HAUTĂ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Inadmissible
András Sajó;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano
1. The applicants, Ms Elena Haută, Ms Veronica Dima and Ms Aurelia Florea, are all Romanian nationals, born in 1930, 1924 and 1935 respectively and live in Huşi, Şişcani and Vuţcani, respectively. The applicants were initially represented before the Court by Mr J. Crudu, a lawyer practising in Vaslui. The first and the third applicants are currently represented by Ms Diana-Elena Dragomir, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. 2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. On 11 March 1999 the applicants’ mother, Z.D., lodged with the administrative authorities a request under Law no. 9/1998, seeking to be compensated for a plot of land, a house and a yard she and her husband G.D., now deceased, had owned together before 1940 in Bazarghean, Durostor District. In her appended statement, given before a public notary on 19 July 1999, Z.D. confirmed that she had never received any compensation for the respective property. 5. On 27 January 2000 the Vaslui County Commission for Implementing Law 9/1998 allowed the request and granted the claimant 529 million lei (ROL) (approximately 29,000 euros (EUR) at the time) in compensation. 6. On 7 June 2002 this decision was overturned by the Central Commission, the national authority in charge of the implementation of Law no. 9/1998, which held that the calculation of the total amount needed to be done again, given that the disputed plot of land was actually located on the outskirts and not in the central area, while the disputed house had been built with adobe and not with bricks. The decision stipulated that: “In view of the advanced age of the person entitled [to compensation] the decision must urgently be redrafted and the three children of the deceased father, G.D., should be included therein.” 7. Z.D. contested this decision, claiming that the calculation made by the County Commission was correct; however, in the judgment of 13 January 2003, the Vaslui Court of First Instance upheld the decision given by the Central Commission. Z.D. appealed. Her appeal was dismissed as out of time by the Iaşi Court of Appeal on 31 March 2003. A further appeal lodged with the same court was dismissed as inadmissible on 20 October 2003. 8. On the same day Z.D. died. 9. The applicants, Z.D.’s heirs, have lodged several requests with various state authorities (including the President, the Ombudsman, and the Prefect of Vaslui), asking for a decision to be taken in their case. 10. An expert report issued on 19 October 2005 at the request of the Vaslui County Commission proposed that an amount of 23,891.62 RON be given for the impugned land. The report mentioned that according to a certificate issued by the Huşi Mayor Office, Z.D. had never requested or received compensation in accordance with the Romanian legislation on land restitution. A similar expert report issued on 15 October 2005 evaluated the impugned house and appurtenant land to 145,533.01 RON. 11. Consequently, on 1 November 2005 the Vaslui County Commission issued another decision on Z.D.’s name, granting her compensation in the amount of 169,424 Romanian lei (RON) (approximately EUR 47,000 at the time). 12. On 14 July 2006 the National Authority for Property Restitution (hereinafter “the National Authority”), the authority which had replaced and taken over the responsibilities of the Central Commission, replied to one of the applicants’ letters. The National Authority informed them that their file was pending before it, and that generally every file was assessed on the basis of on documents such as civil status certificates, other certificates attesting whether any compensation had already been granted, expert reports, and so on. 13. On 15 November 2006 the Prime Minister’s Head of Chancellery issued an order which invalidated the decision of 1 November 2004, given that the claimant needed to submit further documents concerning the civil status of G.D.’s heirs and attesting to whether any other compensation had been received by any of the heirs, in accordance with the Romanian legislation on land restitution. The Chancellery sent the file back to the Prefect of Vaslui County for further examination, while holding that: “compensation should be granted to the claimant for 10 ha of land, house and yard of 4000 sq. m.; for the rest of the yard [the claimant] should be granted equivalent agricultural land”. 14. On 15 January 2007 the Prefect of Vaslui addressed a letter to Z.D., informing her that she needed to submit the documents referred to in the decision of 15 November 2006. 15. No other decision has yet been taken on the claims lodged by Z.D. under Law no. 9/1998. 16. Law no. 9/1998 came into force on 14 March 1998 and was amended in 2004 and 2007; it established a compensatory mechanism for Romanian citizens whose immovable properties were confiscated without due compensation under the Treaty of Craiova, signed by Romania and Bulgaria on 7 September 1940 (see paragraph 35 below). 17. The mechanism referred essentially to pecuniary compensation or to the right to shares in State-run companies. The deadline for filing such claims was set in Article 4 § 1 at eighteen months from the entry into force of the law. This deadline was subsequently extended by Law no. 97/2005, for a period of twelve more months starting with the entry into force of the law on 21 April 2005 and then by Law no. 348/2006, for a period of eighteen more months, starting from the entry into force of the law on 28 July 2006. 18. The bodies in charge of implementing the said Law were the County Commissions established within each county (including Bucharest) under the authority of the Prefect, and the Central Commission for Implementing Law no. 9/1998. 