CASE OF MARIA ATANASIU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Possessions);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46 - Pilot judgment;General measures);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award
Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall
6. The first two applicants, Mrs Maria Atanasiu and Mrs Ileana Iuliana Poenaru, were born in 1912 and 1937 respectively and live in Bucharest. The third applicant, Mrs Ileana Florica Solon, was born in 1935 and lives in Bucharest. 7. Following the establishment of the communist regime in Romania in 1947, the State proceeded to nationalise buildings and agricultural land on a large scale. 8. One of the nationalisation decrees applicable in relation to immovable property was Decree no. 92/1950, under which buildings belonging to former industrialists, owners of large estates, bankers and owners of large trading enterprises were nationalised. Although this decree did not cover workers, civil servants, academics or retired persons, numerous properties belonging to those social categories were also nationalised. Between 1949 and 1962 virtually all agricultural land passed into the ownership of the agricultural cooperatives. 9. After the fall of the communist regime the State enacted a series of laws aimed at affording redress for breaches of property rights by the former regime. 10. Laws nos. 112/1995 and 10/2001 established the principle of restitution of nationalised immovable property and compensation in cases where restitution was no longer possible. Law no. 112/1995 introduced a cap on compensation, but this was subsequently abolished by Law no. 10/2001. 11. With regard to agricultural land, Laws nos. 18/1991, 169/1997 and 1/2000 increased successively the surface area of land that could be returned to its owners. The last of these laws established a right to compensation in respect of land which could no longer be returned. 12. Law no. 247/2005 harmonised the administrative procedures for restitution of properties covered by the above-mentioned laws. 13. According to a partial calculation made by the Government, over two million claims under the reparation laws have been registered; the amount needed to pay the corresponding compensation is estimated at twenty-one billion euros (EUR). 14. In 1950, under Decree no. 92, the State nationalised several buildings belonging to Mr Atanasiu, the first applicant's husband and the second applicant's father. One of the buildings was located at 189 Calea Dorobanţilor in Bucharest. 15. On 15 May 1996, relying on the provisions of Law no. 112/1995, Mr Atanasiu applied to the local board established to deal with applications lodged under that Law, seeking the return of the building. He received no response. On 25 October 1996 Mr Atanasiu died and the applicants were recognised as his sole successors in title. 16. Under the terms of contracts entered into in accordance with Law no. 112/1995, the company managing the building sold the nine flats located therein to the tenants. 17. On 15 November 1999 the applicants lodged a claim with the domestic courts for restitution of the building. They relied on the provisions of ordinary law concerning respect for the right of property and alleged that the nationalisation of the property had infringed Mr Atanasiu's legal rights. Subsequently, on the basis of a letter from Bucharest city council stating that three of the flats had not been sold, the applicants restricted their claim to that part of the building. 18. In a judgment of 24 March 2000 the Bucharest Court of First Instance allowed the claim and ordered that the above-mentioned part of the building be returned to the applicants. The court held that the building had been nationalised unlawfully since Mr Atanasiu had not belonged to any of the social categories covered by the nationalisation decree and the State could not therefore claim a valid title to the property. Following an appeal and a further appeal (recurs) by the city council, the judgment was upheld and became final. 19. The applicants lodged claims in separate proceedings seeking the restitution of the other flats. In total, they obtained five final rulings in the form of judgments of the Bucharest Court of Appeal dated 1 June 2001, 19 May 2004, 1 May 2005, 5 May 2005 and 30 October 2007 directing the purchasers and the local authorities to return seven flats to them. In the case of one other flat they obtained a decision of the Bucharest County Court dated 30 November 2009, still open to appeal, ordering the local authorities to pay them compensation. The last remaining flat in the building is the subject of the present application. Each of the abovementioned decisions was based on the finding that the building had been nationalised unlawfully. 20. On 6 April 2001 the applicants brought an action in the Bucharest County Court seeking to recover possession of flat no. 1. The action was directed against the City of Bucharest, the company which managed the building and the purchasers of the flat, Mr and Mrs G. The applicants also sought to have the contract of sale of 19 December 1996 rescinded. 21. In a judgment of 4 June 2002 the County Court granted the action, declared the sale null and void and ordered the defendants to return the flat to the applicants. The court ruled that the nationalisation of the building had been unlawful and that the contract of sale was not valid. 