CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 décembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 17 December 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 17060/15 VOD BAUR IMPEX S.R.L. against Romania lodged on 24 June 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 26 September 2006 the applicant company bought a property from a State authority. Following subsequent civil proceedings lodged by third   parties seeking to obtain the partial annulment of the sale contract, on 25   October   2010 the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed these claims and annulled the contract in respect of part of the property. Consequently, the applicant company lodged an action for eviction against the State authority and asked to be compensated for the property loss, invoking the seller’s responsibility for eviction. The present application concerns the High Court of Cassation and Justice’s refusal, on 4 March 2015, to allow the claims lodged by the applicant company; the court considered that even though the applicant company was entitled to compensation, once the sale contract had been annulled, the responsibility for eviction ceased to operate. The applicant company invokes a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 on account of the High Court having unfairly dismissed its claims.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the judgment of 4 March 2015 given by the High Court of Cassation and Justice deprived the applicant company of its possessions, namely of its right to be compensated consequent to the partial annulment of the sale contract concluded on 26 September 2006, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   2.     If so, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, §   59, ECHR 1999-V, and Sierpiński v. Poland , no. 38016/07, §   69, 3   November   2009)?