19287/20;28617/20;3911/21;37636/22;37637/22;57150/22;42610/23;8843/24;20073/24;32304/24

Plný text

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF GRUIA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 19287/20 and 9 others – see appended list) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 9 July 2026 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Gruia and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Anne Louise Bormann, President, András Jakab, Corinna Wissels, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 18 June 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. locus standi 6.  In respect of application no. 28617/20, the Court firstly takes note of the information regarding the death of the applicant, Mr Marius Groper, and the wish of his heirs to continue the proceedings in his stead, as well as of the absence of an objection on the Government’s part to their standing. Having regard to the close family ties and their legitimate interest in pursuing the application, the Court accepts that the heirs of Mr Marius Groper, namely Mr Gilad Groper, Mr Asaf Grupper and Ms Ayelet Grupper, may pursue the application in his stead.

7. However, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the ensuing text. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 of Protocol No. 1 8.  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.

9. In respect of applications nos. 19287/20, 37636/22, 37637/22 and 57150/22, the Government submitted that the applicants had failed to provide important information concerning developments in the domestic proceedings, in particular as regards partial payments made or relevant compensation decisions issued in the applicants’ favour. In that connection, in respect of applications nos. 19287/20, 37636/22 and 37637/22, the Government also argued that the applicants had lost their victim status because part of the compensation due had already been paid.

10. The Court firstly notes that the relevant information referred to by the Government can essentially be found in the casefile before it, and in any event, does not affect the very core of the applications so as to consider that the applicants have abused their right to file their individual applications (see, mutatis mutandis, Tverdokhlebova v. Ukraine, no. 15830/16, §§ 30‑35, 16 January 2025; Prenča v. Serbia, no. 48725/12, §§ 55-56, 7 October 2025; and Skučai v. Lithuania, no. 60969/21, §§ 92-95, 4 February 2025). Secondly and as regards the applicants’ victim status, the Court considers that even though part of the compensation has already been paid, the applicants may still claim to be victims of the alleged violations in respect of the outstanding amount (see also paragraph 17 below).

11. The Court further considers 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No.

1. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.  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.

16. 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 in line 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.

17. 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.

18. As regards the amount of money claimed in respect of loss of profit or benefit from the applicants’ possessions by the applicants in applications nos. 28617/20 and 32304/24, the Court rejects these claims. To award a sum of money on this basis would be a speculative process, given that profit derived from possession of property depends on several factors (ibid., § 119).

19. 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, the Court awards the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.

20. Finally, as regards costs and expenses, having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court rejects the applicants’ claims (applications nos. 19287/20 and 32304/24), noting that an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred in the proceedings before the Court and are reasonable as to quantum. As regards application no. 20073/24, the Court will not make an award in respect of costs and expenses, the claim having been submitted out of time. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that in application no. 28617/20 Mr Gilad Groper, Mr Asaf Grupper and Ms Ayelet Grupper have standing to pursue the proceedings in the late applicant’s stead; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; 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. 3, 7, 8 in the appendix) and subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 17, 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 (column 8), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage; that, in respect of applications listed under no. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 in the appendix, 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 amount indicated in the appendix (column 8), 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; 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 9 July 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 (in euros)

