DEÁK A OSTATNÍ proti Rumunsku

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF DEÁK AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Applications nos. 49174/06 and 4 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

7 October 2025

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

In the case of Deák 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;

the decision to reject the Government’s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee;

Having deliberated in private on 16 September 2025,

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

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

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

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

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 heirs of the applicant in application no. 49174/06 informed the Court of the applicant’s death and, as his close relatives, expressed the intention to pursue the application in his stead.

5. Having regard to the close family ties and the heirs’ 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 27 others, § 184, 8 November 2022) the Court considers that the deceased applicant’s heirs may pursue the application in his 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 their unlawfully nationalised properties or to secure compensation, 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. 35415/06

7. The Government submitted that three payment certificates for a total of RON 41,882 had been issued and that they have been cashed in by the applicant on 29 May 2017, 5 March 2018 and 5 March 2019, respectively.

8. The applicant considered that the amount awarded in the compensation decision had been insufficient.

9. The Court finds that, according to the available evidence in the case file and based on the Court’s methodology of calculation established in Văleanu and Others v. Romania (just satisfaction), nos. 59012/17 and 27 others, §§ 114-18, 7 January 2025, the applicant had been granted a compensation that is reasonably related to the property’s value (see appendix). Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list as regards the applicant’s complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

2. Failure to exhaust available remedies

10. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies and/or that they could not claim to have a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, their complaints being therefore incompatible ratione materiae.

11. The applicants contested these arguments and also submitted that the compensation mechanism put in place by the domestic legislation was not effective.

12. The Court reiterates that it has already considered at length and rejected the same objections concerning the alleged inapplicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to situations identical to those in the current case (see Străin and Others, cited above, §§ 30, 31 and 38).

13. It has further considered and repeatedly rejected the Government’s submissions as to the alleged effectiveness of various court proceedings as well as of the restitution laws, including Law no. 10/2001 and Law no. 165/2013, in cases where there are concurrent valid title deeds (Ana Ionescu and Others, cited above, § 23).

14. It finds that in the instant case the Government have not put forward any new fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility of these complaints. The Government’s objections in this regard must therefore be rejected.

15. The Court further notes that these complaints 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

16. The applicants argued that the inability to date to recover possession of their properties or to receive compensation if recovery of possession were not to be possible was in breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

17. The Government contested that argument.

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

19. The Court reiterates that in the case of Preda and Others 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 and that 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 its above findings in the similar case 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 v. Romania (cited above, § 262).

20. 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.

21. 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.

4. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

22. The applicant in application no. 35415/06 raised also other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention.

23. The Court has carefully examined all these complaints. In the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

1. Pecuniary damage

24. 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).

25. The Court considers, in the circumstances of the case, that the return of the properties in issue would put the applicants as far as possible in a situation equivalent to the one in which they would have been if there had not been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

26. Failing such restitution by the respondent State, the Court holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, in respect of pecuniary damage, an amount calculated according with the methodology established in Văleanu and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, §§ 114-18. Having regard to the information at its disposal, notably the relevant notarial grids, the documents submitted by the parties and its established case-law (ibid. § 116), 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.

27. The Court must reiterate, however, that the applicants cannot derive any right to double compensation or unjust enrichment from the Court’s judgment. Therefore, 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 considers that all amounts relating to the compensation due to the applicants which are relevant to the present case and which would have already 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 appendix.

28. As regards the amount of money claimed in respect of loss of profit or benefit from the applicants’ possessions (applications nos. 35415/06, 49174/06, 32189/07), the Court rejects these claims. To award a sum of money on this basis would be a speculative process, given that profit derived from possession of property depends on several factors (ibid., § 119).

2. Non-pecuniary damage

29. The Court considers that the serious interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their 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, the Court awards the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

3. Costs and expenses

30. Some applicants have either not submitted any claims for costs and expenses or have failed to substantiate them. Accordingly, the Court finds no reason to award them any sum on that account (see appended table).

31. As concerns the claims submitted by the remaining applicants, regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table covering costs under all heads.

4. Default interest

32. 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. Decides to join the applications;
2. Holds that the heirs of the applicant Endre Deák (application no. 49174/06) who have expressed the wish to pursue the proceeding in his place have standing to do so;
3. Decides to strike out application no. 35415/06 – listed under no. 1 in the appendix – in so far as it concerns complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 relating to the property mentioned in the appendix, and declares the remainder of this application inadmissible;
4. Declares the other applications admissible;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
6. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to return to the applicants their properties within three months;

(b) that, failing such restitution, the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within the same three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;

(c) that, in any event, the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within the same three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses;

(d) that the aforementioned amounts shall be converted, into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at 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;

7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 October 2025, 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 cases:

[1] Surface indicated by the applicant in his just satisfaction claims submitted on 5 March 2010.

[2] Not Târgu Secuiesc, as initially mentioned in the statement of facts.

[3] To be paid into the bank account designated by the applicant’s representative.