Lexploria

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF NISTOR AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

( Applications nos. 26359/03 and 28 others )

JUDGMENT

This version was rectified on 20 October 2020 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.

STRASBOURG

16 July 2020

FINAL

16/10/2020

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

In the case of Nistor and Others v. Romania ,

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

Branko Lubarda, President, Carlo Ranzoni , Péter Paczolay , judges, and Ilse Freiwirth , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to:

Applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table ;

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

the parties ’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 23 June 2020 ,

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

INTRODUCTION

1 . The case concerns the inability of the applicants to recover possession of their properties which had been unlawfully nationalised under the former communist regime and had been sold by the State to third parties.

THE FACTS

2 . The list of the applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

3 . The Government were represented by their Agent, initially Mrs C. Brumar and then her successor, Mrs O . F. Ezer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

4 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

5 . The factual and legal circumstances set out in the current applications are similar to those pertaining to the applicants in the case of Străin and Others v. Romania (no. 57001/00, §§ 5-18, ECHR 2005-VII), to the applicants Ms and Mr Rodan in the case of Preda and Others v. Romania (nos. 9584/02 and 7 others, §§ 35-41, 29 April 2014) and to the applicants in the case of Ana Ionescu and Others v. Romania (19788/03, §§ 6-7, 26 February 2019).

In short, the applicants obtained final court decisions finding that the nationalisation by the former communist regime of their properties had been unlawful and that they had never ceased to be the legitimate owners of those properties. Despite the fact that their title deeds were not disputed, the applicants were not able to recover possession of their properties, as the latter had either already been sold or were sold by the State to third parties. The applicants did not receive compensation for those properties.

RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE

6 . The relevant background domestic law and practice in relation to acknowledged unlawfully nationalised properties sold by the State to third parties have been summarised in the Court ’ s judgments in the cases of Brumărescu v. Romania [GC] (no. 28342/95, §§ 34-35, ECHR 1999-VII); Străin and Others (cited above, §§ 19-23); Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania (nos. 30767/05 et 33800/06, §§ 44 et seq., 12 October 2010); Preda and Others (cited above, §§ 68-74); and Dickmann and Gion v. Romania (nos. 10346/03 and 10893/04, § § 52-58, 24 October 2017) .

THE LAW

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

8 . The heirs of some of the applicants informed the Court of those applicants ’ deaths and, as their close relatives, expressed the intention to pursue the application in their stead. The Government did not object to this. Having regard to the close family ties and the heirs ’ legitimate interest in pursuing the applications, the Court accepts that the deceased applicants ’ heirs may pursue the applications in their stead (see Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, § 101, ECHR 2013 ; and Preda and Others v. Romania , nos. 9584/02 and 7 others, § 75, 29 April 2014). It will therefore continue to deal with these applications at the heirs ’ request (see the appended table for details).

9 . The applicants complained that their inability to recover possession of their unlawfully nationalised properties or to secure compensation, despite court decisions acknowledging their property rights, amounted to a breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads as follows:

“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.”

10 . The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies and/or that they could not claim to have a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, their complaints being therefore incompatible rationae materiae .

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

12 . The Court reiterates that it has already considered at length and rejected the same objections concerning the alleged inapplicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to situations identical to those in the current case (see Străin and Others , cited above, §§ 30, 31 and 38).

13 . It has further considered and repeatedly rejected the Government ’ s submissions as to the alleged effectiveness of the restitution laws, including Law no. 10/2001 and Law no. 165/2013, in cases where there are concurrent valid title deeds (see Străin and Others , cited above, §§ 54-56 ; Preda and Others , cited above, §§ 133 and 141 ; Dickmann and Gion , cited above, § § 72 and 78 ; and Ana Ionescu and Others , cited above, § 23) .

14 . It finds that in the instant case the Government have not put forward any new fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility of these complaints. The Government ’ s objection in this regard must therefore be rejected.

15 . The Court further notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

16 . The applicants argued that the inability to date to recover possession of their properties or to receive compensation if recovery of possession were not to be possible was in breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

17 . The Government reiterated their objection to admissibility and submitted that the applicants should have pursued the procedures set out in the restitution laws, including Law no. 165/2013.