2. Amount awarded for non‑pecuniary damage (in euros)[3] 19287/20 16/04/2020 Ionel GRUIA 1950 Gruia Ionel Craiova compensation of 757,500 points[4] for 505 sq. m intra‑muros plot of land located at 2 Bibescu Street (former 7 Noiembrie Street), Craiova, Dolj County to compensation, decision of 17/05/2018 of the Craiova Court of Appeal, case file no. 10696/63/2014*, decision of 10/11/2021 of the Craiova Court of Appeal, case file no. 8348/63/2020 non‑enforcement of final judgment 188,255 (amount adjusted for inflation as of 2021‑2026) 10,000 28617/20 09/07/2020 Marius GROPER 1934 Died in 2024 Pursued by heirs: Gilad GROPER 1961 Asaf GRUPPER 1972 Ayelet GRUPPER 1965 compensation for 463 sq. m intra‑muros land and 220 sq. m building located at 8 Nicolae Titulescu Street (former Karl Marx Street), Bacău, Bacău County to compensation, decision of 06/03/2014 of the Bucharest County Court, upheld by decision of 13/11/2014 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, case file no. 29395/3/2013 non‑enforcement of final judgment 217,308, jointly 10,000, jointly 3911/21 07/01/2021 (3 applicants) Adriana‑Paula MITRĂNESCU 1959 Daniela‑Ionela DRĂGUŞIN 1956 Marina Alexandra RĂPCĂU 1941 30 ha of extra‑muros arable land located in Verbița, Dolj County to property, decision of 19/03/2015 of the Băilești District Court (final in the absence of an appeal), case file no. 16456/215/2013* non‑enforcement of final judgment 117,648, jointly 10,000, jointly 37636/22 21/07/2022 Valentina STANCA 1963 ½ of the compensation of 391,867 points for 489 sq. m land and (demolished) building currently located at 10 Constantin Brâncuși Street (former Fazanilor Street), Oradea, Bihor County to compensation, decision of 22/10/2021 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, case file no. 39958/3/2018 non‑enforcement of final judgment 48,694 (amount adjusted for inflation as of 2021-2026) 10,000, amount to be paid jointly with the applicant Florentina Radu, application no. 37637/22, case no. 5 below 37637/22 21/07/2022 Florentina RADU 1956 ½ of the compensation of 391,867 points for 489 sq. m land and (demolished) building currently located at 10 Constantin Brâncuși Street (former Fazanilor Street), Oradea, Bihor County to compensation, decision of 22/10/2021 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, case file no. 39958/3/2018 non‑enforcement of final judgment 48,694 (amount adjusted for inflation as of 2021-2026) 57150/22 24/03/2023 Lucreția MOISEI 1944 compensation for 240 sq. m (demolished) house and 1,000 sq. m intra‑muros land, located at 46 Unirii Street, Negrești, Vaslui County to compensation, decision of 02/12/2011 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, case file no. 542/45/2010 non‑enforcement of final judgment 92,559 10,000 42610/23 20/11/2023 Gheorghe‑Marius BULUGEA 1962 0.65 ha of agricultural land located in Bujoreni, Vâlcea County to property, decision of 11/12/2008 of the Râmnicu Vâlcea District Court (final in the absence of an appeal), case file no. 8827/288/2008 non‑enforcement of final judgment 21,412 10,000 8843/24 13/03/2024 Ioan MARCU 1947 Șchiopu Giovani Horațiu Bucharest original plot of land of 4.41 ha (out of which 0.4852 ha intra‑muros) located in Ogrezeni, Giurgiu County, if available, or an equivalent plot of land (according to his share) to property, decision of 12/11/2008 of the Bolintin Vale District Court, upheld by the decision of 09/12/2009 of the Giurgiu County Court, case file no. 01387/192/2006 non‑enforcement of final judgment 53,842, according to his share 10,000 20073/24 12/06/2024 Adi Andreia FILIPSBORN 1966 Drăghici Ioana Ana Bucharest compensation for 736.9 sq. m building and 444 sq. m intra‑muros land located at 14 Christian Tell Street, 1st District, Bucharest to compensation, decision of 06/05/2021 of the Bucharest County Court, upheld by the decision of 10/05/2022 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, case file no. 24084/3/2017* non‑enforcement of final judgment 1,057,123 10,000 32304/24 24/10/2024 Irina TOPOR 1951 Topor Mihai‑Claudiu Bacău compensation for a share of 1/3 of a 1,586 sq. m intra‑muros plot of land and a 234 sq. m building located at 28 Mihai Eminescu Street, Piatra Neamț, Neamț County to compensation, decision of 12/03/2008 of the Neamț County Court (became final on 10/05/2010), case file no. 119/103/2005 non‑enforcement of final judgment 155,175 10,000 Heir(s) in application no. 28617/20 Decedent Heirs Marius GROPER Died in 2024 Gilad GROPER Born in 1961 Asaf GRUPPER Born in 1972 Ayelet GRUPPER Born in 1965

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. According to Article 21 para. (6) of Law no. 165/2013, the value of the immovable property for which compensation is granted is expressed in points, each point having a value of RON 1.