Background
The eleven joined applications were brought against Romania by individuals (and one heir continuing a deceased applicant’s claim) whose properties — ranging from urban and agricultural land to forest plots and company shares — had been confiscated or nationalised during the communist regime. Romanian domestic courts had issued final decisions in each case recognising the applicants’ property rights or entitlement to restitution or compensation. Despite those binding judgments, the State had not enforced them, leaving the applicants unable either to recover possession of their properties or to receive the equivalent compensation awarded.
The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that Romania’s failure to implement the domestic decisions amounted to a breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The Government raised a preliminary objection of abuse of process in one application (no. 22615/22), contending that the applicant had withheld information about a 2019 compensation decision issued in her favour. The Court rejected that objection, noting the information was reflected in the application materials and that the compensation had in any event not been paid.
The cases were examined as a Committee under the Court’s well-established case-law on the ineffectiveness of Romania’s communist-era property restitution mechanism, with the leading authority being Vǎleanu and Others v. Romania (nos. 59012/17 and others, 8 November 2022). One partial application (concerning a specific plot in application no. 14929/23 where the domestic matter had been resolved) was struck out of the list at the applicant’s own request.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously held that the final domestic decisions recognising the applicants’ property entitlements constituted “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and that Romania’s failure to enforce those decisions in full and in good time disclosed a violation of that provision. Applying the principles and methodology established in Vǎleanu and Others, the Court found no fact or argument capable of leading to a different conclusion on either admissibility or the merits.
Under Article 41, the Court ordered Romania to ensure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the outstanding restitution judgments within twelve months of the judgment becoming final. Should enforcement not occur within that period in the relevant cases, Romania must pay the pecuniary damages set out in the appendix (calculated according to the Vǎleanu and Others (just satisfaction) methodology of 7 January 2025, not the criteria introduced by Emergency Ordinance No. 38/2025, which the Court found inapplicable to applications lodged before its entry into force). Non-pecuniary damages of €6,000–€10,000 per application were awarded to all applicants, and limited costs were awarded in one application.
The Court also imposed a safeguard against double recovery: any amounts already enforced domestically in the applicants’ favour before the date of judgment must be deducted from the sums listed in the appendix. Claims for loss of profit in two applications were rejected as too speculative.
Key Takeaways
- Romania’s systemic failure to enforce final domestic restitution judgments for communist-era property confiscations continues to generate violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in line with the Vǎleanu and Others line of authority.
- The Court declined to apply Romania’s Emergency Ordinance No. 38/2025 — which amended the calculation criteria for restitution compensation — to cases lodged before the ordinance entered into force on 8 August 2025, preserving the pre-existing Vǎleanu methodology for earlier applicants.
- Where return of the property in kind is still possible, the Court gave Romania a twelve-month window to enforce the outstanding restitution judgments before pecuniary damages fall due; non-pecuniary damages are payable in any event within three months.
- An heir who wishes to continue a deceased applicant’s Convention proceedings will be granted standing where close family ties and a legitimate interest in the outcome are established.
Why It Matters
This judgment is the latest in a long-running series confirming that Romania’s restitution framework, despite repeated reform efforts, still fails to translate final domestic property awards into actual recovery for claimants. For practitioners advising clients with unresolved communist-era property claims in Romania, the decision reinforces that Strasbourg remains an effective avenue and that the Vǎleanu compensation methodology — not newer domestic valuation rules — governs cases already before the Court.
The Court’s explicit refusal to apply Emergency Ordinance No. 38/2025 retroactively is also noteworthy: it signals that Romania cannot unilaterally alter the compensation calculation framework for pending Strasbourg proceedings through subsequent domestic legislation, preserving the integrity of the remedial scheme already established in the leading case.