19. Under Article 7 § 1, the County Commissions had responsibility for assessing and dealing with requests for compensation within a maximum of six months following the date of registration. The decisions of the County Commissions were communicated to the claimants and the Central Commission, and they could be challenged by the claimants before the Central Commission within fifteen days. The latter then had to ratify or reject such decisions within sixty days. In their turn, the decisions adopted by the Central Commission could be challenged before the domestic courts. 20. From 18 October 2004, when Government Decision no. 1643/2004 came into force, the responsibilities of the Central Commission were taken over by the Department for the Application of Law no. 9/1998, functioning within the Prime Minister’s Chancellery. The Department forwarded the ratification decisions adopted by the County Commissions for the approval of the Prime Minister’s Head of Chancellery. The Department was further entitled to make a proposal for adjustment of the compensation at the time of the ratification decision, in accordance with Law no. 9/1998. 21. These responsibilities were taken over by the National Authority with effect from the entry into force of Government Decision no. 361/2005, namely on 29 April 2005; this act was modified by Government Decision no. 240/2006 on 27 February 2006. 23. Adopted on 14 March 2014, EGO no. 10/2014 suspended for a period of six months the issue by the competent authorities of any decision on claims lodged under Law no. 9/1998 and Law no. 290/2003. The ordinance further suspended for the same period the voluntary payment of compensation already granted under Law no. 9/1998, Law no. 290/2003, and Law no. 393/2006. 24. Law no. 164/2014 concerning measures for the acceleration and finalisation of the process of resolving compensation claims lodged under Law no. 9/1998 and Law no. 290/2003 entered into force on 18 December 2014. 25. Article 2 states that the only compensatory measure possible was pecuniary compensation. 26. Article 3 defines the applicability of the law to all claims lodged in due time with the County Commissions and in respect of which no decision has been issued, or in respect of which a decision granting compensation has been issued but no payment has been made, as well as to those claims lodged under Law no. 9/1998 or Law no. 290/2003 that are currently pending before the domestic courts. 27. The law authorises the transfer of all powers of the Central Commission to the National Authority, who shall thus ratify or otherwise any decision taken by the County Commissions on claims lodged under Law no. 9/1998 and Law no. 290/2003. The National Authority is entitled to request further information and documents, from public institutions as well as from claimants, when such documents are missing or are not corroborated. 28. Decisions taken by the National Authority are subject to appeal before the administrative courts. 29. Article 10 of the law sets out the deadlines by which all payments should be made, providing also for the manner in which the compensation should be adjusted for inflation, on the basis of the consumer price index, from the moment the decision was issued until the entry into force of the law. 30. Article 12 sets out a 120-day deadline within which the claimants are to supplement their files with further documents, following a written request in that respect sent by the authority. This deadline may be extended once, for sixty more days, at the request of the claimant, if evidence shows that he/she has taken the necessary steps to obtain the necessary information. 31. Article 13 provides that the County Commissions are bound to issue a decision on the applicants’ claims within: “a) nine months, if there are less than 500 files pending before them; b) eighteen months, if the files pending before them are in the range of 501-1000; c) thirty-six months if they have more than 1000 files pending before them.” This deadline started running on 1 January 2015. 32. Article 14 stipulates that decisions issued by the County Commissions before the entry into force of the present law and already registered with the National Agency should be ratified or otherwise within eighteen months of the entry into force of the law. Decisions issued after the entry into force of the law should be ratified or otherwise by the National Authority within eighteen months of their registration with that authority. The registration number and the number of files pending with the National Authority shall be published on its web page. 33. Article 15 gives claimants the opportunity to apply to the courts in the event that the above-mentioned deadlines are not complied with. 34. Article 17 of the law sets out several measures meant to increase the efficiency of the compensation procedures, providing, inter alia, for a temporary increase of the number of posts available at the National Authority. 35. The Treaty of Craiova was signed on 7 September 1940 by Romania and Bulgaria. Under the terms of this treaty, the signatory parties agreed on the border line that was to be established between the two countries, with particular reference to the territory between the Black Sea and the Danube River (the Cadrilater). Section III of the Treaty provided for a mandatory resettlement of Romanian citizens of Bulgarian ethnicity living in Tulcea and Constanţa Districts to Bulgaria, and the resettlement of ethnic Romanians living in Durostor and Caliacra Districts to Romania. Section V of Annex C of the Treaty stipulated that the Romanian State was in charge of compensating those Romanian citizens who, following the mandatory resettlement had to abandon their possessions in the rural areas which were transferred to Bulgaria.