18 . The Court notes that, just like the applicants in the case of Străin and Others , cited above, and also like Ms and Mr Rodan in the case of Preda and Others , cited above, the applicants in the present case had obtained final decisions acknowledging with retroactive effect the unlawfulness of the seizure of their property by the State and their legitimate ownership over those properties. These decisions have not been challenged or quashed to date. The applicants have not been able, to date, either to recover possession of the properties mentioned in the appended table or to obtain compensation for this deprivation.

19 . The Court reiterates that in the case of Preda and Others it found that the applicants ’ inability to recover possession of their properties despite final court decisions retroactively acknowledging their property rights constituted a deprivation of their possessions within the meaning of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that such a deprivation, combined with a total lack of compensation, imposed on the applicants a disproportionate and excessive burden in breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Preda and Others , cited abo ve, §§ 146, 148 ‑ 49).

It reiterated its above findings in the similar case of Dickmann and Gion (cited above, § § 103-04) and in the more recent case of Ana Ionescu and Others (cited above, §§ 23, 28-30).

The Court further finds that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.

20 . The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

21 . The applicants in applications nos. 4367/04, 17805/04 and 44130/04, also raised various complaints under Article 6 of the Convention which the Court has carefully examined. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

22 . It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

23 . Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

24 . The applicants submitted claims for just satisfaction on various dates between 2006 and 2010. Between 2015 and 2019 they updated these claims at the Court ’ s request.

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

26 . In support of their claims and submissions in respect of pecuniary damage the applicants and the Government submitted one or more of the following:

(a) expert reports prepared by registered experts, either at the Ministry of Justice or members of the National Association of Valuers (ANEVAR), which is an association recognised by the Romanian Government as an association of public interest. The expert reports estimated the market value of the claimed properties after visiting them (applicants ’ experts), using criteria defined by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 9/2008, which fixes the rent for State properties, the standards and recommendations determined by the National Association of Valuers (ANEVAR), and the International Valuation Standards (IVS). The Government ’ s experts did not visit the properties.

(b) administrative decisions pursuant to Law no. 165/2013 awarding compensation calculated according to the criteria established by the said Law or estimated values calculated by the competent administrative bodies (see section 41 of Law no. 165/2013, Preda and Others , cited above, § 70).

(c) copies of sale contracts indicating the price per square metre for neighbouring properties.

27 . As the Court has held on a number of occasions, a judgment in which the Court finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to the breach and make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96 § 32, ECHR 2000-XI ; and Guiso -Gallisay v. Italy (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00 , § 90, 22 December 2009 ).

28 . The Court considers, in the circumstances of the case, that the return of the properties in issue would put the applicants as far as possible in a situation equivalent to the one in which they would have been if there had not been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

29 . Failing such restitution by the respondent State, the Court holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, in respect of pecuniary damage, an amount corresponding to the current value of their properties, as requested (see Preda and Others , cited above, § 163).

30 . As regards the amount of money claimed in respect of loss of profit or benefit from the applicants ’ possessions, the Court rejects this claim. To award a sum of money on this basis would be a speculative process, given that profit derived from possession of property depends on several factors (see Buzatu v. Romania (just satisfaction), no. 34642/97, § 18, 27 January 2005 ; and Preda and Others , cited above, § 164).

31 . The Court notes the disparity between some of the applicants ’ estimates of the value of their properties and those advanced by the Government.

Having regard to the information at its disposal concerning real estate prices on the local market, including the documents submitted by the parties, and to its established case-law in respect of similar cases (see Maria Atanasiu and Others , cited above, § 253; Preda and Others , cited above, § 164; and Dickmann and Gion , cited above, §§ 113-18 ), the Court considers it reasonable and equitable, as required by Article 41, to award the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of pecuniary damage.

32 . The Court considers that the serious interference with the applicants ’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions cannot be adequately compensated for by the simple finding of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Making an assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

33 . Some applicants have either not submitted any claims for costs and expenses or have failed to substantiate them. Accordingly, the Court finds no reason to award them any sum on that account (see appended table).

34 . As concerns the claims submitted by the remaining applicants, regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table covering costs under all heads.

35 . The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(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 16 July 2020 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Ilse Freiwirth Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

List of cases

No.

