European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

FOURTH SECTION

 

 

 

CASE OF KOMAROMI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Applications nos. 30075/03 and 23 others - see appended list)

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

29 September 2020

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Komaromi and Others v. Romania,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Branko Lubarda, President,
          Carlo Ranzoni,
          Péter Paczolay, judges,
and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table below;

the decision to give notice of the applications to the Romanian Government (“the Government”);

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 8 September 2020,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

INTRODUCTION

1.  The cases concern the inability of the applicants to recover possession of their properties which had been unlawfully nationalised under the former communist regime and had been sold by the State to third parties.

THE FACTS

2.  The list of the applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

3.  The Government were represented by their Agent, most recently Mrs Oana Florentina Ezer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

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

5.  The factual and legal circumstances set out in the current applications are similar to those pertaining to the applicants in the case of Străin and Others v. Romania (no. 57001/00, §§ 5-18, ECHR 2005-VII), to the applicants Ms and Mr Rodan in the case of Preda and Others v. Romania (nos. 9584/02 and 7 others, §§ 35-41, 29 April 2014) and to the applicants in the case of Ana Ionescu and Others v. Romania (19788/03, §§ 6-7, 26 February 2019).

6.  In short, the applicants have obtained final court decisions finding that the nationalisation by the former communist regime of their properties had been unlawful and that they had never ceased to be the legitimate owners of those properties. Despite the fact that their title deeds were not disputed, the applicants were not able to recover possession of their properties, as the latter had either already been sold or were sold by the State to third parties. The applicants did not receive compensation for those properties.

RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK

7.  The relevant background domestic law and practice in relation to acknowledged unlawfully nationalised properties sold by the State to third parties have been summarised in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Brumărescu v. Romania [GC] (no. 28342/95, §§ 34-35, ECHR 1999-VII); Străin and Others (cited above, §§ 19-23); Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania (nos. 30767/05 et 33800/06, §§ 44 et seq., 12 October 2010); Preda and Others (cited above, §§ 68-74); and Dickmann and Gion v. Romania (nos. 10346/03 and 10893/04, §§ 52-58, 24 October 2017).

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

8.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II. LOCUS STANDI

9.  The heirs of some of the applicants informed the Court of those applicants’ deaths and, as their close relatives, expressed the intention to pursue the application in their stead. The Government did not object to this. Having regard to the close family ties and the heirs’ legitimate interest in pursuing the applications, the Court accepts that the deceased applicants’ heirs may pursue the applications in their stead (see Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, §101, ECHR 2013 and Preda and Others, cited above, § 75, 29 April 2014). It will therefore continue to deal with these applications at the heirs’ request (see the appended table for details).

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 of Protocol no. 1 to THE CONVENTION

10.  The applicants complained that their inability to recover possession of their unlawfully nationalised properties or to secure compensation, despite court decisions acknowledging their property rights, amounted to a breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads as follows:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

A.    Admissibility

1.    Application nos. 24256/07 and 29972/07

11.  At various dates after notice of the above-mentioned applications had been given to the Government, the parties informed the Court that the claimed property had been partly returned to the applicants.

12.  In that connection, the applicants submitted that they intended to pursue their claims relating to the loss of profit and benefit, and/or those relating to the parts of the property in respect of which they continued to be unable to recover possession or to be appropriately compensated for.

13.  The Court reiterates that, under Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, it may “... at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that ... the matter has been resolved ...”.

14.  The Court takes note of the parties’ submissions and finds that as it appears from the case file, the applicants have recovered full possession of parts of the claimed property in respect of which their entitlement was acknowledged. In particular, in application no. 24256/07, the apartment no. 8 of the property identified in the appended table and 567 sqm of land were returned to the applicants in 2013; and in application no. 29972/07, the applicant’s claims concerning 178,29 sqm of land were resolved in 2007.