22. In a judgment of 14 November 2002 the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed the appeals lodged by the City of Bucharest and Mr and Mrs G. It thus dismissed the applicants' action, holding that the nationalisation had been lawful and that the contract of sale was valid since it complied with the conditions laid down by Law no. 112/1995. The applicants lodged a further appeal. 23. In a final judgment of 11 March 2005 the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“the HCCJ”) admitted the appeal for adjudication but dismissed the applicants' arguments and declared their action inadmissible. It considered that the applicants had lodged their action after the date of entry into force of Law no. 10/2001 (see paragraphs 25-27 below) and that after that date they could claim restitution of the flat only in the circumstances and in accordance with the procedure laid down by Law no. 10/2001. 24. As to the application to have the contract of sale rescinded, the HCCJ upheld the reasons given by the Court of Appeal but ruled that, since the applicants' main complaint concerning the restitution of the flat had been dismissed, the application for rescission was likewise inadmissible. 25. On 9 August 2001, relying on the provisions of Law no. 10/2001, the applicants lodged a claim with Bucharest city council for restitution of the whole of the building located on Calea Dorobanţilor. 26. Having received no reply within the statutory sixty-day timelimit, they brought an action against the city council on 26 July 2002. In a judgment of 10 November 2003 the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed the action and ordered the city council to give a decision on the applicants' claim. Following a further appeal by the city council the HCCJ dismissed the latter's argument to the effect that the delay had been caused by the applicants' failure to submit a complete file. In a final judgment of 18 April 2005 it upheld the order against the city council and ruled that no fault capable of causing the delay could be attributed to the applicants. 27. On 23 March 2010 the city council wrote to the Romanian Government Agent informing him that consideration of the claim had been suspended pending receipt of the missing documents. 28. In 1950 a plot of land in Craiova belonging to the applicant's parents was nationalised. Part of the land was subsequently turned into a botanic garden and allocated to the University of Craiova, a public highereducation establishment. 29. On 28 June 2001, relying on Law no. 10/2001, the applicant requested the University of Craiova to pay her compensation in respect of the nationalised land. She pointed out that the University's botanic garden occupied 1,950 sq. m out of a total area of 2,140 sq. m. 30. By decision no. 600/A/2001 of 10 July 2001 the University of Craiova rejected the applicant's request on the ground that there were no funds in its budget which could be used for compensation of that kind. The University forwarded her request to the Dolj prefect's office. 31. On 18 July 2001 the applicant brought legal proceedings against the University of Craiova, seeking compensation in respect of the 2,140 sq. m of land, the value of which she estimated at seventy United States dollars (USD) per square metre. 32. At the request of the University, the Dolj County Court, in an interlocutory judgment of 5 December 2002, ordered that the State, represented by the Ministry of Finance, be joined to the proceedings as a defendant. 33. In a judgment of 13 February 2003 the County Court dismissed the applicant's claims as premature, finding that she should have awaited a decision from the prefect's office on her request for compensation. However, the court took the view that the applicant had demonstrated her parents' title to the property and the fact that the land had been wrongfully nationalised. 34. The applicant appealed against that judgment. 35. On 21 November 2003 the Craiova Court of Appeal allowed the applicant's appeal, quashed the first-instance judgment and set aside decision no. 600/A/2001. It based its ruling on a letter from the University of Craiova to the Dolj prefect's office dated 13 November 2003, in which the former had agreed to the award of compensation to the applicant. In the operative part of its decision the Court of Appeal assessed the compensation due to the applicant at USD 70 per square metre, in line with the agreement reached between the parties during the proceedings. The court also stated in its reasoning that the compensation should be paid to the applicant once a special law had been enacted on the terms and procedure governing compensation and the amount of compensation awards. 36. The applicant, the University of Craiova and the Ministry of Finance all lodged further appeals against the decision, on the ground that no agreement had been reached between the parties. The applicant also alleged that the impugned decision did not state which of the two defendants – the University or the Romanian State – was liable for payment. 