Application no. and date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

nationality

year of birth

place of residence

Represented by

Identification of property

Domestic decision acknowledging the applicants ’ title to property

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

Amounts awarded for

A. pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage/application

B. costs and expenses/application

in euros (EUR)

1

26359/03

23/06/2003

Ruxanda-Augustina-Georgeta NISTOR

Romanian

1933Craiova

Rodica RADU, lawyer, Craiova

House and land 946 sqm ( Comuna din Paris St.)

7.7.1999 Supreme Court

Court of Appeal Craiova 27.2.2003

A. 166,000 EUR

(161,000 + 5,000)

B. 3,270 EUR

2

4367/04

13/01/2004

Carol Mihai PETROVSZKY

Romanian

b: 1917

d: 2006

Horgau

pursued by 3 heirs:

Richard Carol PETROVSZKY

German

Speyer

Edith Helene PETROVSZKY

German

Horgauergreut

Edith Hertha HEIGL

German

Augsburg

Alexandra RÄ‚ZVAN MIHALCEA, lawyer

Apartment (no. 2) and plot of land 446 sqm in Orsova St, CaransebeÅŸ

CaransebeÅŸ County Court 7.11.2007

CaransebeÅŸ County Court 7.11.2007 and further pending proceedings

A. 39,000 EUR

(34,000 + 5,000)

B. 4,700 EUR

3

17805/04

17/04/2004

Floarea LANG

Romanian

b: 1924

d: 2008

Bu charest

pursued by heir:

Stelu ța Mirela GHIMEȘ

Romanian

b: 1970

Bucharest

Mihai Gheorghe JELERIU

Apartment (no.2) of 92 sqm in M. Eminescu St., Bucharest

26.3.1998 Bucharest 1 st instance court

27.4.2004 Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. 11 5 ,000 EUR [1] (110,000 + 5,000)

B. 500 EUR

4,

23297/04

16/06/2004

1. Ioana ACHIMESCU

Romanian

b: 1930

d: 2012

Bucharest

pursued by heir:

Mariana MOISE

Romanian

1953Bucharest

2. Daniela ANGHELUȘ

Romanian

1967Bucharest

Apt. no. 10, Radu Cristian St ( Universităţii Square)., 71 sqm

Bucharest + appurtenant land

16.12.2003 Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. 200,000 EUR (195,000+5,000)

5

28538/04

19/07/2004

Ileana Iolanda COLAN

German

1930Bonn

Sorin DUMITRESCU-POPOVICI

German , Romanian

1932Laatzen

Gabriela IRIMIA

Romanian

b: 1937

d: 2017

Bucharest

pursued by heir:

Ioan MOHORA

Romanian

1949Bucharest

Eugenia CRNGARIU

Ground floor in villa and land Austrului St, Bucharest, sect 2

11 and 30.5.1999

Bucharest Tribunal

27.1.2004 Supreme Court

A. 77,700 EUR

(72,700+5,000)

B. 1,250 EUR

6

44130/04

19/11/2004

Dumitru UNGUREANU

Romanian

1931Mainz-Kostheim

Magdalena UNGUREANU

German

1938Mainz-Kostheim

Building and appurtenant land 433 sqm , 69-71 Barbu Văcărescu St., 2 ème arr., Bucharest

27.6.2001 Bucharest Court of Appeal

31.5.2004 Supreme Court

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

B. 2,500 EUR

7

9010/05

04/03/2005

Darius Martin MORGAN

Romanian

1930Miami

Cristian Constantin DRAGHICI

Building 149 sqm and appurtenant land 100 sqm in Pache Protopopescu 55 St, Bucharest

Supreme Court (ICCJ)

18.10.2004

Supreme Court (ICCJ)

18.10.2004

A. 765,000 EUR

(760,000 + 5,000)

B. 7,900 EUR

8

21094/05

02/06/2005

Viktor Ionel DRAGITSCH

German, Romanian

1929Kaufbeuren

Rodica DRAGITSCH

German, Romanian

1939Kaufbeuren

Valentina Violeta TOPOR VRBAN

House 142,62 sqm in Bd. Balcescu , sect 1, and appurtenant land, Bucharest

10.9.1998 by Bucharest First instance court

4.1.2005 Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. 127,000 EUR (122,000+5,000)

