BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF MARTON v. ROMANIA
(Application
no. 22960/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 February 2010
This judgment will become
final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2
of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Marton v. Romania,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Egbert
Myjer,
Ineta
Ziemele,
Luis
López Guerra,
Ann
Power, judges,
and
Santiago Quesada,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 2 February 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 22960/06) against Romania
lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Romanian national, Ms Anna Marton (“the
applicant”), on 25 May 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by her son, Mr Barnabas Marton.
The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu.
- On
15 June 2007 the President of the Third Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to
examine the merits of the application at the same time as its
admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1923 and lives in Miercurea Ciuc.
- The
applicant lodged a complaint under Law 18/1991 for the recovery of
1.45 hectares of land that had belonged to her ancestor, N.L. In
2001 the Harghita County Commission for the application of Law
18/1991 rejected the applicant's complaint for restitution of the
land and established her entitlement to damages.
- The
decision of the Commission was challenged by the applicant before the
Miercurea Ciuc District Court. By a judgment of 14 October 2004,
the applicant's claim was dismissed. An appeal filed by the applicant
was allowed and by a decision of 22 March 2005 the Harghita County
Court ordered the restitution of 1.45 ha of land situated in Szeradai
Rat.
- By
a final decision of 30 November 2005, the Târgu-Mureş
Court of Appeal allowed an appeal on points of law filed by the local
commission and ordered the restitution of other land on the original
site of 9,300 square meters and the payment of damages for the
5,200 sq. m of land that could not be returned.
-
So far the applicant has not received any title deed to the 9,300 sq.
m of land and has not obtained any compensation for the remaining
5,200 sq. m.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
relevant domestic law is summarised in Sabin Popescu v. Romania
(no. 48102/99, §§ 42-46, 2 March 2004).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the non-enforcement of the decision of 30
November 2005 in her favour had infringed her rights guaranteed by
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
to the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a]
... tribunal...”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“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.”
- The
Government contested that argument.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Government considered that the Romanian authorities had taken the
necessary steps to enforce the final decision of 30 November 2005.
They contended that on 30 March 2006 the local commission had given
approval for the applicant to take possession of the 9,300 sq. m plot
of land and the registration of the applicant's right to damages in
an annex to Government Decision no. 890/2005, published in the
Official Gazette on 11 August 2005.
- The
applicant disagreed. In particular, she submitted that the local
commission had offered her a plot of land close to the Olt river in
an area at high risk of flooding that did not correspond to the plot
of land to which she was entitled in accordance with the decision of
the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal. Further, she noted that
she had not received any compensation for the remaining 5,200 sq. m
of land, as provided for by the same final decision.
- The
Court notes that, although the authorities had an obligation to
enforce court judgments, namely, by returning the relevant land and
paying compensation for the land that could not be returned to the
applicant in the instant case, the decision of 30 November 2005
remains unenforced to date. That decision is nevertheless still valid
as no proceedings have been instituted under Romanian law for its
modification or annulment before the domestic courts. Apart from
enforcement, it is only by such an annulment or substitution by the
courts with an equivalent obligation that the continuing situation of
non-enforcement may come to an end (see Sabin Popescu,
cited above, § 54).
- Having
regard to its case-law on the subject (see Pântea
v. Romania, no. 5050/02, § 36, 15 June 2006),
the Court considers that, in the present case, the authorities failed
to take the necessary steps to enforce the decision.
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising
issues similar to the ones in the present case (see, among others,
Sabin Popescu, cited above, and Dragne and Others v.
Romania, no. 78047/01, 7 April 2005).
- Having
examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes that the
Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- 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.”
- The
applicant sought to recover possession of the land previously
belonging to her ancestor. She did not estimate the value of the plot
of land to which she was entitled. Further, she also claimed an award
in respect of non-pecuniary damage, asking the Court to determine the
amount, but did not claim any amount for costs and expenses.
- The
Government considered, in line with the information provided by the
Miercurea Ciuc City Hall, that the price of one square metre of land
in the area where the applicant was entitled to obtain recovery and
compensation was 3 Euros (EUR). Further, they considered that the
finding of a violation would constitute in itself sufficient just
satisfaction for any nonpecuniary damage which the applicant
might have suffered.
- The Court reiterates that, where it has found a breach
of the Convention in a judgment, the respondent State is under a
legal obligation to put an end to that 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).
- The
Court considers, in the circumstances of the present case, that the
restitution of the 9,300 sq. m of other land on the original site, as
ordered by the final decision of 30 November 2005, as well as the
payment of compensation for the remaining 5,200 sq. m of land, would
put the applicant as far as possible in a situation equivalent to the
one in which she would have been had there not been a breach of
Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- Failing
such restitution and the payment of compensation for the land
that could not be returned in kind by the respondent State, the Court
holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, in respect
of pecuniary damage, an amount corresponding to the current value of
the property. Having regard to the information at its disposal
concerning real estate prices on the local market and to the expert
report submitted by the Government, the Court estimates the current
market value of the property at EUR 72,500.
- The
Court considers that the serious interference with the applicant's
right of access to a court and to the peaceful enjoyment of her
possessions has caused her to sustain significant non-pecuniary loss.
Making an assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41
of the Convention, the Court awards her EUR 2,400 in respect of
non pecuniary damage.
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
- Holds
(a)
that the respondent State is to return to the applicant a plot of
land of 9,300 sq. m in Miercurea Ciuc in the place called Szeredai
Ret and to pay damages for 5,200 sq. m of land, within three months
of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention;
(b) that
failing restitution and the payment of damages, the respondent State
is to pay the applicant, within the same three months, the sum of EUR
72,500 (seventy-two thousand five hundred Euros), plus any tax that
may be chargeable in respect of pecuniary damage;
(c) that
in any event, the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within
the same three months, the sum of EUR 2,400 (two thousand four
hundred Euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
nonpecuniary damage;
(d) that
the aforementioned amounts shall be converted into the national
currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 February 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of
Court.
Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