15.  The Court therefore considers that the matter giving rise to the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the above-mentioned properties has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention (see the principles set out, among others, in Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 97, ECHR 2007‑I) and that respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, does not require it to continue the examination of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine. Accordingly, in so far as the applicants’ complaints relate to the properties mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the above-mentioned cases should be struck out of the list.

2.    All applications, including the remainder of applications nos. 24256/07 and 29972/07

16.  The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies and/or that they could not claim to have a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, their complaints being therefore incompatible rationae materiae.

17.  The applicants contested these arguments and submitted that the compensation mechanism put in place by the domestic legislation was not effective.

18.  The Court reiterates that it has already considered at length and rejected the same objections concerning the alleged inapplicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to situations identical to those in the current case (see Strain and Others v. Romania, no. 57001/00, §§ 30, 31 and 38, ECHR 2005-VII).

19.  It has further considered and repeatedly rejected the Government’s submissions as to the alleged effectiveness of the restitution laws, including Law no. 10/2001 and Law no. 165/2013, in cases where there are concurrent valid title deeds (see Strain and Others, cited above, §§ 54-56, Preda and Others, cited above, §§ 133 and 141, Dickmann and Gion, cited above, §§ 72 and 78, and Ana Ionescu and Others v. Romania, nos. 19788/03 and 18 others, § 23, 26 February 2019).

20.  It finds that in the instant case the Government have not put forward any new fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility of these complaints. The Government’s objection in this regard must therefore be rejected.

21.  The Court further notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

B.     Merits

22.  The applicants argued that the inability to date to recover possession of their properties or to receive compensation if recovery of possession were not to be possible was in breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

23.  The Government reiterated their objection to admissibility and submitted that the applicants should have pursued the procedures set out in the restitution laws, including Law no. 165/2013.

24.  The Court notes that, just like the applicants in the case of Strain and Others, cited above, and also like Ms and Mr Rodan in the case of Preda and Others, cited above, the applicants in the present case had obtained final decisions acknowledging with retroactive effect the unlawfulness of the seizure of their property by the State and their legitimate ownership over those properties. These decisions have not been challenged or quashed to date. The applicants have not been able, to date, either to recover possession of the properties mentioned in the appended table or to obtain compensation for this deprivation.

25.  The Court reiterates that in the case of Preda and Others it found that the applicants’ inability to recover possession of their properties despite final court decisions retroactively acknowledging their property rights constituted a deprivation of their possessions within the meaning of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that such a deprivation, combined with a total lack of compensation, imposed on the applicants a disproportionate and excessive burden in breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Preda and Others, cited above, §§ 146, 148‑49).

It reiterated its above findings in the similar case of Dickmann and Gion (cited above, §§ 103-04) and in the more recent case of Ana Ionescu and Others (cited above, §§ 23, 28-30).

The Court further finds that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.

26.  The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

27.  The applicants in applications nos. 18052/04, 25079/04, 28575/04, 26898/05, 39133/05, 9701/06, 32430/06, 1046/07 and 23969/08 also raised various complaints under Article 6 of the Convention, which the Court has carefully examined. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

28.  It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

29.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

30.  The applicants submitted claims for just satisfaction on various dates between 2006 and 2018. At the Court’s request, the older claims have been updated between 2015 and 2019.

31.  The Government made comments in reply to the applicants’ original and updated claims for just satisfaction.

32.  In support of their claims and submissions in respect of pecuniary damage the applicants and the Government submitted one or more of the following:

(a)   expert reports prepared by registered experts, either at the Ministry of Justice or members of the National Association of Valuers (ANEVAR), which is an association recognised by the Romanian Government as an association of public interest. The expert reports estimated the market value of the claimed properties after visiting them (applicants’ experts), using criteria defined by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 9/2008, which fixes the rent for State properties, the standards and recommendations determined by the National Association of Valuers (ANEVAR), and the International Valuation Standards (IVS). The Government’s experts did not visit the properties.

(b)  administrative decisions pursuant to Law no. 165/2013 awarding compensation calculated according to the criteria established by the said Law or estimated values calculated by the competent administrative bodies (see section 41 of Law no. 165/2013, Preda and Others, cited above, § 70).

(c)   copies of sale contracts indicating the price per square metre for neighbouring properties.

A.    Pecuniary damage

33.  As the Court has held on a number of occasions, a judgment in which the Court finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to the breach and make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96 § 32, ECHR 2000-XI, and Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00, § 90, 22 December 2009).

34.  The Court considers, in the circumstances of the case, that the return of the properties in issue would put the applicants as far as possible in a situation equivalent to the one in which they would have been if there had not been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

35.  Failing such restitution by the respondent State, the Court holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, in respect of pecuniary damage, an amount corresponding to the current value of their properties, as requested (see Preda and Others, cited above, § 163).

36.  As regards the amount of money claimed in respect of loss of profit or benefit from the applicants’ possessions, the Court rejects this claim. To award a sum of money on this basis would be a speculative process, given that profit derived from possession of property depends on several factors (see Buzatu v. Romania (just satisfaction), no. 34642/97, § 18, 27 January 2005, and Preda and Others, cited above, § 164).

37.  The Court notes the disparity between some of the applicants’ estimates of the value of their properties and those advanced by the Government.

Having regard to the information at its disposal concerning real estate prices on the local market, including the documents submitted by the parties, and to its established case-law in respect of similar cases (see Maria Atanasiu and Others, cited above, § 253; Preda and Others, cited above, § 164; and Dickmann and Gion, cited above, §§ 113-18), the Court considers it reasonable and equitable, as required by Article 41, to award the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of pecuniary damage.

B.     Non-pecuniary damage

38.  The Court considers that the serious interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions cannot be adequately compensated for by the simple finding of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Making an assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

C.    Costs and expenses

39.  Some applicants have either not submitted any claims for costs and expenses or have failed to substantiate them. Accordingly, the Court finds no reason to award them any sum on that account (see appended table).

40.  As concerns the claims submitted by the remaining applicants, regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table covering costs under all heads.

D.    Default interest

41.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Holds that the heirs of the applicants who have expressed the wish to pursue the proceeding in place of the late applicants have standing to do so (see appendix);

2.      Decides to join the applications;

3.      Decides to strike out application nos. 24256/07 and 29972/07 in so far as they concern complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 relating to the properties mentioned in paragraph 14 of the present judgment;

4.      Declares the applications admissible in respect of the remaining complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

5.      Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;

6.      Holds

(a)   that the respondent State is to return to the applicants their properties within three months;

(b)  that, failing such restitution, the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within the same three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;

(c)   that, in any event, the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within the same three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses;

(d)  that the aforementioned amounts shalt be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(e)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

7.      Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 September 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

    Ilse Freiwirth                                                                     Branko Lubarda
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President

APPENDIX
List of applications

 

