Lexploria

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF KOMAROMI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Applications nos. 30075/03 and 23 others – see appended list)

JUDGMENT

This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in a judgment of 18 January 2022

STRASBOURG

29 September 2020

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

In the case of Komaromi 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 8 September 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 Mrs Oana Florentina 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 have 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

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 , cited above, § 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 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.”

11. 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 partly returned to the applicants.

12. In that connection, the applicants submitted that they intended to pursue their claims relating to the loss of profit and benefit, and/or those relating to the parts of the property in respect of which they continued to be unable to recover possession or to be appropriately compensated for.

13. 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 ...”.

14 . The Court takes note of the parties’ submissions and finds that as it appears from the case file, the applicants have recovered full possession of parts of the claimed property in respect of which their entitlement was acknowledged. In particular, in application no. 24256/07, the apartment no. 8 of the property identified in the appended table and 567 sqm of land were returned to the applicants in 2013; and in application no. 29972/07, the applicant’s claims concerning 178,29 sqm of land were resolved in 2007.

15. The Court therefore considers that the matter giving rise to the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the above-mentioned properties has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention (see the principles set out, among others, in Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 97, ECHR 2007 ‑ I) 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 under Article 37 § 1 in fine . Accordingly, in so far as the applicants’ complaints relate to the properties mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the above-mentioned cases should be struck out of the list.

16. 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 .

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

18. 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 Strain and Others v. Romania , no. 57001/00, §§ 30, 31 and 38, ECHR 2005-VII).

19. 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 Strain 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 v. Romania , nos. 19788/03 and 18 others, § 23, 26 February 2019).

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. The Court notes that, just like the applicants in the case of Strain 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.

25. 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.

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. 18052/04, 25079/04, 28575/04, 26898/05, 39133/05, 9701/06, 32430/06, 1046/07 and 23969/08 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 2018. At the Court’s request, the older 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.

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, as requested (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 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.

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.

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.

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 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;

Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 September 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 lodging

Applicant

Year of Birth

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/application

B. costs and expenses/application

in euros (EUR)

1.

30075/03

28/08/2003

Krisztina Gracianna KOMAROMI

1972Târgu Mureș

Romanian

Csilla Gabriella NAGY

1965Cluj Napoca

Romanian

Meta Maria MAGOS

Apartment no. 3,

Cuza Voda str. no. 53,

Târgu Mureș

21/04/1999

Târgu Mureș District Court

04/03/2003

Târgu Mureș

Court of Appeal

A. 45,000 EUR

(40,000 + 5,000)

B. 4,000 EUR

2.

18052/04

22/03/2004

Paraschiva BONDAR

1945Tinca

Romanian

Vlad-IonuÈ› CIGAN

Apartments nos. 1 and 3 of

Roman Ciorogariu str. no. 64,

Oradea

Apartments nos. 7 and 8 of

M. Eminescu str. no. 53,

Oradea

3/10/2003

Oradea Court of Appeal

13/10/2003

Oradea Court of Appeal

3/10/2003

Oradea Court of Appeal

13/10/2003

Oradea Court of Appeal

A. 275,000 EUR

(270,000 + 5,000)

B. 1,827 EUR

3.

25079/04

17/05/2004

Jean Constantin DESTEXHE

b:1940, d:2011

pursued by heirs :

Christiane Georgette Colette BREULET

1951Belgian

Pascale Yvette Carine DESTEXHE

1962Belgian

Christophe Nicolas Michel DESTEXHE

1968Belgian

Jana Monica DESTEXHE

1939Woluwe

Belgian

Marie Madeleine DESTEXHE

1949Brussels

Belgian

Frédérique Jeanne Aline DESTEXHE

1969Woluwe

Belgian

Silviu Christian ENE

Villa Destexhe of 201.4 sqm and

10,602.3 sqm of land in Afumaţi,

Şoseaua Ştefăneşti no. 1450

8/12/2003

High Court of Cassation and Justice

8/12/2003 High Court of Cassation and Justice

A. 590,000 EUR

(585,000 + 5,000)

B. –

4.

28575/04

27/07/2004

Constanţa-Madelena RAŢIU

b:1922, d:2008

Pursued by heirs

Christian-Arthur RAÅ¢IU

Leverkusen

Germany

Åžerban-Valentin RAÅ¢IU

Monchengladbach

Germany

Valentin ÅžERBÄ‚NESCU

Apartment no. 1,

TemiÅŸana str. no. 36,

building B,

Bucharest

16/03/2000

Bucharest County Court

30/06/2003

Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. 90,000 EUR

(85,000 + 5,000)

B. 250 EUR

5.

