Brumarescu’s house - a planned loss for the Nastase
Government
By Rasvan Moldoveanu
For the very first time and as a result of a decision from the European Court of Human Rights-Strasbourg, the Romanian State returned to the rightful owner a residential real estate property that had been confiscated during the communist era.
By a final Bucharest Court decision, Dan Brumarescu had regained in 1993 ownership of his house that had been confiscated by the communists. But later when the Supreme Court of Romania started to pronounce annulment decisions ordered by the Attorney General of Romania, Mr. Brumarescu lost ownership of his property once again. At that time all possibilities to appeal the unjust decision were exhausted for Mr. Brumarescu. Thousands or maybe tens of thousands of owners whose properties were confiscated by the communists still are in a position similar to that of Mr. Brumarescu’s. But Mr. Brumarescu did not give up so easily. In contrast to how the Romanian government regarded the fact that Romania is a member of the Council of Europe and had signed the European Convention of Human Rights, Mr. Adrian Vasiliu, who is Mr. Brumarescu’s attorney, regarded these facts with seriousness. Mr. Vasiliu counted on two facts: that Mr. Brumarescu has the right to a fair trial and that he has the right to enjoy his private property. Mr. Vasiliu also counted on the fact that his client must have access to a higher court than those available in Romania, that is access to the European Court for Human Rights. Mr. Vasiliu sent a petition to Strasbourg and he won. The decisions of this European Court are not debatable. These decisions must be executed. Countries like Great Britain, France, and Germany accept these decisions without comment. Romania executed on Tuesday, July 24, 2001, the European Court’s decision and gave Mr. Brumarescu his house back. But Romania commented the decision. When Prime-Minister Adrian Nastase heard in January 2001 about the European Court’s decision, he made an explosive comment saying that the Strasbourg Court behaves like a real estate agency taking the unusual liberty of appraising the value of houses in Romania.
Despite all the comments, a precedent was set: the Brumarescu case. According to attorneys’ estimates, there are hundreds of files filed at the European Court for Human Rights that claim violation of property rights in Romania. Hundreds of Romanians, after many years of expensive and painful litigation claim their properties, back via Strasbourg. These Romanian claimants represent only a small fraction of those who after 10 or 11 years of litigation haven’t gained anything.
For a country to sign and ratify the European Convention for Human Rights
means, first of all, to respect this document’s provisions. Only in unfortunate cases when authorities,
like the Romanian authorities for example, fail to respect the provisions of
the European Convention, a small number of cases are filed with the European
Court.
The Romanian Government, after Romania was admitted to the
Council of Europe, took advantage of two facts: that the European Tribunal acts in a very slow way and that very
few Romanians would address this Tribunal.
The Romanian Government was counting on these two facts not only with
regard to the property problem, but also with regard to abuses of all kinds
done by magistrates, by the police, and by other government representatives.
How many decisions against Romania would the European Court for Human Rights
have until the next elections, the Romanian authorities asked themselves?
Probably very few! This fact is very
unfortunate for the Romanian citizens but very fortunate for the Romanian
State. Despite the fact that every
decision of the European Court against Romania demonstrates that Romania mocks
the European Convention for Human Rights, the Romanian Government under the
Prime-Minister Adrian Nastase calls victory failures like the one in the case
of Brumarescu. The Nastase Government
would say: “We respected blindly the
European decision. We gave Mr.
Brumarescu his house back. We do
respect the right to private property!”
Luckily for the Romanian Government, not all wronged Romanians address
the Strasbourg Tribunal, because of various reasons, ignorance, lack of money,
or psychological exhaustion.
Imagine Adrian Nastase’s reaction if he were faced with tens of thousands of decision from the European Court of Human Rights that were in favor of the rightful owners or of others who were wronged by the Romanian Government!
Taking on as planned losses two or three “Brumarescu” cases per term, the Nastase Government and the Rodica Stanoiu Justice can continue to violate the European Convention of Human Rights, without any fear of repercussions. The right to a fair trial and the right to private property cannot stop the post-1989 Romanian authorities from further violating these rights and from reinforcing the abuses done against property owners by the communists.