7.  The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in Bucharest. 8.  On 20 August 1940 the applicant's father purchased a building located at 7 Intrarea Domneşti Street, Bucharest, which was made up of two blocks, A and B, containing three and two flats respectively. 9.  In 1950 the State nationalised the building under Decree no. 92/1950. 10.  On 7 February 1996 the applicant applied to the board established by the Bucharest City Council to deal with applications lodged under Law no. 112/1995 (“the Board”) seeking the return of the whole building under Law no. 112/1995 on the legal status of nationalised residential property (“Law no. 112/1995”). 11.  On 23 October 1996 the Board decided that buildings nationalised prior to 1989 in respect of which former owners had lodged a claim for restitution under Law no. 112/1995 or had brought an action for recovery of possession before the courts were not to be sold to tenants until their legal status had been clarified. 12.  On 23 February and 17 March 1997 the city council sold to the tenants the two flats in block B and the adjoining land, under Law no. 112/1995. 13.  On 20 March 1997 the applicant brought an action against the city council before the Bucharest Court of First Instance for recovery of possession of the entire building. 14.  In a judgment of 10 April 1997 the court granted the action for recovery of possession and recognised the applicant as the building's owner. It held that the applicant's father had not been among those individuals to whom Decree no. 92/1950 had applied, since he was specifically excluded by its Article II. It ordered the city council to return the building to the applicant. The judgment became final and, in the absence of an appeal, became legally binding. 15.  On 16 April 1997, under Law no. 112/1995, the city council sold to the former tenants flat no. 2 – one of the three flats in block A of the building in question – and the adjoining land. 16.  By a decision of 22 July 1997, issued in compliance with the judgment of 10 April 1997, the city council ordered that the whole building be returned to the applicant. 17.  On 17 September 1997 the applicant and the representatives of the city council signed a memorandum assigning possession of the part of the building which had not been affected by the above-mentioned contracts of sale (see paragraphs 12 and 15 above). They noted that, in order for the rest of the building to be returned to the applicant, the contracts concluded with the tenants would first have to be set aside. 18.  On 28 April 1998 the Board informed the applicant that he could no longer benefit from the reparation measures provided for in Law no. 112/1995, a piece of extraordinary legislation, since the building's return had been ordered in the judgment of 10 April 1997.
In 1999 the city council advised the applicant that, under Law no. 112/1995, he was entitled only to damages, and not to the return of the property. 19.  On 6 November 1997 the city council brought an action in the Bucharest Court of First Instance, seeking to have set aside the contracts of sale concluded with the tenants (see paragraphs 12 and 15 above). On 27 February 1998 the applicant asked to be allowed to take part in these proceedings; he too requested that the contracts be set aside. 20.  In a judgment of 9 March 1999 the court dismissed the main claim lodged by the city council and allowed in part the applicant's interlocutory request.
At the same time, the court held that the agreements concerning the sale of the flats were valid, on the ground that the applicant had not proved that the parties thereto had been acting in bad faith. In those circumstances, it considered that it was open to the applicant to bring an action for recovery of possession in order to have his title to the property compared with those of the purchasers of the flats in question. 21.  The applicant appealed against that judgment.
In a judgment of 11 February 2000 the Bucharest County Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. It noted that he had not submitted evidence that would rebut the presumption of the purchasers' good faith and held that, when the contracts were concluded, the tenants could reasonably have assumed that the State was the rightful owner of the flats.
In assessing the parties' good faith, the court took into account that the applicant had not expressly notified the city council of his intention to seek the building's return. It dismissed the idea that communication of the introductory claim for recovery of possession amounted to notification, on the ground that the judgment of 10 April 1997 did not refer to the exact date on which the claim had been lodged.
The court also held that the purchasers would have been unable, by taking reasonable steps, to find out about the existence of the action for recovery of possession brought by the applicant against the city council. 22.  The applicant lodged a further appeal.
In a judgment of 30 May 2000, the Bucharest Court of Appeal gave judgment against him, considering that he had not proved that the purchasers were acting in bad faith when the contracts were concluded. It observed that possible bad faith on the part of the city council did not implicitly entail that of the purchasers.
The Court of Appeal also held that at the time of the sale the purchasers did not know, and could not have found out by taking reasonable steps, that the State was not the rightful owner of the building. In addition, it considered that the application for restitution lodged by the applicant with the city council in 1996 (see paragraph 10 above) did not affect the purchasers' good faith, given that in 1999 the local authorities had informed the applicant that, under Law no. 112/1995, he was entitled only to damages and not to the return of the property.