37. In a final judgment of 30 March 2006 the HCCJ dismissed the appeals and upheld the decision of the Craiova Court of Appeal of 21 November 2003. It took the view that, under section 24 of Law no. 10/2001, the University, which had been using the land claimed by the applicant, was obliged, if restitution was not possible, to make an offer of compensation corresponding to the value of the property and to forward its decision to the Dolj prefect's office. 38. The HCCJ went on to observe that, during the proceedings, the University of Craiova had submitted the letter of 13 November 2003 in which it informed the Dolj prefect's office of its consent to the award of compensation to the applicant in the amount claimed by her. The HCCJ took the view that the content of that letter constituted an offer made in accordance with sections 24 and 36 of Law no. 10/2001 and accepted by the applicant. According to the HCCJ, the offer from the University amounted to acceptance on its part of the applicant's claims. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal had simply noted the fact that the University had taken steps in the course of the proceedings to comply with its statutory obligations. 39. The HCCJ further stated that no specific obligation had been established on the part of the Romanian State, which had been a party to the proceedings, as the actual award of compensation in the amount established was to be made in accordance with the special procedure laid down by Law no. 247/2005. 40. In a decision of 27 January 2006 the University of Craiova made a proposal to the Dolj prefect's office for the applicant to be awarded compensation in respect of the 2,140 sq. m plot of land in accordance with the Craiova Court of Appeal decision of 21 November 2003. The University based its decision on Law no. 10/2001. 41. In reply to a letter dated 24 December 2008 from the National Agency for Property Restitution (“the NAPR”) requesting it to take a decision on the basis of Law no. 247/2005, the University of Craiova proposed to the Dolj prefect's office on 24 March 2009 that the applicant be awarded the compensation in question. The University stated that the file would be sent to the Central Compensation Board (Comisia centrală pentru Stabilirea Despăgubirilor – “the Central Board”). 42. The Central Board did not inform the applicant of any action taken in response to that decision. To date, no compensation has been paid to her. 43. At the hearing of 8 June 2010 the Government stated that the applicant's claim would receive priority treatment. 44. The main legislative provisions in force are described in Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, §§ 34-35, ECHR 1999VII; Străin and Others v. Romania, no. 57001/00, § 19, ECHR 2005VII; Păduraru v. Romania, no. 63252/00, §§ 23-53, ECHR 2005XII (extracts); Viaşu v. Romania, no. 75951/01, §§ 30-49, 9 December 2008; Faimblat v. Romania, no. 23066/02, §§ 16-17, 13 January 2009; Katz v. Romania, no. 29739/03, § 11, 20 January 2009; Tudor Tudor v. Romania, no. 21911/03, § 21, 24 March 2009; and Matieş v. Romania, no. 13202/03, §§ 13-17, 8 June 2010. They can be summarised as follows. 45. The Real Property Act (Law no. 18 of 19 February 1991) conferred on former owners and their successors in title the right to partial restitution of agricultural land. The most important amendment to that Act was made by Law no. 1 of 11 January 2000, which raised the ceiling for entitlement to fifty hectares per person in the case of arable land and one hundred hectares per person for pasture land. If restitution was not possible, the beneficiaries were entitled to compensation. 46. In the absence of special legislation laying down rules governing nationalised immovable property, the courts initially considered that they had jurisdiction to examine the issue of the lawfulness of nationalisation decisions and to order that properties be returned to their owners if they were found to have been nationalised unlawfully. 47. The entry into force of Law no. 112 of 25 November 1995 on the legal status of certain residential property authorised the sale of such properties to the tenants. Properties could be returned to the former owners or their successors in title only if the persons concerned were living in the properties as tenants or the properties were unoccupied. If restitution was not possible the former owners could claim compensation, which was capped. 48. As to buildings and land which had belonged to national minority organisations and religious institutions, Government Emergency Ordinances no. 83 of 8 June 1999 and no. 94 of 29 June 2000 provided for them to be returned to their owners or, failing that, for compensation to be awarded. 49. Law no. 10 of 8 February 2001 on the rules governing immovable property wrongfully acquired by the State established the principle of restitution of the properties concerned. In cases where restitution was no longer possible the former owners or their successors in title could claim compensation, which was not capped. 50. Law no. 1 of 30 January 2009 provides that immovable property sold under Law no. 112/1995 may no longer be returned to the former owners and that only alternative measures of redress are possible. The choice between an action for recovery of possession and the special restitution procedure under Law no. 10/2001 has been abolished in favour of the latter. 