No.	Application no. date of lodging	Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality	Represented by	Identification of property	Domestic decision acknowledging the applicants’ title to property	Domestic decision confirming the validity of the third parties’ title to property	Amounts awarded for   A. pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage/application   B. costs and expenses/application   in euros (EUR)
1.	30075/03 28/08/2003	Krisztina Gracianna KOMAROMI 1972 Târgu Mureș Romanian   Csilla Gabriella NAGY 1965 Cluj Napoca Romanian	Meta Maria MAGOS	Apartment no. 3, Cuza Voda str. no. 53, Târgu Mureș	21/04/1999 Târgu Mureș District Court	04/03/2003 Târgu Mureș Court of Appeal	A. 45,000 EUR (40,000 + 5,000)   B. 4,000 EUR
2.	18052/04 22/03/2004	Paraschiva BONDAR 1945 Tinca Romanian	Vlad-Ionuț CIGAN	Apartments nos. 1 and 3 of Roman Ciorogariu str. no. 64, Oradea   Apartments nos. 7 and 8 of M. Eminescu str. no. 53, Oradea	3/10/2003 Oradea Court of Appeal       13/10/2003 Oradea Court of Appeal	3/10/2003 Oradea Court of Appeal   13/10/2003 Oradea Court of Appeal	A. 275,000 EUR (270,000 + 5,000)   B. 1,827 EUR
3.	25079/04 17/05/2004	Jean Constantin DESTEXHE b:1940, d:2011 pursued by heirs: Christiane Georgette Colette BREULET 1951 Belgian   Pascale Yvette Carine DESTEXHE 1972 Belgian   Cristophe Nicholas Michel DESTEXHE 1968 Belgian   Jana Monica DESTEXHE 1939 Woluwe Belgian   Marie Madeleine DESTEXHE 1949 Brussels Belgian   Frederique Jeanne DESTEXHE 1969 Woluwe Belgian	Silviu Christian ENE	Villa Destexhe of 201.4 sqm and 10,602.3 sqm of land in Afumaţi, Şoseaua Ştefăneşti no. 1450	8/12/2003 High Court of Cassation and Justice	8/12/2003 High Court of Cassation and Justice	A. 590,000 EUR (585,000 + 5,000)   B. -
4.	28575/04 27/07/2004	Constanta - Madelene RAŢIU b:1922, d:2008   Pursued by heirs Christian Arthur RATIU Leverkusen Germany   Serban Valentin RATIU Monchengladbach Germany	Valentin ŞERBĂNESCU	Apartment no. 1, Temişana str. no. 36, building B, Bucharest	16/03/2000 Bucharest County Court	30/06/2003 Bucharest Court of Appeal	A. 90,000 EUR (85,000 + 5,000)   B. 250 EUR
5.	10503/05 11/03/2005	Balint JANKOVICS Tapolca Hungarian   Tibor Laszlo JANKOVICS Keszthely Hungarian   Peter JANKOVICS Zalaegerszeg Hungarian   Bencze Bela JANKOVICS Keszthely Hungarian   Juliana Zsuzsanna JANKOVICS Budapest Hungarian   Dorottya PAPP Torokbalint Hungarian   Maria Magdolna SCHMIDT b:1931; d: 2016   pursued by heir Gabor Zsolt Pataki 1967 Torokbalint Hungarian	Arpad Ștefan KOLOSZI	Apartments nos. 4, 5, 9 and 10 on Armata Română str. no. 18, Oradea	9/05/2001 Oradea Court of Appeal	22/09/2004 Oradea Court of Appeal	A. 200,000 EUR (200,000)   B. -
6.	21380/05 24/05/2005	Lucia RUSU 1946 Indianapolis US citizen   Laura RUSU 1975 Indianapolis US citizen   Ian Laurean RUSSO 1970 Indianapolis US citizen	Ovidiu Laurenţiu PODARU	Apartment no. 5, Dimitrie Cantemir str. no. 3A, Cluj-Napoca	24/11/2004 Cluj Court of Appeal	24/11/2004 Cluj Court of Appeal	A. 175,000 EUR (170,000 + 5,000)   B. 492.17 EUR
