THIRD SECTION

Application no. 54950/07 Ioan PÄ‚TRÃŽNJEI

against Romania lodged on 21 November 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ioan Pătrînjei , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1947 and lives in Timişoara .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 26 November 1990 the applicant was the employee of a State owned company and he was leasing one of the apartments located in a building constructed by the State owned company for its employees.

On 15 September 1994 Law no. 85/1992 on homes built by the State and State owned companies entered into force. Article 7 of the said law allowed tenants, living in apartments located in buildings that had already been build by State owned companies for housing their employees by the time the law entered into force, to buy the apartments they were leaving in upon request.

Between 2 October 2002 and 2004 the applicant requested repeatedly the State owned company he was leasing the apartment from to sell the said apartment to him. His requests remained unanswered or the State owned company informed him that following a decision of the company ’ s board the main purpose of the building his apartment was located in was not to house employees anymore and therefore did not fall under the provisions of Article 7 of Law no. 85/1992.

On 29 July 2004 the applicant lodged proceedings against the State owned company before the domestic courts seeking an injunction ordering the company to sell the apartment he was leasing.

By a judgment of 20 September 2005 the Timişoara District Court allowed the applicant ’ s action and ordered the State owned company to sell him the apartment. It held that the decision of the State owned company ’ s board to change the main purpose of the building the apartment was located in did not apply to the applicant ’ s case as he had already leased the apartment at the time the board ’ s decision was taken. In addition he had expressed his desire to buy it and therefore he fulfilled the lawfully required conditions to purchase the apartment. The State owned company appealed against the judgment.

By a judgment of 10 November 2006 the Timiş County Court dismissed the State Company ’ s appeal as ill-founded and upheld the judgment of 20 September 2005. The State owned company appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment.

By a final judgment of 21 May 2007 the Timişoara Court of Appeal allowed the State owned company ’ s appeal on points of law. It acknowledged that the applicant fulfilled the lawfully required conditions for buying the apartment. However, it held that he could lodge a request with the State owned company for purchasing the apartment and the parties could conclude the sale contract if his request was approved .

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 7 of Law no. 85/1992 on homes built by the State and by State owned companies provides that the homes built by the State owned companies by the time the law entered into force will be sold to the holders of the lease contracts upon their request.

Article 8 of Law no. 85/1992 provides that the unfinished homes that had not been assigned by the time the law entered into force can be sold following the approval of the legal persons owning them.

COMPLAINTS

1. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains of a breach of his right of access to court is so far as the Timişoara Court of Appeal refused to examine the substance of his action concerning the purchase of the apartment.

2. Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicant complains that the decision of the TimiÅŸoara Court of Appeal breached his property rights in so far as it denied his right acknowledged by the domestic legislation to buy the apartment he was leasing .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the failure of the Timişoara Court of Appeal to examine the substance of the applicant ’ s action compatible with his right of access to court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have a “legitimate expectation” of obtaining the effective enjoyment of a property right over the apartment he was leasing from the State owned company?

3. If so, h as there been an interference with the applicants ’ right to peaceful enjoy ment of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 t o the C onvention on account of the fact that the Timişoara Court of Appeal dismissed the proceedings lodged by him without examining its substance ?

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