51. In addition to the properties covered by the above-mentioned legislative provisions, the State undertakes to compensate former owners or their successors in title who lost buildings, land or crops abandoned on certain territories following border changes before and during the Second World War. The administrative procedure for obtaining compensation in respect of such property, provided for by Laws nos. 9/1998, 290/2003 and 393/2006 and coordinated by the NAPR, differs from that for nationalised immovable property, and the necessary funds come out of the State budget. 52. Law no. 247/2005 on judicial and property reform, which is still in force, made substantial amendments to the existing compensation laws, in particular by introducing a harmonised administrative procedure for claims concerning properties covered by Laws nos. 1/2000 and 10/2000 and by Government Emergency Ordinances nos. 83/1999 and 94/2000. 53. The law in question provides that, where restitution is not possible, the beneficiaries of reparation measures can opt either for compensation in the form of goods and services or for payment of an amount calculated in accordance with “domestic and international practice and standards on compensation for buildings and houses wrongfully acquired by the State”. 54. The leading role in implementing this law was entrusted to two newly created structures: the Central Compensation Board (Comisia centrală pentru Stabilirea Despăgubirilor – “the Central Board”) and the National Agency for Property Restitution (Autoritatea Naţională pentru Restituirea Proprietăţilor – “the NAPR”). 55. New time-limits were set for lodging claims for restitution or compensation: sixty days for agricultural land and six months for immovable property that had belonged to religious institutions and national minority organisations. 56. The lawfulness of local authority decisions awarding compensation or proposing an award must be reviewed by the prefect, who must then forward the decisions to the Central Board. 57. The provisions governing such review are set out in Government Decree no. 128 of 6 February 2008, according to which, if the prefect considers the decision of the mayor or other local administrative authorities to be unlawful, he may appeal against it in administrative contentious proceedings within one year of the decision. 58. On receipt of the file the Central Board must verify the lawfulness of the decision refusing restitution and subsequently forward the file to “approved assessors” for the purpose of fixing the amount of compensation. On the basis of their report the Central Board either issues a “compensation certificate” or returns the file to the local authorities for fresh examination. 59. Law no. 247/2005 does not lay down time-limits for the processing of files by the Central Board or specify the order in which they should be dealt with. On 28 February 2006 the Central Board decided that files would be processed in random order. On 16 September 2008 it reversed that decision and decided to deal with them in the order in which they were registered. 60. In order to deal with the payment of compensation awarded by the Central Board, an undertaking for collective investment in transferable securities was set up, known as the Proprietatea Fund. Its capital is made up largely of State holdings in various companies. 61. Law no. 247/2005 provided that the Proprietatea Fund was to take the necessary steps, within thirty days from its establishment, with a view to having its shares listed on the stock exchange so that the beneficiaries of compensation decisions taken under the restitution laws could sell their shares and receive the proceeds at any time. 62. Since July 2005, Law no. 247/2005 has been amended several times as regards both the operation and financing of the Proprietatea Fund and the method of calculating compensation and the procedure for making awards. 63. On 28 June 2007 the Government enacted Emergency Ordinance no. 81/2007 amending the organisation and operation of the Proprietatea Fund. Among other measures, the ordinance, which has since been confirmed by Law no. 142 of 12 July 2010, made it possible for beneficiaries from the Fund to receive part of the amount due in cash. 64. Under the terms of Government Decree no. 128 of 6 February 2008 concerning the implementation of Ordinance no. 81/2007, following the issuing of the “compensation certificate” (titlu de despagubire) by the Central Board, the person concerned has a choice between receiving part of the amount in cash (up to a limit of 500,000 Romanian lei (RON)) and the remainder in shares, or receiving the entire amount in shares. The preferred option must be notified to the NAPR, which replaces the “compensation certificate” with a “payment certificate” (titlu de plata) corresponding to the amount to be paid in cash and a “conversion certificate” (titlu de conversie) corresponding to the remainder, to be converted into Proprietatea shares. 65. The persons concerned have to make their choice within three years from the issuing of the “compensation certificate” by the Central Board. The corresponding requests are to be examined in chronological order, but no express timelimit is laid down. 66. Cash sums up to and including RON 250,000 must be paid within one year from the date on which the payment certificate is issued; for sums between RON 250,000 and RON 500,000 the time-limit is two years. 