CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 15 mars 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s94EE93CB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s33510801 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   131 15.3.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   INADMISSIBILITY DECISION MANOILESCU AND DOBRESCU v. ROMANIA AND RUSSIA   A Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has declared inadmissible the application lodged in the case of Manoilescu and Dobrescu v. Romania and Russia (application no. 60861/00). (The decision is available only in French.).     The applicants   Ion Aurel Manoilescu and Alexandra Maria Dobrescu are Romanian nationals, born in 1941 and 1921 respectively. Mr Manoilescu lives in Dithmarschen (Germany) and Ms Dobrescu lives in Paris.     Summary of the facts   The applicants are both heirs of A.D. In 1929 A.D. purchased a plot of ground measuring 6,650 m 2 in Snagov, near Bucharest, on which he had a house built. He died in prison in 1963 while serving a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment, imposed in 1950 for subversive activity against the State. Following an application by the General Prosecutor to have the judgment set aside, A.D.’s conviction was quashed in 1995 and he was acquitted.   In April 1945, during the Second World War, and again in May 1947, A.D.’s building was requisitioned; on the first occasion it was placed at the disposal of the Soviet authorities’ Allied Control Mission, and on the second occasion it was assigned to the Soviet directorate of external trade. In 1950 A.D.’s building was nationalised by the Romanian State and was assigned to the Embassy of the USSR in Romania.   By an order of 1962, the Romanian Council authorised an exchange of buildings between the Romanian and Soviet States. The building in dispute was exchanged for a villa situated in Bucharest, which the Soviet State had acquired in application of the decision taken at the Potsdam Conference to transfer German assets situated in Romanian territory to the Russian authorities.   In 1996 the applicants brought proceedings in order to obtain restitution of the building in dispute. On 18 June 1997 the relevant administrative committee ordered that the property be restored to them, and this decision was upheld on 12 January 1998 by a judgment of the Buftea first-instance court which, in the absence of an appeal, became final.   The applicants attempted on several occasions to oblige the Romanian authorities to enforce the decision of 18 June 1997 which had ordered that the building be restored to them. At the close of proceedings brought against the Snagov Town Hall and the Ilfov County Council, the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal in a final judgment of 25 February 2000. In particular, it noted that the building was now the property of the Russian Federation, legal successor to the former USSR, and that, consequently, the appeal lodged by the applicants could not be brought against the Romanian authorities.   The building is currently assigned to officials from the Russian Embassy in Romania.   Complaints   Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants alleged that A.D.’s imprisonment had been unlawful and complained that they had not been awarded any compensation in their capacity as his heirs. In addition, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), they alleged that the proceedings before the Romanian courts had been unfair and complained that they had been unable to obtain execution of the administrative decision in their favour, which had constituted an infringement of their right to a hearing. Finally, they maintained that the fact of being unable to obtain restitution of the property in question had infringed their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   Procedure   The application was lodged on 7 August 2000.   Decision of the Court [1]   With regard to Romania   Article 5   The events in issue occurred prior to Romania’s ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights, namely 20 June 1994. Consequently, the Court was not competent to examine the complaints submitted under Article 5, which it declared inadmissible.   Article 6 § 1   Regarding the unfairness of the proceedings to obtain execution of the judgment of 18 June 1997 The Court considered that the proceedings at issue, considered in their entirety, were fair within the meaning of Article 6   §   1   of the Convention. Accordingly, it declared this complaint inadmissible.   Regarding the impossibility of obtaining execution of the decision of 18 June 1997 In the instant case, the disputed property, which was assigned to officials from the Russian Embassy in Romania, constituted “premises of the mission”, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. It was clear that the failure to execute the decision of 18 June 1997 resulted from the Romanian courts’ wish not to infringe the rights which Russia enjoyed over the disputed property. Although implied, this constituted recognition of the principle of the Russian State’s diplomatic immunity on Romanian territory.   All the international legal texts which addressed State immunity established the general principle that, subject to certain strictly delimited exceptions, foreign States enjoyed immunity from execution on the territory of the State concerned. This protection for foreign States was stronger with regard to properties belonging to their diplomatic and consular missions. Such protection was enshrined in particular in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the relevant resolution of the Institute of International Law, the European Convention on State Immunity and the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property.   Accordingly, the Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The Court noted that the applicants’ claim against the Romanian State amounted to a possession within the meaning of the Convention. However, given the circumstances of the case, it did not doubt that the failure to take enforcement measures was “in the public interest”, namely the need to avoid disrupting relations between Romania and Russia and to facilitate the optimal running of that foreign State’s diplomatic mission in Romania.   Admittedly, the failure over several years to enforce the decision in the applicants’ favour must have caused them a feeling of injustice and frustration, but nonetheless they had not lost their claim against the Romanian State. Thus, for example, they could apply under the law of 10 February 2001 to obtain, if not restitution in kind of the property, which they would appear to have unsuccessfully attempted through an application to the Ilfov Prefecture, then at least the adoption of equivalent compensatory measures.   In those circumstances, the Court held that this complaint was manifestly ill-founded and declared it inadmissible.   With regard to Russia   In the present case, it was clear that the applicants did not come under the jurisdiction of Russia. That State had exercised no jurisdiction over the applicants; it had not been a party in the civil action brought by them, nor had it taken part in the proceedings, which had been held exclusively in Romanian territory. The Romanian courts were the only courts to exercise sovereign power with regard to the applicants, and the Russian authorities had no powers of review, direct or indirect, over decisions and judgments given in Romania.   For this reason, the situation complained of by the applicants could not be imputed to Russia, nor could that State be criticised for failing to take positive measures to guarantee the rights asserted by the applicants. Consequently, the Court declared this part of the application inadmissible.   As to the applicants’ argument that the property at issue had been transmitted unlawfully to Russia, the Court noted that those events had occurred in 1962, in other words prior to the date on which Russia ratified the Convention, namely 5 May 1998. Accordingly, the Court was not competent to examine this complaint, which it declared inadmissible.     ***   The decision is be available today on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.