The right to property of citizens after the fall of the Communist regime in Romania
JUDGMENT
Dickmann and Gion v. Romania 24-10-2017 (no. 10346/03 and 10893/04)
SUMMARY
Mechanism for restoring assets after the fall of the communist regime. Ineffectiveness of procedures under the legislation on reimbursement or compensation for legal heirs. Infringement of property protection.
PROVISION
Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant in the first case was Dora Dickmann, an Israeli and Romanian national, who was born in 1932 and died in 2003. The proceedings have been continued by her husband, Jean Dickmann, who lives in Tel Aviv (Israel). The applicants in the second case were Mariana Gion, a Romanian and German national, born in 1943 and living in Essen, Germany, and her husband Helmut-Ion Gion, a German national, who was born in 1941 and died in 2004. The proceedings have been continued by his heirs, Mariana Gion and Nicolette Monica Gion.
The case concerned various proceedings based on the legislation on property restitution enacted in Romania after the fall of the communist regime and the applicants’ complaints of the inefficiency of the restitution mechanism. They alleged that although their title to property which had belonged to their predecessors before it had been nationalised under the communist regime – buildings and appurtenant land – was acknowledged by the Romanian courts, they had been prevented from enjoying their respective right owing to the sale of the property by the State.
Ms Dickmann’s claim for restitution of a building and its appurtenant land in Bucharest, which had belonged to her predecessors, was allowed by a Bucharest district court in June 1997. As there was no appeal it became final. Since the flats in the building had been sold to the tenants by a Stateowned company responsible for the management of property belonging to the State, in 1996 and 1997 respectively, Ms Dickmann lodged two civil actions in 2000, seeking the rescission of the sales contracts. Her claims were dismissed and no decision was taken regarding her parallel claim seeking compensatory measures.
A claim lodged by the applicants in the second case, seeking reparatory measures in respect of a flat in Piteşti which was their property and had been seized by the State in 1977 after the applicants’ decision to leave the country, was dismissed in May 1997 as the flat had in the meantime been sold to its tenants. The applicants’ subsequent claims seeking to recover possession of the flat were allowed in May 2000. However, the tenants challenged the enforcement of that judgment and the Court of Appeal eventually found, by a final judgment of June 2003, that the judgment of May 2000 awarding the applicants title to the property was unenforceable against the tenants. In a separate set of proceedings against the tenants the applicants again sought to recover possession of the flat. Initially the courts found for them, but eventually the county court allowed an appeal by the tenants and found that the sale of the flat had been lawful. At the same time held that the applicants were entitled to compensation.
The applicants complained in particular that their inability to obtain restitution of their properties or to secure compensation had been in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Just satisfaction: – to Jean Dickmann: 96,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses; – to Mariana Gion and Nicolette Monica Gion: EUR 60,000 EUR jointly for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage, and EUR 5,000 jointly for costs and expenses(echrcaselaw.com editing).