7.	26898/05 17/06/2005	Tiberiu Corneliu Ioan CERTEJAN 1941 Petit Lancy, Switzerland Romanian   Dorin Gheorghe CERTEJAN 1947 Bucharest Romanian	Mugur Cristian VASILE	Apartment (Villa) no. 2, Lucian Blaga str. no. 22, Deva	11/02/2005 Alba- Iulia Court of Appeal	11/02/2005 Alba-Iulia Court of Appeal	A. 55,000 EUR (50,000 + 5,000)   B. 3,500 EUR
8.	39133/05 21/10/2005	Alisa GHIMPA 1925 Bucharest Romanian   Mihail-Dimitrie GHIMPA 1955 Bucharest Romanian		Ground floor apartment no. 1, Alexandru Donici str. no. 35, Bucharest	4/05/2005 Bucharest Court of Appeal	4/05/2005 Bucharest Court of Appeal	A. 50,000 EUR (45,000 + 5,000)   B. 4,000 EUR
9.	9701/06 07/03/2006	Mircea Lorin IRIMIA 1948 Bucharest Romanian		Apartment no. 2, Paul Ionescu str. no. 15, Bucharest	17/09/1997 Bucharest District Court	15/09/2005 Bucharest Court of Appeal	A. 80,000 EUR (75,000 + 5,000)   B. -
10.	18756/06 02/05/2006	Steliana BOGDAN 1936 Bucharest Romanian	Angelica OLOVINAR	Cântării str. no. 4, Bucharest	9/04/2002 Bucharest Court of Appeal	29/11/2005 Bucharest Court of Appeal	A. 70,000 EUR (65,000 + 5,000)   B. ‑
11.	32430/06 10/06/2006	Elena GHEORGHE 1947 Helsingborg Swedish	Steliana Ioana DUMITRESCU	Apartment no. 42, Spinis str. no. 8, bl.43, sc. 3, Bucharest	25/11/2005 Bucharest Court of Appeal	25/11/2005 Bucharest Court of Appeal	A. 70,000 EUR (65,000 + 5,000)   B. 250 EUR
12.	46114/06 09/11/2006	Georgina MUNSTER b:1934; d: 2011   pursued by heir Maria ARDELEAN 1956 Aușeu Romanian		Apartments nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, Decebal Blvd no. 7, Arad	15/04/1999 Timisoara Court of Appeal	15/06/2006 Timisoara Court of Appeal   26/06/2008 Timisoara Court of Appeal	A. 425,000 EUR (420,000 + 5,000)   B. ‑
13.	1046/07 13/12/2006	Nerva Vasile BOLDOR 1947 Konstanz German   Zeno Iulian BOLDOR 1953 Konstanz German, Romanian		The Village Mill and land in Comlosul Mare, Timis   House and land in Comlosul Mare no. 670, Timis	22/06/2006 Timisoara Court of Appeal	22/06/2006 Timisoara Court of Appeal	A. 100,000 EUR (100,000)   B. ‑
14.	12866/07 28/02/2007	Mihaela Gabriela ȘOACĂ 1938 Craiova Romanian   Dumitru Ion ARSENIE 1934 Constanta Romanian	Florin ARSENIE	Two-storey building and land in Ulmului str., no. 32 (former no. 28), Craiova	8/10/1997 Craiova Court of Appeal	4/09/2006 Craiova Court of Appeal	A.305,000 EUR (300,000 + 5,000)   B. 250 EUR
15.	24256/07 26/04/2007	Livia Romica MARINICĂ-MARINESCU 1941 Bucharest Romanian   Maria Ortansa FĂTĂCEAN 1932 Bucharest Romanian	Aurelia POPESCU	Apartments nos. 1-6 located in Mihai Viteazu str. no. 102 (former 82), Brasov	30/10/2006 Brasov Court of Appeal	30/10/2006 Brasov Court of Appeal	A. 635,000 EUR (630,000 + 5,000)   B. ‑
16.	29972/07 09/07/2007	Dan-Cristian MIRONESCU 1945 Constanța Romanian	Vera MIRONESCU	3 rooms in Vila Dorina, located in Progresului str. no. 26, Eforie Sud	18/05/1999 Constanta Court of Appeal	18/01/2007 Constanta Court of Appeal	A. 45,000 EUR (45,000)   B. ‑
17.	43124/07 28/09/2007	Angela-Valeria DULA 1940 Bucharest Romanian   Elisabeta-Melania DUDĂU 1937 Bucharest Romanian	Graziela Elena BÂRLĂ	apartment no. 2, Dumitru Orbescu str. no. 5, district 2, Bucharest	22/01/1999 Bucharest County Court	30/03/2007 Bucharest Court of Appeal	A. 45,310 EUR (40,310 + 5,000)   B. 1,005 EUR