10503/05

11/03/2005

Balint JANKOVICS

Tapolca

Hungarian

Tibor Laszlo JANKOVICS

Keszthely

Hungarian

Peter JANKOVICS

Zalaegerszeg

Hungarian

Bencze Bela JANKOVICS

Keszthely

Hungarian

Juliana Zsuzsanna JANKOVICS

Budapest

Hungarian

Dorottya PAPP

Torokbalint

Hungarian

Maria Magdolna SCHMIDT

b:1931; d: 2016

pursued by heir

Gabor Zsolt Pataki

1967Torokbalint

Hungarian

Arpad Ștefan KOLOSZI

Apartments nos. 4, 5, 9 and 10 on

Armata Română str. no. 18,

Oradea

9/05/2001

Oradea Court of Appeal

22/09/2004

Oradea Court of Appeal

A. 200,000 EUR

(200,000)

B. –

6.

21380/05

24/05/2005

Lucia RUSU

1946Indianapolis

US citizen

Laura Ioana RUSU

1975Indianapolis

US citizen

Ian Laurian RUSSO

1970Indianapolis

US citizen

Ovidiu Laurenţiu PODARU

Apartment no. 5,

Dimitrie Cantemir str. no. 3A,

Cluj-Napoca

24/11/2004

Cluj Court of Appeal

24/11/2004

Cluj Court of Appeal

A. 175,000 EUR

(170,000 + 5,000)

B. 492.17 EUR

7.

26898/05

17/06/2005

Tiberiu Corneliu Ioan CERTEJAN

1941Petit Lancy, Switzerland

Romanian

Dorin Gheorghe CERTEJAN

1947Bucharest

Romanian

Mugur Cristian VASILE

Apartment (Villa) no. 2,

Lucian Blaga str. no. 22,

Deva

11/02/2005

Alba- Iulia Court of Appeal

11/02/2005

Alba-Iulia Court of Appeal

A. 55,000 EUR

(50,000 + 5,000)

B. 3,500 EUR

8.

39133/05

21/10/2005

Alisa GHIMPA

1925Bucharest

Romanian

Mihail-Dimitrie GHIMPA

1955Bucharest

Romanian

Ground floor apartment no. 1,

Alexandru Donici str. no. 35,

Bucharest

4/05/2005

Bucharest Court of Appeal

4/05/2005

Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. 50,000 EUR

(45,000 + 5,000)

B. 4,000 EUR

9.

9701/06

07/03/2006

Mircea Lorin IRIMIA

1948Bucharest

Romanian

Apartment no. 2,

Paul Ionescu str. no. 15,

Bucharest

17/09/1997

Bucharest District Court

15/09/2005

Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. 80,000 EUR

(75,000 + 5,000)

B. –

10.

18756/06

02/05/2006

Steliana BOGDAN

1936Bucharest

Romanian

Angelica OLOVINAR

Cântării str. no. 4,

Bucharest

9/04/2002

Bucharest Court of Appeal

29/11/2005

Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. 70,000 EUR

(65,000 + 5,000)

B. ‑

11.

32430/06

10/06/2006

Elena GHEORGHE

1947Helsingborg

Swedish

Steliana Ioana DUMITRESCU

Apartment no. 42,

Spinis str. no. 8,

bl.43, sc. 3,

Bucharest

25/11/2005

Bucharest Court of Appeal

25/11/2005

Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. 70,000 EUR

(65,000 + 5,000)

B. 250 EUR

12.

46114/06

09/11/2006

Georgina MUNSTER

b:1934; d: 2011

pursued by heir

Maria ARDELEAN

1956Aușeu

Romanian

Apartments nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8,

Decebal Blvd no. 7,

Arad

15/04/1999

Timisoara Court of Appeal

15/06/2006

Timisoara Court of Appeal

26/06/2008 Timisoara Court of Appeal

A. 425,000 EUR

(420,000 + 5,000)

B. ‑

13.

1046/07

13/12/2006

Nerva Vasile BOLDOR

1947Konstanz

German

Zeno Iulian BOLDOR

1953Konstanz

German, Romanian

The Village Mill and land in Comlosul Mare,

Timis

House and land in Comlosul Mare no. 670,

Timis

22/06/2006

Timisoara Court of Appeal

22/06/2006

Timisoara Court of Appeal

A. 100,000 EUR

(100,000)

B. ‑

14.

12866/07

28/02/2007

Mihaela Gabriela ȘOACĂ

1938Craiova

Romanian

Dumitru Ion ARSENIE

1934Constanta

Romanian

Florin ARSENIE

Two-storey building and land in Ulmului str., no. 32

(former no. 28),

Craiova

8/10/1997

Craiova Court of Appeal

4/09/2006

Craiova Court of Appeal

A.305,000 EUR

(300,000 + 5,000)

B. 250 EUR

15.

24256/07

26/04/2007

Livia Romica MARINICÄ‚-MARINESCU

1941Bucharest

Romanian

Maria Ortanza FÄ‚TÄ‚CEAN

1932Bucharest

Romanian

Aurelia POPESCU

Apartments nos. 1-6 located in Mihai Viteazu str. no. 102

(former 82),

Brasov

30/10/2006

Brasov Court of Appeal

30/10/2006

Brasov Court of Appeal

A. 635,000 EUR

(630,000 + 5,000)

B. ‑

16.

