The case concerns an application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights by a Romanian national, Dan Brumărescu, who was born in 1926 and lives in Bucharest.
In 1950 the applicant’s parents’ house in Bucharest was nationalised without payment of compensation. On 9 December 1993, in proceedings brought by the applicant, the Bucharest Court of First Instance held that the nationalisation had been unlawful. As there was no appeal, the judgment became final and irreversible, since it could no longer be challenged by way of an ordinary appeal. In May 1994 the applicant regained possession of the house, whereupon he stopped paying rent on the flat he was occupying within it and began paying land tax on the house.
On an unknown date the Procurator-General of Romania lodged an application to have the judgment of 9 December 1993 quashed. On 1 March 1995, the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the judgment of 9 December 1993 on the ground that the house had passed into State ownership under a legislative instrument and that the manner in which such an instrument was applied could not be reviewed by the courts, that being a matter for the executive or the legislature. Thereupon, the tax authorities informed the applicant that the house would be reclassified as State property with effect from 2 April 1996.
On an unknown date the applicant lodged an application for restitution of the house under Law no. 112/1995. On 24 March 1998 the Board responsible for implementing that Law decided that ownership of the flat rented by the applicant should be returned to him and awarded him financial compensation for the rest of the house. The applicant challenged that decision in an application dismissed by Bucharest Court of First Instance on 21 April 1999. The applicant’s appeal against the judgment of 21 April 1999 is currently pending in the Bucharest County Court.
The applicant complained that his right of access to a court, as secured by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, had been violated in that the Supreme Court of Justice had held that the lower courts had no jurisdiction to deal with a claim for recovery of possession such as his. He also complained that the Supreme Court of Justice’s judgment had deprived him of one of his possessions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.