67. Under Government Emergency Ordinance no. 62 of 30 June 2010 the payment of cash sums was suspended for a two-year period in order to balance the budget. During that period “compensation certificates” may only be converted into Proprietatea shares. 68. At the request of some members of Parliament the Constitutional Court reviewed the constitutionality of Laws nos. 112/1995, 1/2000, 10/2001 and 247/2005 prior to their entry into force. In decisions given on 19 July 1995, 27 December 1999, 7 February 2001 and 6 July 2005, it held that the laws in question were compatible with the Constitution, with the exception of the provisions of Law no. 112/1995 which reaffirmed the State's ownership of immovable property which it had acquired without title; these provisions also made the adoption of reparation measures conditional on proof that the claimant had his or her permanent residence in Romania. 69. In the context of the review of the constitutionality of the legislation after its entry into force, the Constitutional Court was called upon to rule again on whether some of the provisions were compatible with the Constitution. It dismissed most of the objections as to constitutionality raised in the domestic courts and reaffirmed that the laws in question were compatible with the Constitution. 70. In decision no. 830 of 8 July 2008 the Constitutional Court held that any person who had lodged a claim under Law no. 10/2001 within the statutory time-limit was entitled to reparation measures and in particular to restitution of the property concerned if it had been nationalised unlawfully. 71. After the entry into force of Law no. 112/1995, the practice of the domestic courts was undermined by the absence of a stable legislative framework. The courts gave several different interpretations of concepts such as State “title”, the purchaser's “good faith” and “appearances in law”, and also of the relationship between actions for recovery of possession and the restitution procedures provided for by the special legislation (see Păduraru, cited above, § 96). 72. As to the position of the HCCJ concerning the jurisdiction of the domestic courts to determine claims for restitution of nationalised properties in cases where the administrative authorities had failed to respond to the notifications issued under Law no. 10/2001, the full court, in judgment no. 20 of 19 March 2007 published in the Official Gazette on 12 November 2007, held following an appeal in the interests of the law that the domestic courts had jurisdiction to determine the merits of claims and, where appropriate, to order the restitution of the property in question or award statutory compensation. 73. In judgments nos. 53 and 33 of 4 June 2007 and 9 June 2008, published in the Official Gazette on 13 November 2007 and 23 February 2009, the HCCJ, sitting as a full court and again ruling on two appeals in the interests of the law, held that following the entry into force of Law no. 10/2001 actions for recovery of possession of properties expropriated or nationalised before 1989 which had been lodged in parallel with the restitution procedure laid down by Law no. 10/2001 were inadmissible. However, as an exception to that rule the HCCJ held that persons who had a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention could bring an action for recovery of possession provided it did not infringe ownership rights acquired by third parties in good faith. 74. In judgment no. 52 of 4 June 2007, published in the Official Gazette on 22 February 2008, the HCCJ, sitting as a full court and ruling once more on an appeal in the interests of the law, held that the administrative procedure provided for by Law no. 247/2005 did not apply to claims for restitution or compensation already determined by the local administrative authorities under Law no. 10/2001. 75. With regard to local administrative authority decisions granting claims for restitution or compensation under Law no. 10/2001, the HCCJ held that they gave rise to property rights for the persons concerned and that, accordingly, they could no longer be revoked or set aside by the local administrative authorities or the Central Board (judgments nos. 6723 of 17 October 2007 and 6812 of 10 November 2008 of the Civil Division of the HCCJ). 76. As to claims submitted to the Central Board under Law no. 247/2005 on which no decision had been given, the HCCJ ruled that the courts could not take the place of the Central Board in calculating the compensation (judgments nos. 4894 and 5392 of 27 April and 11 May 2009 of the Civil Division of the HCCJ). However, the HCCJ ruled that although the Central Board was not bound by any statutory time-limit in giving its decision it was required to determine claims for restitution or compensation within a “reasonable time” as construed by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (judgments nos. 3857 and 3870 of 4 November 2008 of the Administrative and Taxation Disputes Division of the HCCJ). 77. The statistics issued by the NAPR in May 2010 and provided by the Government are as follows: – 202,782 claims had been registered with the local authorities under Law no. 10/2001. 