POP A OSTATNÍ proti Rumunsku

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF POP AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Applications nos. 24056/20 and 33995/20)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

5 May 2026

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

In the case of Pop and Others v. Romania,

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

Ana Maria Guerra Martins, President,
Anne Louise Bormann,
Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,
and Valentin Nicolescu, Acting 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”) by the applicants listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;

the decision to give notice of the applications to the Romanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms O.F. Ezer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 31 March 2026,

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

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

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

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

• THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
  1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

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

2. LOCUS STANDI

4. The heir of the second applicant Mr Mircea Dan Ioan Armașu (application no. 33995/20) informed the Court of this applicant’s death and, as his close relative, expressed the intention to pursue the application in his stead.

5. Having regard to the close family ties and the heir’s legitimate interest in pursuing the application, as well as to its relevant case-law on the matter (see Văleanu and Others v. Romania, nos. 59012/17 and 29 others, § 184, 8 November 2022), the Court considers that Ms Liliana Gabriela Burtan may pursue the application in the above-mentioned applicant’s stead.

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 of Protocol nO. 1 to THE CONVENTION

6. The applicants complained that their inability to recover possession of properties that had been unlawfully nationalised or to secure compensation for them, 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.”

1. Admissibility
   1. Matter resolved: application no. 33995/20

7. The Government submitted that on 28 March 2023 the National Commission for Property Compensation had issued a compensation decision for approximately 66,953 euros (EUR) exclusively to the benefit of the first applicant in application no. 33995/20, and asked the Court to reject the applicants’ claim as inadmissible owing to their loss of victim status.

8. The applicants considered that the amount awarded in the compensation decision had been derisory and informed the Court that the first applicant had submitted a domestic complaint against it, and that those proceedings were pending. On 14 November 2023 the applicants further informed the Court that payment of the compensation had been suspended.

9. The Court observes that the enforcement of the compensation decision of 28 March 2023 is still pending. Furthermore, the essence of the applicants’ complaints is precisely the amount of compensation, which they considered derisory in relation to the value of the property to which they were entitled.

10. It thus cannot be said that the matter has been resolved and the Court therefore rejects the Government’s request for this application to be struck out under Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Văleanu and Others, cited above, § 201).

2. Locus standi: application no. 33995/20

11. The Court takes note of the domestic authorities’ assessment, including its reliance on the domestic courts’ findings in previous domestic proceedings, which stated that the first applicant in application no. 33995/20, Ms Liliana Gabriela Burtan, was the sole beneficiary entitled to compensation for the property in question, both in her personal capacity and as the heir of the second applicant.

12. The Court further notes that the compensation decision of 28 March 2023 was not challenged by the third applicant, Ms. Laura – Alexandra Burtan, who thus may be considered as having implicitly accepted the domestic authorities’ decision as to the lack of her own entitlement to compensation (see paragraph 8 above).

13. The third applicant in application no. 33995/20 cannot therefore claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. It follows that her complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

3. Conclusions as to admissibility

14. The Court concludes that the applicants’ complaints (with the exception of the third applicant in application no. 33995/20) relating to their property rights 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.

2. Merits

15. The Court notes that, like the applicants in Străin and Others, cited above, and Ms and Mr Rodan in Preda and Others, cited above, the applicants in the present case had obtained final decisions. Those decisions acknowledged with retroactive effect the unlawfulness of the seizure of their property by the State and their legitimate ownership over those properties and have not been challenged or quashed to date.

16. The Court reiterates that in Preda and Others, cited above, 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.

17. In the present case, 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.

18. 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 and 148-49).

It reiterated those findings in the similar cases of Dickmann and Gion v. Romania (nos. 10346/03 and 10893/04, §§ 103-04, 24 October 2017) and Ana Ionescu and Others, cited above, §§ 23 and 28‑30, and more recently in Văleanu and Others, cited above, § 262.

19. 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.

20. 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.

• APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
  1. Pecuniary damage

21. 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).

22. The Court holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, in respect of pecuniary damage, an amount calculated in accordance with the methodology established in Văleanu and Others v. Romania ((just satisfaction), nos. 59012/17 and 27 others, §§ 114-18, 7 January 2025). Having regard to the information at its disposal, in particular, the relevant notarial grids, the documents submitted by the parties and its established case‑law (ibid., § 116), and taking into consideration the ne ultra petita principle, 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.

23. The Court must reiterate, however, that the applicants cannot derive any right to double compensation or unjust enrichment from the Court’s judgment. In so far as domestic administrative and/or judicial proceedings relating to the applicants’ claims to their property were still pending before the relevant authorities at the date of the latest information available to the Court, and in order to prevent any unjust enrichment from the present judgment, the Court therefore considers that all amounts relating to the compensation due to the applicants which are relevant to the present case and which would already have been enforced in their favour by the date of the present judgment, should be deducted, as the case may be, from the amounts listed in the appended table.

2. Non-pecuniary damage

24. The first applicant in application no. 33995/20 claimed EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court considers that the serious interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her 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, and taking into consideration the ne ultra petita principle, the Court awards EUR 5,000 to the applicant. With respect to application no. 24056/20, the Court notes further that the applicant did not make any claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage; it therefore makes no award under this head.

3. Costs and expenses

25. The applicants have not submitted any claims for costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court finds no reason to award them any sum on that account.

4. Default interest

26. 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 second applicant’s heir, Ms Liliana Gabriela Burtan, has standing to continue the present proceedings in the stead of the deceased applicant Mr Mircea Dan Ioan Armașu (application no. 33995/20);
2. Decides to join the applications;
3. Declares application no. 33995/20 inadmissible ratione personae in so far as it relates to the third applicant (Ms Laura - Alexandra Burtan) and declares the remainder of the applications admissible;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;

5. Holds
   1. that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;
   2. that the respondent State is to pay Ms Liliana Gabriela Burtan (application no. 33995/20), within the same three months, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
   3. that the above-mentioned amounts shall be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
   4. 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;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 May 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Valentin Nicolescu Ana Maria Guerra Martins
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications