Published on 25 July 2022

FOURTH SECTION

Applications nos. 13650/15 and 57886/17 RAIFFEISEN BANK S.A. against Romania and BRD - GROUPE SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE S.A. against Romania lodged on 16 March 2015 and 3 August 2017 respectively communicated on 8 July 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern the seizure - in criminal proceedings against third parties – of immovable assets held by the applicant banks as guarantee for loans granted to the third parties in question.

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicant banks complain of a breach of their right to property over the seized assets without any compensation.

Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant banks also complain of a breach of the right of access to court in the absence of any procedural guarantees and legal avenues to effectively challenge the measures in question.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Can the applicant banks be said to have exhausted domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? What remedies were or are still open to the applicant banks and would these remedies be effective? The parties are invited to provide any relevant jurisprudence in this regard.

2. Did the applicant banks have a “possession” in respect of the assets held by them as guarantee for loans granted to third parties, for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

3. In the light of the answer to question 2, has there been an interference with the applicant banks’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

If so, was that interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest?

Furthermore, bearing in mind the procedural obligations contained in the above-mentioned provision, and the State’s obligation to ensure in its domestic legal order that the right to property is sufficiently protected by law and that adequate remedies enable the victims of an infringement in this respect to assert their rights (see, mutatis mutandis , Credit Europe Leasing Ifn S.A. v. Romania , no. 38072/11, § 78, 21 July 2020), did the applicant banks have a reasonable opportunity to present their cause to the competent authorities in order to effectively challenge the measures infringing their right of property?