119,022 files had been examined and an award of compensation had been proposed in 56,000 cases; – 46,701 files compiled under Law no. 10/2001 and 375 under Government Emergency Ordinances nos. 83/1999 and 94/2000 had been forwarded to the Central Board, which had issued 10,345 “compensation certificates”. The remaining files were under consideration; – with regard to Laws nos. 18/1991 and 1/2000 concerning agricultural land, according to a partial calculation relating to eight out of forty-one counties, almost one and a half million claims for restitution or compensation had been lodged with the local authorities. A total of 55,271 files compiled under the laws in question had been forwarded to the Central Board, which had granted 21,279 of the claims and had issued 10,915 “compensation certificates”. The remaining files were under consideration; – with regard to claims for restitution of land or compensation under Law no. 247/2005, over 800,000 claims had been registered with the local authorities. Approximately 172,000 of these had been granted and compensation had been proposed; – of the persons who had received “compensation certificates”, 15,059 had opted to receive part of the sum in cash, amounting to a total of about RON 2 billion (approximately EUR 400 million). 3,850 people had received payments totalling about RON 350 million (approximately EUR 80 million). 78. Shares in the Proprietatea Fund, in existence since December 2005, are still not listed on the stock exchange. However, since 2007 the Fund has been paying dividends to its shareholders and since March 2008 its shares may be sold by means of direct transactions under the supervision of the stock exchange regulatory authority. By way of example, 206 sales of shares were registered in May 2010. 79. According to the information published on 4 June 2010 by the Proprietatea Fund, the Ministry of Finance is the majority shareholder, with 56% of the Fund's shares. A further 12% are held by 103 legal entities, while 31.4% are owned by 3,622 individual shareholders. 80. According to Government estimates a total of EUR 21 billion will be needed to pay the compensation provided for by the compensation laws. 81. In Resolution Res(2004)3 on judgments revealing an underlying systemic problem, adopted on 12 May 2004, the Committee of Ministers stated as follows: “The Committee of Ministers, in accordance with Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe, ... Invites the Court: I. as far as possible, to identify, in its judgments finding a violation of the Convention, what it considers to be an underlying systemic problem and the source of this problem, in particular when it is likely to give rise to numerous applications, so as to assist states in finding the appropriate solution and the Committee of Ministers in supervising the execution of judgments; II. to specially notify any judgment containing indications of the existence of a systemic problem and of the source of this problem not only to the state concerned and to the Committee of Ministers, but also to the Parliamentary Assembly, to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and to the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, and to highlight such judgments in an appropriate manner in the database of the Court.” 82. Committee of Ministers Recommendation Rec(2004)6 on the improvement of domestic remedies, adopted on 12 May 2004, provides: “The Committee of Ministers, in accordance with Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe, ... Recommends that member states, taking into account the examples of good practice appearing in the appendix: I. ascertain, through constant review, in the light of case-law of the Court, that domestic remedies exist for anyone with an arguable complaint of a violation of the Convention, and that these remedies are effective, in that they can result in a decision on the merits of the complaint and adequate redress for any violation found; II. review, following Court judgments which point to structural or general deficiencies in national law or practice, the effectiveness of the existing domestic remedies and, where necessary, set up effective remedies, in order to avoid repetitive cases being brought before the Court; III. pay particular attention, in respect of aforementioned items I and II, to the existence of effective remedies in cases of an arguable complaint concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings; ...” 83. The relevant part of the Appendix to Committee of Ministers Recommendation Rec(2004)6 reads as follows: “... 13. When a judgment which points to structural or general deficiencies in national law or practice ('pilot case') has been delivered and a large number of applications to the Court concerning the same problem ('repetitive cases') are pending or likely to be lodged, the respondent state should ensure that potential applicants have, where appropriate, an effective remedy allowing them to apply to a competent national authority, which may also apply to current applicants. Such a rapid and effective remedy would enable them to obtain redress at national level, in line with the principle of subsidiarity of the Convention system. 