Communiqué issued by the Secretary to the European Commission of Human Rights

Application No. 28342/96

DAN BRUMARESCU

vs.

ROMANIA

On 22 May 1997, the European Commission of Human Rights (Council of Europe) held a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application introduced by Mr. Dan Brumarescu against Romania.

The application concerns the refusal by the Supreme Court of Justice to recognize the competence of the national courts to examine the legality of the nationalization measures implemented during the Communist regime and the consequent alleged violation of the right of ownership. It raises issues under, inter alia, Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

After having deliberated, the Commission declared the application admissible, without prejudging the merits.

*    *

*

In 1950, the applicant's parents' house situated in Bucharest, was nationalized without compensation.

Following proceedings filed by the applicant, Bucharest First-Instance Court held, on 9 May 1993, that the nationalization was illegal. That judgment became res judicata and in 1994 the applicant took possession of his house.

Subsequently, the Principal State Prosecutor of Romania filled an application with the Supreme Court of Justice for annulment of the above-mentioned judgment. In a judgment of 1 March 1995 the Supreme Court of Justice granted that application, annulled the judgment of 9 May 1993 and, on the merits, dismissed the applicant's claim. The court found that the house had become State property pursuant to a Law, that application of that Law was a matter for the legislature and therefore not subject to scrutiny by the courts. The court stated finally that new Laws would in any case be providing for reparative measures in respect of assets unlawfully appropriated by the State.

The applicant complains before the Commission about the refusal by the Supreme Court of Justice to recognize the courts' competence to examine allegations that nationalization measures implemented during the Communist regime were illegal. He claims that he was thus deprived of his right to have his cases heard by a tribunal. He argues further that the annulment by the Supreme Court of Justice of the contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

The Government argue that the application is inadmissible, on the ground that it is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. As regards Article 6 of the Convention, the Government submit, that in November 1995, Law No. 112/1995 was adopted in order to redress the unlawful acts of the Communist regime and that a draft Law is currently being examined in order to compensate former owners who are not covered by Law No. 112/1995.

As regards Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Government consider that the application is incompatible, ratione materiae with the provisions of that Article.

*    *

*

The Commission will now consider the merits of the application and place itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for human rights as defined in the Convention (Article 28 par. a (b)). If it succeeds in effecting a friendly settlement, the Commission will make a Report to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, containing a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached (Article 28 par. 2).

On the other hand, if a solution is not reached, the Commission will draw up a Report on the facts and state its opinion as to whether the facts disclose a breach by the Government of their obligations under the Convention (Article 31). The Report will be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which will decide the matter unless the case is referred to the European Court of Human Rights by the Commission, the respondent Government or the applicant.

At the hearing the parties were represented as follows:

For the Government:

- Mr. Adrian Telu, Agent

- Mr. Lucian Popescu, Head of the Ministry of Justice,

Counsel for the applicant:

- Mr. Corneliu Dinu, a lawyer in Bucharest, Counsel

The applicant was also present at the hearing.