FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF NASTA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Applications nos. 22023/03 and 11 others – see appended list)

JUDGMENT

This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court

in a judgment of 12 October 2021

STRASBOURG

20 October 2020

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

In the case of Nasta 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;

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

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 29 September 2020,

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

INTRODUCTION

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, 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).

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 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

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

9. 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).

10. The applicants submitted 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:

“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.”

11 . After the communication of the application to the Government, updated information concerning the claims under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was submitted by the applicants Lucia Nasta, Egon Mihai Nasta and Georgeta Nasta in connection with apartments nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, located on Aviator Iuliu Tetrat Street no. 2, Bucharest; this information stated that on various dates these properties have been returned to the above applicants by final court decisions. In view of that, the above applicants argued that they wished to pursue the proceedings before the Court only in respect of the loss of profit or benefit due to them for the period they have been deprived of their property over the above apartments. The Government contended that the matter raised by the present application as lodged by the above-mentioned applicants had been resolved.

12. The Court reiterates that, under Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, it may “... at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that ... the matter has been resolved ...”.

13. The Court takes note of the parties’ submissions and of the fact that the above-mentioned applicants enjoy full possession of the properties returned to them. Moreover, as regards their request in respect of loss of profit, the Court notes that such claims have constantly been rejected as speculative (see Ana Ionescu and Others , cited above, § 40 and the cases cited therein).

14 . The Court therefore considers that the matter giving rise to the complaints lodged by the applicants Lucia Nasta, Egon Mihai Nasta and Georgeta Nasta under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 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 these complaints under Article 37 § 1 in fine . Accordingly, the part of the application lodged by the applicants Lucia Nasta, Egon Mihai Nasta and Georgeta Nasta should be struck out of the list.

15. 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 .

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

17. 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).

18. 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).

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

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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).

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. The applicants in applications nos. 22023/03, 643/04, 18015/05, 33320/05 and 6931/06 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.”

30. The applicants submitted claims for just satisfaction on various dates between 2006 and 2009. At the Court’s request, the claims have been updated between 2015 and 2019.

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

32. 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

33. 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).

34. 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.

35. 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 (see Preda and Others , cited above, § 163).

36. 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).

37. The Court notes the disparity between 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

38. 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

39. 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).

40. 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

41. 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 20 October 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Ilse Freiwirth Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX List of applications

No

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant

Year of Birth/Death

Place of Residence

Nationality

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

B. costs and expenses/application

in euros (EUR)

22023/03

09/06/2003

Șerban NASTA

b. 1929

d. 2003

pursued by heirs:

Constantina NASTA,

Victor NASTA,

Niculae NASTA and

Alexandra-Liliana NASTA

all Romanian citizens residing in Bucharest

Eugenia CRNGARIU,

lawyer practising in Bucharest

Apartment no. 4 (104.20 sq. m) located on 2 nd floor, Aviator Iuliu Tetrat Street no. 2, Bucharest and the appurtenant land of 28.39 sq. m

Decision of 14 May 1997 of the Bucharest 1 st District Court

Decision of 16 October 2015 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal

A: EUR 205,000 (200,000+5,000)

B: EUR 5,000

643/04

02/12/2003

Ileana BRUMUȘESCU

1927Bucharest

Romanian

House located on Bitolia Street, no. 10, Bucharest composed of:

- one three-rooms apartment with a surface of 105.89 sq. m;

- one three-rooms apartment with a surface of 103.14 sq. m

- an attic of 25.36 sq. m and the appurtenant land of 265 sq. m

Decision of 5 June 2003 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal

Decision of 5 June 2003 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal

A: EUR 505,000 (500,000+5,000)

B: no award

17707/04

30/03/2004

Anca-Rodica NICA

1946Torrance

Romanian,

American

Steliana ȘERBAN,

lawyer practising in Bucharest

Apartment no. 2 (172.30 sq. m) located on 1 st floor, Bitolia Street no. 11, Bucharest, with garage (15 sq. m) and the appurtenant land

Decision of 30 September 2003 of the Supreme Court of Justice

Decision of 30 September 2003 of the Supreme Court of Justice

A: EUR 300,000

(295,000+5,000)

B: EUR 990

22543/04

20/11/2003

1. Mariana Alexandra Zoe Lucia DUVAL-VALENTIN

b. 1935

d. 2017

pursued by heirs:

