THIRD SECTION

Application no. 45234/08 Mircea BRZĂ and others against Romania lodged on 4 September 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Mr Mircea Bârză , Mr Ştefan Necșuleu , Ms Marcela Felicia Necș uleu , Mr Ioan Voicu , Ms M aria Voicu , Mr Viorel Zudor , Ms Livia Zudor , Mr Cornel Opriț a , Mr I oan Muntean , Ms Ana Muntean , Mr Ioan Șeican , Ms Victoria Ș eican , Ms Maria Voic , Ms Mariana Voic and Ms Ioana Voic , are all Romanian national s , who were born in 1950, 1951, 1954, 1930, 1937, 1952, 1954, 1949, 1928, 1928, 1949, 1951, 1928, 1953 and 1953, respectively, and live in Alba Iulia. They are represented before the Court by Mr Emil Antoniu Popescu , a lawyer practic ing in Alba Iulia.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

By Government Decision no. 974/2002 concerning the confirmation of the public property owned by Alba County the street the applicants ’ houses were located on, which had been built by them on their private properties, was transferred to the public domain owned by Alba County.

On 8 May 2007 the applicants opened administrative proceedings against the Romanian Government, the Romanian Ministry for Internal Affairs and the A lba Iulia Local Council seeking the annulment of the Government Decision no. 974/2002.

By a ju dgment of 13 July 2007 the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants ’ action as time-barred. It held that the applicants became aware of the decision in question on 10 March 2004. The decision was a unilateral administrative act with individual character and therefore any proceedings to contest it were subject to the statutory time-limit provided by Article 11(5) of Law no. 554/2004 on actions before administrative courts. The applicants appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment. They argued inter alia that the decision in question was issued on the basis of Article 108 of the Romanian Constituti on and Article 21(3) of Law no. 213/1993 on public property. Consequently, it had a normative character and therefore according to Article 11(4) of Law no. 554/2004 it was imprescriptible. Furthermore, they contended and submitted proof that by its judgment no. 1511 of 2 May 2005 the Court of Cassation had already decided that an identical decision issued with regard to the private property belonging to other third parties had a normative character and was therefore imprescriptible.

By a final judgment of 7 March 2008 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants ’ appeal on points of law by reiterating the arguments of the lower court. In addition, without any further arguments, it dismissed the applicants ’ argument that the decision in question was a normative act on the ground that they failed to provide reasons and to substantiate their submission.

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 11(2), (3), (4) and (5) of Law no. 554/2004 on actions before administrative courts provides that normative administrative acts may be challenged anytime, while unilateral administrative acts may be challenged within a year from the date they were notified.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings opened by them against the Government Decision no. 974/2002 had been unfair inso far as the domestic courts failed to examine the merits of the case and all their arguments and submissions.

2. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the decision of the domestic courts br eached their property rights inso far as Government Decision no. 974/2002 amounted to a nationalization of their property.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in so far as the domestic courts failed to conduct a proper examination of the arguments and evidence raised by them before the administrative courts?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the fact that the domestic courts dismissed the proceedings lodged by them as time-barred and without properly examining the arguments submitted by them?

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