THIRD SECTION

Application no. 3014/12 Gabriela LÄ‚ZÄ‚RESCU against Romania lodged on 23 November 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant , Ms Gabriela Lăzărescu , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1930 and lives in Bucharest.

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

On 12 September 2007 the applicant was returned and given possession of approximately 21 ha of nationalized land . Approximately 19 ha of the said land had been occupied since the 1970 ’ s by removable buildings, outdoor deposits, a football pitch, transport vehicles and waist belonging to a State owned mining company (“the mining company”) operating in the area.

On 30 November 2007 the applicant asked the mining company to remove its possessions from her land. Alternatively, she asked the mining company to pay her rent for using the said land.

On an unspecified date in 2010 the applicant brought proceedings against the mining company asking for compensation for her inability to use her land from September 2007 to January 2008. In her submissions before the domestic courts she stated inter alia that her request for compensation did not concern compensation for losses incurred from her inability to cultivate the land as the said land could not be used for agriculture anymore. Also, she submitted a copy of the notification sent to the mining company asking it to pay rent for the use of her land.

By a judgment of 30 Novem ber 2010 the Târgu-Jiu District Court allowed the applicant ’ s action. It held that according to the available evidence the land in question could not be used for agriculture anymore, but only for industrial activity. Therefore the applicant could claim compensation only for a loss of rent. According to the available expert report the mining company was occupying a large part of the applicant ’ s land and for the four months in questio n the applicant was due 137,826 lei (approximately 34,000 euros (EUR)) considering the prices of the renting contracts signed in the area. The mining company appealed against the judgment.

By a judgment of 23 February 2011 the Gorj County Court allowed the mining company ’ s appeal and dismissed the applicant ’ s action. It held that allowing the applicant ’ s action would amount to forcing the parties to conclude a renting contract with a rent settled by the court and not by the parties ’ own will. The applicant appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment.

By a final judgment of 31 May 2011 the Craiova Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law. It held that the applicant could not prove that she had incurred damage as she could not have cultivated the land for more than a month because of the winter months. In respect of the claimed rent, the applicant should have notified the mining company given that she had failed to challenge the documents which had given the mining company the right to use the land. The fact that the parties had not concluded a rental contract with a set price, could not force the court to order them to do so without overstepping their will.

COMPLAINTS

1. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains of the unfairness of the proceedings in so far as the appellate courts failed to properly examine all her arguments and submissions.

2. Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicant complains that the decision of the appellate courts breached her property rights in so far as it denied her right to be compensated for the inability to use her property.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

In particular, did the domestic courts conduct a proper examination of the arguments and evidence raised by her?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to peaceful enjoyment of her possession within the meani ng of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the fact that the domestic courts dismissed her action seeking compensation for the inability to use her land?

If so, was that interference in compliance with th e conditions set out in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as interpreted in the Court ’ s jurisprudence?