9

26636/05

21/06/2005

Mihail Dan LAZAR

German

1941Denzlingen

Adrian VASILIU

Flat 63 sqm , Bld. Camil Ressu 51 (former 113 Bld. Ion Sulea ), Bucharest

14.2. 2005 Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. 64,000 EUR (59,000+5,000)

B. 830 EUR

10

35749/05

02/09/2005

Șerban RIZESCU

Romanian

b: 1940

d: 2017

Bucharest

pursued by 2 heirs:

Irina ROSETTI

Romanian

1937Bucharest

Stan RIZESCU

Romanian

1935Bucharest

Flat B 4 th floor in immovable at 3bis J. Gutenberg St., Bucharest sect. 5

4.3. 2005 Court Cassation (former Supreme Court, ICCJ)

4.3. 2005,

Court of Cassation

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

11

9431/06

01/03/2006

Richard Viktor FOLGER

Romanian

1950Bindlach

Flat 43 sqm in building at 47 Brezoianu St, Bucharest

14.9.2005 Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. 175,000 EUR (170,000+5,000)

12

18694/06

04/05/2006

Constanţa PAP

Romanian

1956Bucharest

Daniela Sebastiana LIUÅžNEA

Romanian

b: 1951

d: 2006

Bucharest

pursued by 2 heirs:

Octav LIUÅžNEA

Romanian

1939Bucharest

Sebastian Marius LIUÅžNEA

Romanian

1979Bucharest

Apartments (nos. 2 and 5)

D. Cantemir St., s. 4, Bucharest

11.5.1999 Bucharest County Court

6.2.2006 and 7.12.2005 Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. 135,000 EUR (130,000+5,000)

B. 775 EUR

13

21670/06

17/05/2006

Elisabeta HEUMANN

Israeli

1927Petah Tikva

Adela KOMLOS

Israeli

b: 1923

d: 2011

Givatan

pursued by heir:

Julia WESTPHAL

Israeli

Tel Aviv

Ecaterina Maria DATCA

Apartment 137 sqm in villa, Crisan St, Cluj Napoca

1.2.2006 Cluj Court of Appeal

A. 135,000 EUR (130,000+5,000)

B. 1,000 EUR

14

30850/06

14/07/2006

Bernadette- Dorina BEILIC H

Italian , Romanian

1948Barlassina

Narcis Marcel DRAGOMIR

Apartment (no. 8), Ionescu Gion St,

sector 3, Bucharest

6.2. 2006,

Bucharest Court

of Appeal

6.2. 2006,

Bucharest Court

of Appeal

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

15

38965/06

21/09/2006

Aurel Ioan Åžtefan BLAGA

Romanian

Bucharest

2,094 sqm land, Calea Dorobanţilor 33, Cluj-Napoca

10.10.2005, Cluj Court of Appeal

A. 324,000 EUR

(319,000+5,000)

16

40750/06

28/09/2006

Lucia BECȘAN

Romanian, Medias

b : 1941

d : unknown date

Ovidiu BECȘAN

Romanian

1943MediaÈ™

Livius Ionel TELEA

Romanian

1936Sibiu

5 apartments (2,4, 6, 8 and 10) and apurtenant land and plot, Horea St, Medias

2.10.1996, MediaÅŸ First instance court

21.6.2006, Alba-Iulia Court of Appeal

A. 149,000 EUR (144,000+5,000)

B. 4,969 EUR

17

45880/06

02/11/2006

Maria ARÄ‚U

Romanian, American

1948Winettka

Apartment

59 sqm , aleea Hortensiilor , Constanţa

13.9.2006 Constanţa Court of Appeal

12.10. 2005 Constanţa Court of Appeal

A. 59,000 EUR

(54,000+5,000)

B. 2,000 EUR

18

926/07

21/09/2006

Friedrich Hans CLOOS

Romanian

1939Wemding

Erika Else PUSTEJOVSKY

German

1942Waakirchen

Eduard Jürgen PREDIGER

Apartment (no. 1), Nisipului St., BraÅŸov

25.4.2006 BraÅŸov County Court

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

19

8626/07

15/12/2006

Lucia TOLAN

German

b: 1922

d: 2017

Frankfurt am Main

pursued by heir:

