By way of contrast, the hope of recognition of a property right which it has been impossible to exercise effectively cannot be considered a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.

    Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement

In particular they argue that, despite court decisions in their favour, they cannot access the cemetery to bury their dead.

    The applicant in the first case, Ms Daniela Dobrilă (“the first applicant”), is a Romanian national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Focşani. 2.

Hence, the measures cannot be deemed disproportionate (see, mutatis mutandis , Savickas and Others v.   Lithuania (dec.), no. 66365/09 and others, §§ 92-93, 15 October 2013). 24.

    The applicants, Ms Violeta Liliana Pricop (“the first applicant”), Ms   Adela Medeleanu (“the second applicant”), Ms Daniela Irimia (“the third applicant”) and Ms Cornelia Doina Popovici

THE FACTS The applicants [Mrs Filomena Giacometti, Mrs Maria Mason, Mrs   Daniela Mason, Mrs Giorgina Mason, Mrs Nadia Mason and Mrs   Bertilla Mason] are Italian nationals.

[23] 04/07/1960 Traian HAGIU 27/04/1954 Liliana HORNEȚ 04/06/1969 Marioara [24] ICONARU 05/05/1958 Marioara [25] ILIE 04/06/1965 Vasile ILIE 23/03/1960 Flavian-Ioan [26] IONESCU 17/10/1971 Mădălina-Daniela

inline-block } .s1048E4FF { width:208.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 70694/12 Darko ŠTIMAC and Daniela

Il est représenté devant la Cour par M es   Pavelescu Aurelian et Pavelescu Daniela Rodica, avocats à Bucarest. A.     Les circonstances de l’espèce 2.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of

European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Italian national, Mrs Daniela

Lastly, the Court cannot but observe that the present case concerns restitution proceedings that have been pending for more than 17 years at the domestic level and that at the time of its judgement the

    Since the above requirement has not been met in the present cases, the applicant association cannot be considered to have “victim” status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention

et respectivement évalués à 68   602, 76   225, 73   176 et 114 337 euros   ; d’un appartement situé au Cannet, évalué à 125   008   ; et, enfin, des droits indivis sur un

    The Court must reiterate, however, that the applicants cannot derive any right to double compensation or unjust enrichment from the Court’s judgment.

Moreover, the amount of EUR 300 which each of the applicants received at the domestic level cannot be considered sufficient in the light of the Court’s case-law (see Scordino v.

    While being aware that steps were taken recently by the national authorities in order to complete the criminal investigation into the events of December 1989, the Court, however, cannot depart

Luxembourg, no. 73983/01, § 26, 13 July 2004, Dattel v.   Luxembourg , no. 13130/02, § 35, 4 August 2005, and Casse v. Luxembourg , no.