18.	481/08 19/12/2007	Anamaria-Iulia PITIȘ b:1918; d: 2014 Bucharest Romanian   Pursued by heir Șerban Alexandru ALTENLIU 1943 Bucharest	Bogdan Sever Alexandru GRABOWSKI	Apartment no. 8 (5 rooms) located in Cavafii Vechi str. no. 17 (former 19), district 3 Bucharest	20/06/2007 Bucharest Court of Appeal	20/06/2007 Bucharest Court of Appeal	A. 175,000 EUR (175,000)   B. ‑
19.	18961/08 10/04/2008	Marius Florin PETRESCU 1954 Bucharest Romanian	Eugen Sebastian CUDRICI	Apartment no. 7, Calea Dorobanti no. 250, district 1, Bucharest	20/05/1998 Bucharest District Court	10/10/2007 Bucharest Court of Appeal	A. 110,000 EUR (105,000 + 5,000)   B. ‑
20.	23969/08 13/05/2008	Gheorghe GRASU Los Angeles Romanian	Florin GHEORGHE	Ground and underground floors (retail space) of the property located in Franceza str. (former Iuliu Maniu str.) no. 17, Bucharest	8/10/1999 Bucharest First Instance Court	22/11/2007 High Court of Cassation and Justice	A. 205,000 EUR (200,000 + 5,000)   B. ‑
21.	59376/08 21/11/2008	Florica Barbara PORUMB 1940 Haar German,Romanian   In her own name and in her capacity as heir of her deceased husband Dorin Nerva Nestor PORUMB b:1939; d: 2009	Lucia Alexandrina Valeria NOVĂCESCU	House in Vasile Lucaci str. no. 11, Timişoara	28/05/2008 Timişoara Court of Appeal	28/05/2008 Timişoara Court of Appeal	A. 45,000 EUR (40,000 + 5,000)   B. 3,570 EUR
22.	21411/09 06/04/2009	Petre BOKOR b:1940; d: 2014   pursued by heir Maria Viorica BOKOR 1942 Romanian	Mugur Jak CARACAŞ	Apartments nos. 6 and 9, King Ferdinand str. (former Gheorghe Doja str.), no. 7, Cluj-Napoca	22/03/2000 Supreme Court of Justice	29/10/2008 Cluj County Court (apartment no. 6)   04/12/2008 Cluj Court of Appeal (apartment no. 9)	A. 108,000 EUR (108,000)   B. 3,500 EUR
23.	30409/10 11/05/2010	Ruxandra TELEMAN b:1940 ; d: 2015   pursued by heirs   Irina TELEMAN 1966 Brain l’Alleud, Belgium Belgian   Gabriel TELEMAN 1967 Brussels, Belgium Belgian   Mihai TELEMAN 1967 Găinești, Slatina Romanian   Petrache TELEMAN 1938 Găinești, Slatina Belgian, Romanian   Silviu TELEMAN b:1931; d: 2013   pursued by heirs Călin Ştefan TELEMAN 1962 New York, USA Romanian   Constantin TELEMAN 1968 San Francisco, USA US and Romanian   Neculai Sinel TELEMAN 1942 Ancona Italian	Alexandru Codrin TABAN   for all applicants except for   Constantin Teleman, represented by Liliana ZAICA	Apartment no. 2, Alexandru Constantinescu str. (former Câmpina str.), no. 50, Bucharest	8/12/2009 High Court of Cassation and Justice	8/12/2009 High Court of Cassation and Justice	A. 85,000 EUR (80,000 + 5,000)   B. 1,200 EUR
24.	40209/15 21/07/2015	Alexander Georg WEIGEL 1948 Wiesbaden German   Emilia WEIGEL 1922 Wiesbaden German   Mihai WEIGEL 1953 Hattersheim am Main German	Mihai Vladimir HOLBAN	Apartment no. 5, Bdul Carol I no. 28 Bucharest	14/05/1999 Bucharest District Court	10/02/2015 High Court of Cassation and Justice	A. 51,425 EUR (49,425 + 2,000)   B. 800