Dan Lucian Mirel TOLAN

Romanian

1949Frankfurt am Main

Vasile ARHIRE

Apartment 188 sqm and 245 sqm appurtenant land, O. Goga St., Cluj-Napoca

21.6. 2006, Oradea Court of Appeal

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

B. 2,119 EUR costs

20

23950/07

05/06/2007

Nicolae Costel APOSTOL

Romanian

1959Stuttgart

Apartment 64 sqm , Bd. Mamaia , Constanţa

31.1.2007 Constanţa Court of Appeal

A. 88,000 EUR (83,000+5,000)

B. 2,000 EUR

21

29317/07

17/05/2007

Alexandru Vlad M ICODIN

French, Romanian

1952Emerainville

Apartment 98 sqm in villa, Negru Voda St, Eforie Sud

21.11.2006 Constanţa Court of Appeal

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

B. 1,700 EUR

22

36402/07

14/08/2007

Paul HAMSEA

German

1934Mannheim

Eduard Jürgen PREDIGER

Apartment 30 sqm in villa,

Petru Maior St.

Brașov

2.3.2007, Brașov Court of Appeal

2.3.2007, Brașov Court of

Appeal

35,000 EUR (30,000+5,000)

23

17444/08

23/12/2006

Silvia Maria Antonia GYULAY

German

1919Ludwigsburg

Adrian SCRIDON

Two- storey house (four apartments) and 731 sqm land, BraÅŸov St (former Mitropolit Metianu St.), TimiÅŸoara

23.6. 2006 TimiÅŸoara Court of Appeal

A. 312,600 EUR

(307,600+5,000)

B. 2,500 EUR

24

23261/08

30/04/2008

Anca Viorica COSTA-FORU

Romanian

b: 1928

d: 2011

Bucharest

pursued by heir:

Ioana NICOLAU

Romanian

1955Bucharest

Valentin Florian CONSTANTINOF

Property Nicolae Iorga St. 32, sector 1 Bucharest

19.10. 2007,

Bucharest Court

of Appeal

19.10. 2007,

Bucharest Court

of Appeal; further litigation pending, Court of Appeal decision 19.10.2018

A. 5,000 EUR non pecuniary

25

19115/09

01/04/2009

Niculae FIROIU

German

1939Dusseldorf

Doina Sabina Irina FIROIU

German

1943Dusseldorf

Elena STOIAN lawyer

Apartment, Brașov St 15,

Bucharest

6.10. 2008 Bucharest Court of Appeal

A. 52,100 EUR (47,100+5,000)

B. 2,500 EU R

26

30337/10

17/05/2010

Taşu TAȘU

Romanian

1935Van Noord

Zoița TAȘU

Romanian

1936Van Noord

Florin GHEORG HE

House and 110 sqm land

Principatele Unite St., Bucharest

19.11.2009,

High Court of

Cassation and

Justice

19.11.2009,

High Court of

Cassation and

Justice

A. 170,000 EUR (165,000+5,000)

27

29054/11

14/04/2011

Alexandru GOÈšIA

Romanian

1974BuziaÈ™

Eda-Ioana KURZ

German, Romanian

1975Ramsau

Ioan LAZÄ‚R , lawyer

Historical property, protected building (15 apartments, land and outbuildings)

bd. 3 August 11, Timișoara

14.10. 2010,

Alba Iulia Court

of Appeal

14.10. 2010,

Alba Iulia Court

of Appeal

A. 705,000 EUR (700,000+5,000)

28

35373/12

25/05/2012

Emilian C-tin Anin MARINESCU

Romanian

1970Château-Landon

Marius TAMAÅž and

Virginia BEREZEANU lawyers

Apartment Armenească St. 4, Bucharest

21.9.2009,

Bucharest Court

of Appeal

26.1.2012, Bucharest County Court

A. 42,000 EUR pecuniary damage

29

17357/15

02/04/2015

Rolf WINTER

German, Romanian

1944Seeshaupt

Oliviu Mihail MORAR

Building (apartment and two commercial offices) Ilarie Chendi St.,

SighiÅŸoara

2.12. 2008 Targu-MureÅŸ Court of Appeal

3.10.2014 Court of Cassation (ICCJ)

A. 125,000 EUR (120,000+5,000)

B. 2,500 EUR

[1] Rectified on 20 October 2020: “ 116,000 EUR ” has been replaced by “115,000 EUR”

Menu

CASE OF NISTOR AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

CASE OF NISTOR AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

LEXI