14. The introduction of such a domestic remedy could also significantly reduce the Court's workload. While prompt execution of the pilot judgment remains essential for solving the structural problem and thus for preventing future applications on the same matter, there may exist a category of people who have already been affected by this problem prior to its resolution. The existence of a remedy aimed at providing redress at national level for this category of people might allow the Court to invite them to have recourse to the new remedy and, if appropriate, declare their applications inadmissible. 15. Several options with this objective are possible, depending, among other things, on the nature of the structural problem in question and on whether the person affected by this problem has applied to the Court or not. 16. In particular, further to a pilot judgment in which a specific structural problem has been found, one alternative might be to adopt an ad hoc approach, whereby the state concerned would assess the appropriateness of introducing a specific remedy or widening an existing remedy by legislation or by judicial interpretation. 17. Within the framework of this case-by-case examination, states might envisage, if this is deemed advisable, the possibility of reopening proceedings similar to those of a pilot case which has established a violation of the Convention, with a view to saving the Court from dealing with these cases and where appropriate to providing speedier redress for the person concerned. The criteria laid out in Recommendation Rec(2000)2 of the Committee of Ministers might serve as a source of inspiration in this regard. 18. When specific remedies are set up following a pilot case, governments should speedily inform the Court so that it can take them into account in its treatment of subsequent repetitive cases. 19. However, it would not be necessary or appropriate to create new remedies, or give existing remedies a certain retroactive effect, following every case in which a Court judgment has identified a structural problem. In certain circumstances, it may be preferable to leave the cases to the examination of the Court, particularly to avoid compelling the applicant to bear the further burden of having once again to exhaust domestic remedies, which, moreover, would not be in place until the adoption of legislative changes. ...” 84. On 2 March 2010, at their 1078th meeting, the Ministers' Deputies responsible for supervising execution of the Court's judgments observed, with reference to the Străin and Viaşu cases and over a hundred other Romanian cases of the same type, that the issues raised therein reflected a major systemic problem linked in particular to the absence of restitution or compensation in respect of properties which had been nationalised and were subsequently sold by the State to third parties. They took note of the action plan presented by the Romanian authorities on 25 February 2010 and invited them to submit a tentative timetable for adoption of the measures envisaged. 85. In the years following the Second World War the communist regimes in numerous central and eastern European countries conducted massive programmes of nationalisation and expropriation of immovable property, industrial, banking and commercial structures and, with the exception of Poland, agricultural structures. 86. In the early 1990s restitution measures were adopted in many of these countries, whose political and legal situations differed. The detailed arrangements and scope of the measures varied and there were wide differences in the forms of compensation adopted by States. 87. Some States (Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Georgia) have not enacted any legislation concerning restitution or compensation in respect of properties that were nationalised or confiscated. 88. The legislation in Poland does not establish a general right to restitution or compensation in respect of properties that were confiscated or nationalised. The sole exception concerns the Bug River region and is confined to a right to compensation. In practice, the persons entitled can opt either to have the index-linked value of the abandoned properties deducted from the price of a State-owned property acquired by means of a competitive bidding procedure, or to receive money from the compensation fund. The amount of compensation which claimants may receive is subject to a statutory ceiling of 20% of the current value of the property lost in the Bug River region. 89. The Hungarian legislation on partial compensation for damage caused to citizens' property by the State provides for compensation to be paid in monetary form or in the form of coupons. There is also a statutory cap on compensation. 90. The majority of the countries concerned restrict the right to restitution or compensation to certain categories of properties or claimants. In some countries the legislation lays down time-limits, sometimes very short, for lodging claims. 91. Some countries provide for various forms of restitution and/or compensation by means of so-called “restitution” laws: this is the case in Albania, Bulgaria, Lithuania and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. Others have dealt with the issue of restitution under rehabilitation laws (the Czech Republic, Germany, Moldova, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine). Finally, the issue is also dealt with under property legislation (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany and Slovenia). 