharest

15 April 1998 Bucharest District Court

23 April 2008 Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. EUR 145,000 (140,000 + 5,000)

B. EUR 1,000

22

40991/09

16/06/200

Marius-Robert CAPEÅ¢AN-BACSKAI

Romanian

b: 1954

d: 2019

pursued by heir:

Georgeta CAPEÅ¢AN- BACSKAI

Romanian

1954Lugoj

Corina and Cotizo-Olimpiu NEGRUÅ¢IU

Apartment no. 10, Regele Carol I (former Tinereții) Blv. no. 20, Timişoara

10 October 2001 of TimiÅŸoara Court of Appeal

17 December 2008 TimiÅŸoara Court of Appeal

A. EUR 85,000 (80,000 + 5,000)

B. EUR 500

23

57120/10

13/09/2010

Gheorghe SCARLAT

Romanian

b: 1946

d: 2014

pursued by heirs:

1.Florin SCARLAT

Romanian

b: 1956

Bucharest

2.Dumitra TAMAÅžIU

Romanian

b: 1958

Bucharest

Doina VÄ‚LCÄ‚UAN

Apartment no.5, Aleea Costinesti no. 2, building 9, entrance A, District no. 5, Bucharest,

11 May 2010 Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. EUR 45,000 (40,000 + 5,000), jointly

B. EUR 4,000, jointly

24

47783/11

28/07/2011

Virgil Joseph DUNCAN

American

b: 1947

New Jersey

Dan DUNCAN

American

b: 1949

New York

Aneta SEGAL

Romanian

b: 1922

d: 2014

Tel Aviv

pursued by heirs:

The first two applicants above.

Mădălina BERECHET

Immovable property, C.A. Rosetti street no. 13, Roman

28 January 2011 Bacău Court of Appeal

A. EUR 55,000 (50,000 + 5,000), jointly

B. EUR 3,000, jointly

25

6084/14

25/11/2013

Maria WILLUTZKY

Romanian/German

b: 1934

Geneva

Custodian Yazan SAVOY

and

Lucia CHERECHEÅž

2/3 share in apartment no. 12 Mihail Kogălniceanu street no. 49 (former 95A) (former 6 March Blv. No. 95), District no. 5, Bucharest

02 November 2009 Bucharest Court of Appeal

03 June 2013 Bucharest County Court

A. EUR 53,000 (50,000 + 3,000)

B. EUR 1,050

Menu

CASE OF KONYA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

CASE OF KONYA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

LEXI