Communicated on 14 June 2018

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 26485/11 Luis- Coreolan SEVASTRE against Romania lodged on 22 April 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Luis- Coreolan Sevastre , is a Romanian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Drăgănești .

The circumstances of the case

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

1. The selling at auction of the plot of land

In March 2004 the Tecuci District Council (“the Council”) decided to hold an auction to sell a plot of land of 17,500 square metres. The applicant was designated as being the winner of the bid.

A record of the auction was issued on 28 May 2004.

On 10 June 2004 the Council and the applicant signed the land purchase contract. The mayor of Tecuci and an executive director signed the contract on behalf of the Council.

2. Proceedings to annul the auction and the land purchase contract

Four years later, the Council reconsidered their decision to sell the plot of land to the applicant, claiming that the auction had not been organised in accordance with the applicable legal provisions.

Consequently, on 7 August 2008 the Council brought civil proceedings against the applicant, seeking the annulment of the auction report drawn up on 28 May 2004 and the land purchase contract of 10 June 2004. It contended that the price paid by the applicant had been lower that the land ’ s value, and that the auction procedure had not complied with the law.

The applicant lodged a counterclaim, arguing that the Council could not rely on its own guilt to obtain the annulment of the land purchase contract. Moreover, he had paid the price for the land and had already made significant investments to transform a rubbish dump unconnected to any road (which was what the land had been in 2004) into a sports entertainment centre. As regards the Council ’ s claims concerning the price of the land, he maintained that the price had been established by both parties to the agreement and had reflected the value of the land at the relevant time in the absence of any investment. Moreover, the area of the land was 17,500 square metres and not 3,000 square metres as the Council claimed. The price and area of the land were stated in the purchase contract and had been registered in the Land Register at the Council ’ s request. The Council ’ s representatives had drawn up the auction report and noted another price and area; moreover, this error had been corrected by the Council immediately after the auction. The applicant further submitted that the Council ’ s allegation that the legal requirements for organising the auction had not been respected was untrue. In this respect, he argued that the announcement of the auction had been published in two local newspapers.

On 15 October 2008 the Tecuci District Court allowed the Council ’ s claims. It found that officials of the Council had breached the laws and applicable local regulations when concluding the purchase land contract, and therefore it declared that contract null and void. The court found that the two decisions made by the Council on 27 and 31 March 2004 respectively had only set out the general terms and conditions of the auction, while another decision containing the specific terms of the sale of the land to the applicant had never been issued. The court also noted that there was a discrepancy in relation to the price and area of the land stated in the auction report and the land purchase contract.

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, arguing that if there had been any mistakes when concluding the land purchase contract, they had been committed by officials of the Council, and it was unfair to compel him to bear the burden of those mistakes after such a long period of time.

On 20 May 2009 the Gala ţ i County Court allowed the applicant ’ s appeal, set aside the judgment of 15 October 2009, and remitted the case to the Tecuci District Court for a fresh assessment on the merits. It noted that there were discrepancies in relation to the sale price and the area of the land in the auction report and the purchase contract that needed further clarification. It also ordered the lower court to clarify whether the legal requirements for the sale of the land at auction had been met.

On 28 October 2009 the applicant submitted written notes to the district court. He claimed that, at the request of the Council, he had been registered in the Land Registry as the owner of 17,500 square metres. He had used that area and paid taxes for it for four years. The applicant also pointed out that the evaluation report on the land, ordered by the Council and approved by the mayor, stated that the price paid by him, was reasonable, given the situation of the land (the fact that it was a rubbish dump and unconnected to any road).

On 25 November 2009 the Tecuci District Court re ‑ examined the Council ’ s claims and dismissed them. The court noted that, although the Council had claimed that the auction had not been made public by announcements in the newspapers, there was evidence in the case file that this requirement had been observed. The court also noted that the plot of land had been the private property of the State and that the auction had been organised on the basis of two Council decisions. Moreover, the Council could not rely on its own guilt. The fact that the auction report contained a material error concerning the area of the land could not lead to the annulment of the purchase agreement. The error had been corrected by the Council, and as long as there was no criminal investigation for forgery against the officials who had corrected the error, the court considered that the deed was valid.

The Council and the applicant lodged appeals against that judgment. The applicant asked to be compensated for the lack of use of the land during the proceedings.

On 15 October 2010 the Gala ţ i County Court allowed both appeals. It allowed the Council ’ s claims in part and noted the partial nullity of the auction report and the purchase agreement for an area o f land exceeding 1,000 square metres. It also ordered the Council to conclude a land purchase contract with the applicant for that area. Additionally, it ordered the Council to pay the applicant RON 5,777 (the equivalent of 1,375 euros) , an amount representing the damage caused to him in relation to the lack of use of the land between 8 May 2008 and 16 April 2010.

The county court noted that only the Council should be held liable for not respecting the legal requirements concerning the auction. Moreover, it considered that a major error had been committed in connection with the area of the land and the price of the sale, and therefore the land purchase contract should only remain valid in relation to 1,000 square metres for which the applicant had paid the price.

Both the applicant and the Council lodged appeals on points of law. The Council contended that the district court had wrongly ordered it to pay damages to the applicant, as the applicant had had possession of the land during the proceedings and had not proved that he had sustained any damage.

On 14 March 2011 the Galati Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal as unfounded. It allowed the appeal lodged by the Council and accordingly dismissed the applicant ’ s counterclaim.

3. Criminal investigation against members of the auction commission

On 5 November 2008 a criminal investigation was started against three members of the auction commission in connection with offences of abuse of office and intellectual forgery. On 28 April 2009 a criminal investigation was also started against the head of the Legal Department of the Tecuci City Hall for negligence ( neglijen ţ a î n serviciu ), as she had not reviewed the legality of the land purchase contract concluded with the applicant.

A technical report was ordered by the Fraud Investigation Department of the Tecuci Police Office. Its main objective was to establish the value of the land measuring 17,500 square metres at the time the applicant had acquired it in January 2004. The report produced in November 2009 stated that the value of the land had been RON 138,741,965 (RON 7,928 per square metre), given that the land had had no access to any public road and had lacked any facilities. The report also noted that the applicant had paid RON 154,535,000 for the land .

On 15 December 2009 the prosecutor ’ s office attached to the Tecuci District Court discontinued the criminal investigation. It noted, among other things, that the price of the land sold at auction had been established by an expert at the request of the Tecuci Town Hall. Noting also the conclusions of the technical report ordered in November 2009, the prosecutor concluded that the Council had not sustained any damage by selling the land at that price. It also concluded that Council officials had not forged the purchase agreement, as it reflected the correct value and area of the land.

COMPLAINT

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains that the annulment of the land purchase contract in the absence of compelling reasons was in violation of his right to protection of property. He points out that he did not violate any legal norms when purchasing the plot of land. He also complains that the annulment of his property rights in the absence of any compensation four years after he had become the owner of the land and had made significant investments in respect of it was disproportionate.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, did that interference comply w ith the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of the Convention? Did such interference serve a legitimate public interest? Was the interference reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be realized, or did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93 , § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?