Olivier Christian Maurice DUVAL-VALENTIN

1964and

Guy DUVAL-VALENTIN

b. 1959

d. 2012

pursued by heirs:

Sarah Ileana Marguerite DUVAL-VALENTIN

and

Loïk Robert Maurice DUVAL-VALENTIN

2. Adrian Gaston Petru LANGER

b. 1938

d. 2015

pursued by heirs:

Anne-Céline Marie LANGER [1]

1972and

Cécile Marie Bénédicte LANGER

1977

3. Georges LANGER

1943Belgium

Romanian,

French [2]

Vincent COUSSIRAT - COUSTÈRE

Three plots of land of a total surface of 22,765 sq. m (topographic nos. 2148/b, 2149 and 2150/b) located on Aurora Street nos. 2 and 4, Timișoara

Decision of 1 October 2003 of the Timișoara Court of Appeal

Decision of 1 October 2003 of the Timișoara Court of Appeal

A: EUR 3,000,000 (2,995,000+5,000)

B: EUR 2,300

26971/04

04/05/2004

1. Anna-Margit [3] HATFALUDY

1943Oradea

Hungarian

2. Elena TARSOLY

Oradea

Hungarian

3. Zita VEZSENYI

Oradea

Hungarian

4. Janos TARSOLY

Oradea

Hungarian

Árpád Ștefan KOLOZSI,

lawyer practising in Oradea

Apartments located on Tudor Vladimirescu Street no. 25, Oradea as follows:

- apartment no. 4 (3 rooms, 77.13 sq. m) and the appurtenant land of 212 sq. m;

- apartment no. 9 (1 room, 44.05 sq. m) and the appurtenant land of 136 sq. m;

- apartment no. 9A (1 room, 58.12 sq. m) and the appurtenant land of 162 sq. m;

- apartment 11 (1/2 rooms, 93.52 sq. m) and the appurtenant land of 270 sq. m;

- apartment no. 14 (2 rooms, 54.02 sq. m) and the appurtenant land of 139 sq. m;

- apartment no. 16 (2 rooms, 68.95 sq. m) and the appurtenant land of 174 sq. m.

Decision of 18 April 2001 of the Oradea Court of Appeal

Decision of 5 November 2003 of the Oradea Court of Appeal (for apartments nos. 4, 9, 9A, 11 and 16)

Decision of 28 June 2005 of the Oradea Court of Appeal (for apartment no. 14)

A: EUR 500,000 (495,000+5,000)

B: no award

32009/04

28/05/2004

Roxana Issabela Lya GHIAȚĂ [4]

1936Madrid

Romanian

Mirela CHELARU, lawyer practising in Bucharest

Apartment no. 9 (of 153,64 sq. m) and the appurtenant land located on Atena Street no. 22 (formerly Aleea Zoe), Bucharest

Decision of 6 May 1999 of the Bucharest County Court

Decision of 27 January 2004 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal

A: EUR 151,000 (146,000+5,000)

B: no award

18015/05

27/04/2005

1.Vasile-Csaba SZÖVERDI

b. 1944

d. 2008

pursued by:

Judit-Reka SZÖVERDI

1976Cluj-Napoca

Romanian

and

Edith LÁSZLÓ [5]

Cluj-Napoca

2. Eva Ildikó MÁTHE

b. 1941

d. 2016

pursued by:

Aliz Éva MÁTHÉ

1972Cluj-Napoca

Romanian and

Alpár-Zoltán MÁTHE

1977Cluj-Napoca

Romanian

Constantin Eugen IORDÄ‚CHESCU,

lawyer practising in Cluj-Napoca

Property located on Gheorghe Bilascu Street no. 11-11/A (formerly Republicii Street, no. 11), Cluj-Napoca

composed of:

- at no. 11: a house and the appurtenant land of a total surface of 224 sq. m (topographic no. 912/1)

- at no. 11 [6] : a plot of land of 327 sq. m (topographic no. 912/2);

- at no. 11A [7] : a plot of land of 500 sq. m (topographic no. 912/3).

