47257/19;55707/20;22384/21;23261/21;16528/22;10100/23;1819/24;7313/24;7317/24;4091/25

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF FARCHESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 47257/19 and 9 others –  see appended list)             JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG 16 April 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Farchescu and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Anne Louise Bormann, President,  Sebastian Răduleţu,  András Jakab, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 26 Mars 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.  The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.  The applicants complained of the ineffectiveness of restitution mechanism in respect of property confiscated or nationalised by the communist regime. THE LAW        JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.      ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 of Protocol No. 1 6.  The applicants submitted that their inability to recover possession of their unlawfully nationalised properties or obtain compensation, despite court decisions acknowledging their property rights or their entitlement to obtain a decision on their restitution claims, had amounted to a breach of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 7.  The Court notes that in respect of application no. 1819/24 the Government raised a preliminary objection of abuse of the right of individual application because the applicant had allegedly failed to provide the Court with important information regarding the course of the domestic proceedings at issue, notably that the execution of the judgment rendered in his favour (see appendix) could not be concluded because the applicant had failed to submit the original version of the compensation decision. 8.  The Court reiterates that an application may only be rejected as an abuse of petition in specific circumstances (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014, and Nowak v. Poland, no. 60906/16, § 20, 13 October 2022). Having regard to its case-law (see, mutatis mutandis, Dickmann and Gion v. Romania, nos. 10346/03 and 10893/04, § 72, 24 October 2017), the Court finds no grounds on which to hold that the present case was brought in abuse of the right of application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It follows that the Government’s preliminary objection must be dismissed. 9.  The Court further notes that the decisions in the present applications acknowledged the applicants’ property rights or their entitlement to obtain a decision on their restitution claims (see the appended table for details of court orders). The Court therefore considers that the decisions in question constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 10.  In the leading case of Vǎleanu and Others v. Romania (nos. 59012/17 and 29 others, §§ 216-31, 8 November 2022), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 11.  Hence, having examined all the material submitted to it in the present cases, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour. 12.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Vǎleanu and Others v. Romania (just satisfaction), nos. 59012/17 and 27 others, 7 January 2025), with regard to the non-enforcement of the outstanding judgments in the applicants’ favour, involving the return of the properties in question, the Court considers that the enforcement of those judgments would place the applicants, as far as possible, in a situation equivalent to that which they would have been in if there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 14.  Failing such enforcement by the respondent State, the Court holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, in respect of pecuniary damage, an amount calculated according with the methodology established in Văleanu and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, §§ 114-18. In this connection, the Court finds that the calculation criteria set out in the Emergency Ordinance no. 38/2025[1], in force since 8 August 2025, are not relevant for the present cases, which had been lodged with the Court prior to and relating to outstanding domestic decisions delivered before the entry into force of those new provisions. Hence, having regard to the information at its disposal, notably the relevant notarial grids, the documents submitted by the parties and its established case-law (ibid, § 116), the Court considers it reasonable and equitable, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, to award the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of pecuniary damage. 15.  The Court must reiterate, however, that the applicants cannot derive any right to double compensation or unjust enrichment from the Court’s judgment. Therefore, in so far as domestic administrative and/or judicial proceedings relating to the applicants’ claims to their property were still pending before the relevant authorities at the date of the latest information available to the Court, and in order to prevent any unjust enrichment from the present judgment, the Court considers that all amounts relating to the compensation due to the applicants which are relevant to the present case and which would have already been enforced in their favour by the date of the present judgment, should be deducted, as the case may be, from the amounts listed in the appendix. 16.  In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the serious interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions cannot be adequately compensated for by the simple finding of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Making an assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, and in view of the ne ultra petita principle, the Court awards the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 17.  Finally, as regards costs and expenses, having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants (applications nos. 55707/20 and 23261/21) the amounts indicated in the appended table covering costs and expenses incurred before this Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants on that amount. In so far it concerns application no. 10100/23, the Court rejects the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses as unsubstantiated.   FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Dismisses the Government’s preliminary objection in respect of application no. 1819/24; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non‑enforcement of domestic decisions acknowledging the applicants’ property rights; Holds               that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the outstanding judgments in the applicants’ favour, involving the return of the properties in question (applications listed under nos. 1-9 in the appendix) and subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 15, within twelve months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention;                that, failing such enforcement in the above-mentioned cases, the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within the same twelve months, the amounts indicated in the appendix (last column), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;  that in respect of application listed under no. 10 in the appendix, the respondent State is to pay the applicant within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the amount indicated in the appendix (last column), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;                that, in any event, the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the amounts indicated in the appendix, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses;                that from the expiry of the above-mentioned twelve, or respectively three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 April 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Anne Louise Bormann  Acting Deputy Registrar President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (ineffectiveness of restitution mechanism in respect of property confiscated or nationalised by the communist regime) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Identification of claimed property Relevant domestic decision confirming entitlement Alleged interference with property rights Amount awarded for pecuniary damage per applicant/household (in euros)[2] Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage (in euros)[3] Amount awarded for costs and expenses (in euros)[4]     47257/19 26/08/2019 Liviu FARCHESCU                 equivalent plot of land to 380 sq. m intra muros land located at 19 Suceava Street, Timișoara County to property, Decision of 7/04 2011 of the Timiș County Court, casefile no. 3134/325/2010 non‑enforcement of final judgment 98,800 10,000 Not requested     55707/20 02/12/2020 Andreas HEITLER   Răzvan-Mihalcea Alexandra-Emanuela Timisoara original plot of land (2,140 sq. m) identified in the Timișoara land register no. 12685 with the topographical no. 23587 to property, Decision of 18/07/2018 of Timiș County Court, casefile no. 19846/325/2015 non-enforcement of final judgment 14,980 5,000     22384/21 15/04/2021 Teofil BOLEA       plot of land intra muros (1.4061 ha) in Perieni, Vaslui County to property, decision of 25/11/2015 of the Vaslui County Court, casefile no. 896/189/2014 non-enforcement of final judgment 98,427 10,000 Not requested     23261/21 21/04/2021 Tiberiu CEUTĂ   Ileana-Carmen IAROŞCENCO   Nedelcu Paul-Iulian Craiova equivalent plot of land (37 ha) located in Dolj County to property, Decision of 14/12/2020 of Dolj County Court, casefile no. 11518/215/2016* non-enforcement of final judgment 148,000, jointly 10,000, jointly 250, jointly     16528/22 17/05/2022 Mircea-Silviu BĂRDAȘU       property or compensation for 1.75 ha plot of land intra muros and 1.72 ha plot of land extra muros located in Eriu Sâncrai, Satu-Mare County to property, decision of 22/12/2006, Carei County Court, casefile no. 1863/2006 non-enforcement of final judgment 50,196   10,000 Not requested     10100/23 22/02/2023 Ioana-Lucia HARCA   Ispravnic Roxana Valentina Bucuresti equivalent plot of land or compensation to 1.4 ha land located in the 1st District of Bucharest, occupied by Străulești Cemetery, according to the applicant’s share of estate to property, decision of 16/06/2017 of Bucharest Tribunal, casefile no. 16174/299/2011 non-enforcement of final judgment 1,274,000 10,000 Unsubstantiated     1819/24 27/12/2023 Titu DUŢĂ       2.5 ha vineyard or equivalent land located in Urechești, Vrancea County, according to the applicant’s share of the estate to property, final decision of 19/02/1993 of Focșani District Court, casefile no. 9022/1993 non-enforcement of final judgment 10,000 10,000 Not requested     7313/24 29/02/2024 Vasile DINESCU       1/2 of 0.24 ha land in Bujoreni commune, Vâlcea County to property, final decision of 11/07/2016, Râmnicu Vâlcea District Court, casefile no. 5634/288/2015 non-enforcement of final judgment 970, amount to be paid jointly with the applicant Mihai Dinescu application no. 7317/24, case no. 9 below Not requested     7317/24 29/02/2024 Mihai DINESCU       1/2 of 0.24 ha land in Bujoreni commune, Vâlcea County to property, final decision of 11/07/2016 of Râmnicu Vâlcea District Court, casefile no. 5634/288/2015 non-enforcement of final judgment See under case no. 8. above, application no. 7313/24 Not requested     4091/25 28/01/2025 (3 applicants) Horst Nikolaus KOHL   Gerlinde FISCH-KOHL   Gertrud Hedwig JÄGER Lazăr Mirela-Simona Timisoara 520,787.98 points for ½ of property located in Timișoara, Bd. Brâncoveanu, no. 38, CF no. 4605, Timiș County to compensation, final decision of 16/03/2022, Timiș County Court, casefile no. 134/30/2021 non-enforcement of final judgment 130,724.48, jointly 10,000, jointly Not requested   [1] Emergency Ordinance No. 38 of 8 August 2025 for amending and supplementing Law No. 165/2013 on measures for the finalisation of the process of restitution, in kind or by equivalent compensation, of immovable property abusively taken during the communist regime in Romania, published in the Official Gazette on and in force as of 8 August 2025. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable. [3] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [4] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.