REPETITIVE CASE: IONESCU v. Romania (no. 38608/97)
RELATED CASE: BRUMARESCU v. Romania (Application no. 28342/95)
Maria Arsaluis Chivorchian is a Romanian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Bucharest. In her capacity as an heiress, she brought an action for the return of a piece of agricultural land which the State had expropriated without paying compensation and of another piece of land of which the State had taken possession. The properties were returned to her on 30 November 1999 and 2 April 2003.
Paul Ionescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Craiova (Romania). In his capacity as an heir, he brought an action for the return of a house and adjoining land in Bucharest.
In both cases, the applicants brought proceedings in the domestic courts for the return of their properties. Their claims were upheld by court decisions which became final and unappealable. However, these were set aside following an application by Principal State Counsel for Romania.
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial), of the Supreme Court of Justice's refusal to recognise that the domestic courts had jurisdiction to hear applications for the return of land. They alleged that the procedure in the Supreme Court of Justice was unfair, while Mr Ionescu also alleged that the Supreme Court was not independent and impartial. They further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of an infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.
The Court reiterated that, by setting aside a final judgment, the Supreme Court of Justice had violated the right to a fair hearing, in breach of Article 6 § 1. Similarly, the Supreme Court of Justice's ruling that the courts had no jurisdiction to hear the applicants' claims for the return of their properties was in itself contrary to the right of access to a court. Consequently, the Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on both counts. In the light of those findings, it considered it unnecessary to examine Mr Ionescu's other complaints under Article 6 and declared Ms Chivorchian's additional complaint inadmissible.
The Court further found that the applicants' rights of property had been established by final, irreversible judgments and were accordingly irrevocable. The effect of the Supreme Court of Justice's judgments had been to deprive them of their properties. The Court therefore considered that the applicants had borne, and Mr Ionescu continued to bear, an excessive and individual burden. Consequently, the Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Ms Chivorchian EUR 5,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. It considered that the question of the application of Article 41 was not ready for decision in Mr Ionescu's case and reserved it. (The judgments are available only in French.)