Decision of 12 November 2004 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice

Decision of 12 November 2004 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice

A: EUR 370,000 (365,000+5,000)

B: EUR 3,600

25957/05

07/05/2005

1. Andreea HREAMÄ‚TÄ‚

1973Bucharest

Romanian

2. Ion Victor FIANU

1940Pitești

Romanian

3. Ioan IONESCU

1933Bucharest

Romanian

4. Verginia TODOR

1929Bucharest

Romanian

5. Valeria MIHAI POENARU

1934Bucharest

Romanian

6. Cornelia Georgeta ENESCU

1940Bucharest

Romanian

7. Ioan Dan VASILESCU

1934Bucharest

Romanian

8. Ligia DINCÄ‚

1934Bucharest

Romanian

9. Maria ZÄ‚VOIANU

1939Pitești

Romanian

10. Teodor-Nicolae NICOLESCU [8]

1961Bălilești [9]

Romanian

11. Gheorghe NICOLESCU

1920Câmpulung Muscel

Romanian

12. Alexandru-Cristian NICOLESCU

1956Micești

Romanian

13. Gheorghe PANTAZESCU

1950Bucharest

Romanian

14. Grigore PANTAZESCU

1954Bucharest

Romanian

Maria TURCU,

lawyer practising in Bucharest

Building located on Dr. Mihail Mirinescu Street no. 10, Bucharest composed of:

- apartment no. 1, ground floor, of 127.90 sq. m,

- apartment no. 2, first floor, of 127.90 sq. m

- apartment no. 3, second floor, of 123.90 sq. m and

- the appurtenant land of 320,5 sq. m.

Decision of 30 November 2004 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal

Decision of 30 November 2004 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal

A: EUR 680,000

B: no award

33320/05

03/08/2005

Teodor MIRON

1939Bucharest

Romanian

House (51.25 sq. m) and the appurtenant land of 261 sq. m located on Ronda Street no. 39, Bucharest

Decision of 11 January 1996 of the Bucharest 2 nd District Court

Decision of 9 February 2005 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal

A: EUR 225,000 (220,000 [10] +5,000)

B: EUR 1,800

6931/06

06/02/2006

Emil CIUREA

1938Ontario

Romanian

House (60.64 sq. m), cellar (14 sq. m) and garage (22.59 sq. m) located on Răzoare Street, no. 30 bis, Constanța

Decision of 17 October 2005 of the Constanța Court of Appeal

Decision of 17 October 2005 of the Constanța Court of Appeal

A: EUR 65,000 (60,000+5,000)

B: EUR 5,000

16776/06

17/03/2006

1. Silvia PRVULESCU

1949Bucharest

Romanian

2. Iosif VLÄ‚DUÈšESCU

b. 1946

d. 2015

pursued by:

Daniela-Viviana VLÄ‚DUÈšESCU

1974and

Sofia-Petronela VLÄ‚DUÈšESCU

1976Apartment no. 1 (100.55 sq. m), building A (corp A), located on Acumulatorului Street, no. 13, 1 st district, Bucharest and the appurtenant land of 103,12 sq. m

Decision of 14 September 2005 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal

Decision of 14 September 2005 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal

A: EUR 55,000 (50,000+5,000)

B: no award

37266/06

22/08/2006

1. Adriana Paula POAȘCĂ

1951Bucharest

Romanian

2. Nicolae BAUER

1943Dudu

Romanian

Apartment no. 2 (81.71 sq. m) located on first floor, Carpaţi Street, no. 44, 1 st District, Bucharest

Decision of 27 January 2006 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal (drafted on 21 February 2006)

Decision of 27 January 2006 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal (drafted on 21 February 2006)

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

B: EUR 500

[1] Rectified on 17 December 2020: the text was “Anna-Céline Marie LANGER”.

[2] Rectified on 17 December 2020: the order of the two words, “Romanian” and “Belgium” has been switched and “ French” has been added.

[3] Rectified on 21 January 2021: the text was “Anna HATFALUDY”.

[4] Rectified on 8 January 2021: the text was “Roxana Isabella Lya GHIAȚĂ”.

[5] Rectified on 21 January 2021: the text “Edith LÁSZLÓ, Cluj-Napoca” was added.

[6] Rectified on 21 January 2021: the text was “11A”.

[7] Rectified on 21 January 2021: the text was “11”.

[8] Rectified on 21 January 2021: the text was “Teodor NICOLESCU”.

[9] Rectified on 21 January 2021: the text was “ Câmpulung Muscel”.

[10] Rectified on 8 January 2021: the text was “220,00”.