CASE OF GUȚĂ TUDOR TEODORESCU v. ROMANIA
Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Possessions);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
András Sajó;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano
5. On 8 April 1998 the applicant requested the Bucharest Commission for Implementing Law no. 9/1998 (the County Commission) to award compensation for a property owned by his ancestors and taken over by the Bulgarian State. On 15 December 2000 the Commission issued a decision proposing payment of compensation in the amount of ROL 2,013,957,441 (approximately EUR 88,000 at the time). 6. That decision, according to the law, had to be validated by a central commission within sixty days. As the Central Commission did not issue any decision, the applicant brought a court action aimed at obliging the Central Commission to act in accordance with the law. The applicant also asked for the amounts granted by the County Commission to be adjusted for inflation when payment was made. The applicant’s action was dismissed on 17 February 2002 by the Bucharest County Court, which held that the sixty-day deadline was not compulsory, but rather advisory. The court also held that the adjustment of the amounts granted was indeed prescribed by Article 8 § 3 of the law, but any adjustment was to be made at the time payment was actually made, once the Central Commission had ratified or otherwise the County Commission decision. 7. On 23 June 2003 the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s claim, and ordered that the Central Commission issue a decision ratifying or otherwise the proposal made by the County Commission on 15 December 2000. The court held that the claim concerning the adjustment of the amounts granted as compensation was to be dealt with during the enforcement stage. 8. On 29 August 2003 the Central Commission ratified the County Commission decision of 15 December 2000. 9. The compensation, representing at that time approximately EUR 54,000, was paid to the applicant on 22 November 2003. 10. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Central Commission, on 13 December 2003 the applicant lodged a court action aimed at obtaining an adjustment of the initial amount to take into account inflation from the date on which it was established by the County Commission to the date of actual payment. 11. By a decision of 16 April 2004, the Bucharest County Court ruled in the applicant’s favour. The County Court established that in accordance with Article 8 § 2 of Law no. 9/1998, the amounts set by the County Commission had to be adjusted for inflation if they were not paid in the year they were awarded. 12. On 21 February 2005 the Bucharest Court of Appeal reversed the decision, and ruled that the applicant was not entitled to an adjustment for inflation. 13. The appellate court concluded that the County Court had interpreted the applicable law incorrectly, as the entitlement to adjustment for inflation had to be determined on the basis of the date when the Central Commission had ratified the decision of the County Commission. As the payment had been made uno ictu, and not in instalments, during the same year as the Central Commission took its decision, the applicant was not entitled to an adjustment for inflation. 14. It also concluded that the failure of the Central Commission to ratify the decision of the County Commission within sixty days could not represent a legal basis for the adjustment of the amount in question.