29972/07

09/07/2007

Dan-Cristian MIRONESCU

1945Constanța

Romanian

Vera MIRONESCU

3 rooms in Vila Dorina, located in Progresului str. no. 26,

Eforie Sud

18/05/1999

Constanta Court of Appeal

18/01/2007

Constanta Court of Appeal

A. 45,000 EUR

(45,000)

B. ‑

17.

43124/07

28/09/2007

Angela-Valeria DULA

1940Bucharest

Romanian

Elisabeta-Melania DUDÄ‚U

1937Bucharest

Romanian

Graziela Elena BRLĂ

apartment no. 2,

Dumitru Orbescu str. no. 5,

district 2, Bucharest

22/01/1999

Bucharest County Court

30/03/2007

Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. 45,310 EUR

(40,310 + 5,000)

B. 1,005 EUR

18.

481/08

19/12/2007

Anamaria-Iulia PITIȘ

b:1918; d: 2014

Bucharest

Romanian

Pursued by heir

Șerban Alexandru ALTENLIU

1943Bucharest

Bogdan Sever Alexandru GRABOWSKI

Apartment no. 8 (5 rooms) located in Cavafii Vechi str. no. 17

(former 19),

district 3 Bucharest

20/06/2007

Bucharest Court of Appeal

20/06/2007

Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. 175,000 EUR

(175,000)

B. ‑

19.

18961/08

10/04/2008

Marius Florin PETRESCU

1954Bucharest

Romanian

Eugen Sebastian CUDRICI

Apartment no. 7,

Calea Dorobanti no. 250,

district 1, Bucharest

20/05/1998

Bucharest District Court

10/10/2007

Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. 110,000 EUR

(105,000 + 5,000)

B. ‑

20.

23969/08

13/05/2008

Gheorghe GRASU

Los Angeles

Romanian

Florin GHEORGHE

Ground and underground floors (retail space) of the property located in Franceza str.

(former Iuliu Maniu str.)

no. 17,

Bucharest

8/10/1999

Bucharest First Instance Court

22/11/2007

High Court of Cassation and Justice

A. 205,000 EUR

(200,000 + 5,000)

B. ‑

21.

59376/08

21/11/2008

Florica Barbara PORUMB

1940Haar

German,Romanian

In her own name and in her capacity as heir of her deceased husband

Dorin Nerva Nestor PORUMB

b:1939; d: 2009

Lucia Alexandrina Valeria NOVÄ‚CESCU

House in Vasile Lucaci str. no. 11,

TimiÅŸoara

28/05/2008

TimiÅŸoara Court of Appeal

28/05/2008

TimiÅŸoara Court of Appeal

A. 45,000 EUR

(40,000 + 5,000)

B. 3,570 EUR

22.

21411/09

06/04/2009

Petre BOKOR

b:1940; d: 2014

pursued by heir

Maria Viorica BOKOR

1942Romanian

Mugur Jak CARACAÅž

Apartments nos. 6 and 9,

King Ferdinand str.

(former Gheorghe Doja str.),

no. 7,

Cluj-Napoca

22/03/2000

Supreme Court of Justice

29/10/2008 Cluj County Court (apartment no. 6)

04/12/2008 Cluj Court of Appeal (apartment no. 9)

A. 108,000 EUR

(108,000)

B. 3,500 EUR

23.

30409/10

11/05/2010

Ruxandra TELEMAN

b:1940 ; d: 2015

pursued by heirs

Irina TELEMAN

1966Brain l’Alleud, Belgium

Belgian

Gabriel TELEMAN

1967Brussels, Belgium

Belgian

Mihai TELEMAN

1967Găinești, Slatina

Romanian

Petrache TELEMAN

1938Găinești, Slatina

Belgian, Romanian

Silviu TELEMAN

b:1931; d: 2013

pursued by heirs

Călin Ştefan TELEMAN

1962New York, USA

Romanian

Constantin TELEMAN

1968San Francisco, USA

US and Romanian

Neculai Sinel TELEMAN

1942Ancona

Italian

Alexandru Codrin TABAN

for all applicants except for

Constantin Teleman, represented by Liliana ZAICA

Apartment no. 2,

Alexandru Constantinescu str.

(former Câmpina str.),

no. 50,

Bucharest

8/12/2009

High Court of Cassation and Justice

8/12/2009

High Court of Cassation and Justice

A. 85,000 EUR

(80,000 + 5,000)

B. 1,200 EUR

24.

40209/15

21/07/2015

Alexander Georg WEIGEL

1948Wiesbaden

German

Emilia WEIGEL

1922Wiesbaden

German

Mihai WEIGEL

1953Hattersheim am Main

German

Mihai Vladimir HOLBAN

Apartment no. 5,

Bdul Carol I no. 28

Bucharest

14/05/1999

Bucharest District Court

10/02/2015

High Court of Cassation and Justice

A. 51,425 EUR

(49,425 + 2,000)

B. 800

Menu

CASE OF KOMAROMI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

CASE OF KOMAROMI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

LEXI