CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 16 février 2006

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7BBD3E9 { width:44.17pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   86 16.2.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria and   Romania   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, neither of which is final. [1]     Prikyan and Angelova v. Bulgaria (no. 44624/98) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants, Vergin Stepan Prikyan and Elisabeth Sarkis Angelova, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1956 and 1948 respectively and live in Varna (Bulgaria).   In their capacity as heirs, they brought an action to recover possession of a flat in Varna which their ascendants had been obliged to sell in 1974, in accordance with the legislation in force at the time, on the basis that they had also owned another flat.   The Varna District Court found that the sale had been void and ordered the occupiers to restore the flat to the applicants. That judgment was upheld on appeal by the Varna Regional Court. However, on 30 December 1997 the Supreme Court of Cassation overturned the judgments by the first-instance and appeal courts, on the ground that the flat’s occupants had become owners through the 10-year rule on the right of acquisition though adverse possession; accordingly, it dismissed the applicants’ action to recover possession.   The applicants complained that the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Cassation had been unfair. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the question of the lapse of the period for adverse possession had not been discussed before either the Supreme Court of Cassation or the lower courts. As the Supreme Court of Cassation had ruled on the merits of the case, the applicants had been deprived of an opportunity to submit their arguments on a matter that was decisive for the outcome of the proceedings.   In the Court’s opinion, the principle that proceedings must be adversarial and, more generally, the fair trial principle, would have required the Supreme Court of Cassation to submit the question of lapse of the period for adverse possession for discussion. However, it did not consider it necessary to do so, although the domestic rules of procedure authorised it either to reopen the proceedings, in order to enable the parties to submit and discuss evidence, or to remit the case to the regional court for a fresh examination of the merits. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1 and awarded the applicants jointly 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Porteanu v. Romania (no. 4596/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Rodica Porteanu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Bucharest.   In her capacity as heir, the applicant brought an action to recover possession of a house in Bucharest which had belonged to her grandmother and had been nationalised in 1950 in application of Decree no. 92/1950. On 25 November 1997 the Bucharest Court of First Instance found that the nationalisation had been illegal and ordered that the property be restored to the applicant. In the absence of an appeal, the judgment became final.   Only part of the property was restored to the applicant, on account of the sale by the State, in February 1997, of one of the flats to its occupants. The applicant attempted unsuccessfully to have the contract of sale rescinded. In a judgment of 25 September 2002, the Bucharest Court of Appeal described the applicant’s title to the property as indisputable, but decided that, in view of their good faith, the family occupying the flat was entitled to keep the property that it had purchased.   In January 2002 the applicant filed a request for compensation for the sale of the flat in question, on the basis of Law no. 10/2001 on the Restoration of Unlawfully Nationalised Property. To date she has received no reply to her request.   The applicant alleged that the sale of her flat to a third party, without the award of any compensation, had infringed her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that the sale of part of the applicant’s house prevented her from enjoying her right, while no compensation had been awarded to her.   Further, the Court noted that Law no. 247/2005 had been enacted on 22 July 2005, amending Law no. 10/2001. The new legislation granted persons in the same situation as the applicant, at least in theory, a right to compensation equalling the market value of assets which could not be restored. However, this new law had not to date resulted in an actual award of compensation to Ms Porteanu. In addition, the above-mentioned law did not take account of the damage sustained prior to the law’s entry into force by persons who had been deprived of their property in this way as a result of the long period when no compensation was available.     Accordingly, the Court considered that the deprivation of the applicant’s possessions, combined with the total absence of compensation, had imposed a disproportionate and excessive burden on her. Consequently, the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It held, unanimously, that Romania was to restore the disputed property to Ms Porteanu within three months of the date on which the Court’s judgment would become final. In the absence of any such restoration, the Government was to pay her EUR 60,000 in respect of pecuniary damage.   (The judgment is available only in French.)     ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its 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)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) 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. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.