92. In all cases, restitution is not an absolute right and may be subject to numerous conditions and restrictions. The same is true of the right to compensation. 93. Either the former owners or their successors in title (lawful heirs in Albania) may be eligible for restitution or compensation in respect of confiscated or nationalised property. In some countries including the Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Moldova, Slovakia and Slovenia, the legislation requires the claimant to be a citizen either when the property was confiscated or when the claim for restitution is made, or in some cases even both. In addition, the law in Estonia and Slovakia requires claimants to be permanent residents both when the law entered into force and when the claim for restitution or compensation is made. In those systems where there is a rehabilitation procedure, only persons rehabilitated in accordance with the law may claim restitution of their property. This is the case in the Czech Republic, Germany, Moldova, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine. In these countries entitlement to restitution or compensation is wholly or partially linked to the rehabilitation of victims of political repression. 94. The legislation in some countries excludes several categories of properties from restitution or compensation. 95. In some cases the legislation excludes land and buildings the character of which has been altered (Germany); other countries exclude property which has lost its original character (Estonia) or property which has disappeared or been destroyed, as well as properties which have passed into private ownership (Moldova, Russia and Ukraine). 96. In addition, under Estonian law, military property, cultural and social assets and property under State protection, as well as buildings used by the State or local administrative authorities, are excluded from restitution. Under the legislation in Moldova plots of land, forests, perennial plantations and property confiscated on grounds unrelated to political repression are also ineligible for restitution. 97. In Russia and Ukraine properties which were nationalised in accordance with the legislation in force at the time do not qualify for restitution or compensation. 98. In Lithuania restitution is possible only in the case of residential property. The Serbian legislation provides only for partial restitution of agricultural land. Finally, in the Czech Republic and Bulgaria the restitution laws specify the properties which are covered. 99. Some legislation imposes temporal restrictions on the lodging of claims for restitution or compensation. This is the case in Albania and Estonia, where former owners were given less than a year in which to lodge a claim, and in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (one year from the date of entry into force of the law on rehabilitation). 100. Elsewhere, the legislation restricts restitution or compensation to properties nationalised or confiscated during a certain period. By way of example, the German compensation scheme is limited to properties nationalised after 1949 but compensation is awarded for properties nationalised between 1945 and 1949 in the Soviet-occupied zone. 101. A number of countries have opted to provide compensation in the form of another property equivalent to that which was nationalised or confiscated (Albania, Bulgaria, Germany, Montenegro and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). 102. Where no exchange is possible the legislation allows the person concerned to be provided with a property of a different kind, a sum of money, compensation vouchers (Bulgaria and Hungary), State securities or bonds (Slovenia and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) or shares in a public company (Albania and Bulgaria). 103. The amount of compensation is calculated mainly by reference to the market value of the property at the time of the restitution or compensation decision (Albania, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland and Serbia) or at the time the property was confiscated (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), or as otherwise provided by law. 104. Some countries take account of other considerations in addition to the market price. In Albania, when compensation is provided in the form of shares the amount is equal to the value of the property at the time of the decision or the value of the privatised public property. 105. Other factors may also be taken into consideration in determining the amount of compensation. In Germany, for instance, account is taken of the value of the property before expropriation, which is then multiplied by a coefficient laid down by law. 106. In some countries the legislation sets a cap on compensation (Germany, Russia and Ukraine), or provides for payment in instalments (Moldova). 107. The authorities responsible for determining restitution or compensation claims may be judicial or administrative. The most common arrangements include special restitution and compensation boards (Albania, Bulgaria, Moldova and Montenegro), administrative bodies (Lithuania), the Ministry of Finance or Justice, or even the courts (the Czech Republic). In all the countries surveyed an appeal lies to the administrative or civil courts against the decisions of the administrative bodies.