FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF STOICOVICI AND MATEEVICI v. ROMANIA

(Application no. 24861/07)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

3 March 2026

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Stoicovici and Mateevici v. Romania,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Faris Vehabović, President,
 Lorraine Schembri Orland,
 Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,
and Valentin Nicolescu, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 24861/07) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 7 May 2007 by two Romanian nationals, Mr Ioan-Dragomir Stoicovici and Mr Alexandru-Bogdan Mateevici (“the applicants”), who were born in 1925 and 1954 respectively and were represented by Mr M. Sandu-Ciocîrlan, a lawyer practising in Bucharest;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Romanian Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Ms O.F. Ezer, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;

the parties’ observations;

the decision to reject the Government’s objection to examination of the application by a Committee;

Having deliberated in private on 10 February 2026,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The applicants’ predecessor was the owner of a property consisting of two plots of land with a total of 600 sq.m (see the appended table) and of a construction called “Vila Margot”, in Eforie Sud, Constanța County. The State took possession of this property under a nationalisation decree in 1950. A hotel was built in 1962 on 417 sq.m of that property.

2.  In 1998 the applicants lodged an action for recovery of possession of the property against both public authorities and the private company SC C.S., the hotel owner at that time. By the final judgment of 10 April 2000 the Constanța Court of Appeal acknowledged the applicants’ property rights and held the defendants’ obligation to allow them to peacefully enjoy their claimed possessions.

3.  On 15 February 2006 the applicants were granted legal possession of the property via a bailiff; however, the minutes drafted thereto indicated that part of the land was occupied by the hotel owned by the former SC C.S. (currently SC THR M.N.) and that Vila Margot no longer existed.

4.  In 2000 the applicants brought a real estate accession claim seeking to be recognized as the owners of the portion of the hotel built on their land. On 8 December 2006 the High Court of Justice dismissed their claim, stating, inter alia, that real estate accession could not be relied on, as the property was lawfully owned by the State when the construction was erected.

5.  In 2002 the applicants lodged an administrative claim under Law no. 10/2001 seeking reparatory measures for the whole property. Without specifically referring to Vila Margot, the domestic authorities dismissed the request on 18 November 2014 on the grounds that the applicants were already owners of the claimed property. The applicants did not challenge the decision before the domestic courts or the Court.

6.  Following a sale contract sworn before a public notary on 17 May 2019 to which the applicants were not a party, the new owner of the hotel, SC M.C., registered its right of superficies over the applicants’ land in the Land Register. The sale contract between SC THR M.N and SC M.C contains no reference or specific clause concerning the right of superficies.

RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE

7.  The relevant domestic legal provisions and case-law concerning the right of superficies and real estate accession are described in Bock and Palade v. Romania, (no. 21740/02, §§ 29-33, 15 February 2007) and Moculescu v. Romania, (no. 15636/04, §§ 16-18, 2 March 2010).

8.  The relevant legal provisions concerning notarial fees for transactions involving a right of superficies are set out in Order no. 177/C/2024 of the Ministry of Justice in force as of 26 January 2024, whereby the notarial fee for the notarization of deeds transferring or constituting superficies rights is to be calculated on the higher amount between, on the one hand, the value of the property as declared by the parties and, on the other hand, 20% of the property’s value determined according to the relevant notarial grids, publicly available on the official website of the National Union of Notaries Public.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

1.         LOCUS STANDI

9.  Mr. Stoicovici’s heirs informed the Court of his death and, as his close relatives (see appendix), expressed the intention to pursue the application in his stead.

10.  Having regard to the close family ties and the heirs’ legitimate interest in pursuing the application, as well as to its relevant case-law on the matter (see Văleanu and Others v. Romania, nos. 59012/17 and 27 others, § 184, 8 November 2022) the Court considers that the deceased applicant’s heirs may pursue the application in his stead.

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 Protocol NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

11.  The applicants complained that their property rights have been infringed due to their inability to enjoy full possession of their plots of land and the buildings constructed thereon. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads as follows:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

1. Admissibility

12.  The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies, arguing that they could have challenged the administrative decision of 18 November 2014 before the domestic courts (see paragraph 5 above).

13.  The applicants reiterated that they had already obtained final judgments recognising their right to property.

14.  Noting the Court’s general findings that the restitution mechanism continues to fall short of being comprehensively effective and convincingly consistent so as not to place an excessive burden on applicants (Văleanu and Others, cited above, § 262), the Court fails to see in the present case why a fresh assessment of the matter at stake would be necessary, given that the respective entitlement to property of the applicants over the two plots of land has already been confirmed by the domestic courts in final judgments (see paragraph 2 above), unchallenged to the present day (see, mutatis mutandis, Dickmann and Gion v. Romania, nos. 10346/03 and 10893/04, § 72, 24 October 2017).

15.  The Government’s objection in this regard must therefore be rejected.

16.  Concerning the applicants’ inability to enjoy ownership over a part of the hotel built on their land (see paragraph 4 above), the Court, having regard also to the domestic courts’ findings thereto (ibid.), finds that they did not have a legitimate expectation under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of that claim. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

17.  The Court further notes that the remaining complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

18.  In the instant case, the Court notes that the applicants obtained final court decisions acknowledging their property rights on that land (see paragraph 2 above), these rights being absolute and exclusive, not subject to any encumbrances or conditions (see, mutatis mutandis, Bock and Palade, cited above, § 54). However, the applicants cannot fully enjoy their property, because part of their land was already occupied by third parties at the moment when they took over the property and a superficies right over their land was registered in the Land Register, without payment of any compensation (see paragraphs 3 and 6 above).

19.  The Court further notes that according to the relevant domestic legal framework, supported and clarified by the doctrine (idem, § 63), the mere act of constructing buildings on another’s land – even in good faith – does not, in itself, confer a right of superficies upon the builder or their successors, unless one of the legally recognized grounds for its establishment is present, namely: statutory provision, acquisitive prescription, testamentary disposition, or an agreement between the parties. In the present case, none of these grounds was relied on at the time of constituting the superficies right.

20.  It appears therefore that, at the material time of the impugned acts, the interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their land lacked any basis in domestic law (see, mutatis mutandis, Bock and Palade, cited above, § 64). However, even assuming that such a legal basis existed, the Court finds that the interference with the applicants’ rights to property combined with a total lack of compensation, imposed on the applicants a disproportionate and excessive burden in breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

21.  It therefore finds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

1. Pecuniary damage

22.  The applicants sent to their request based on the principle of restitutio in integrum concerning compensation in respect of the land and building which they had not been able to fully enjoy. When estimating such compensation, they referred to the value of the section of the hotel erected on 417 sq.m of their property located in Eforie Sud, Faleza Street, Constanța County. Their estimated value was EUR 558,780. The Government indicated that the applicants submitted claims exceeding the maximum allowed by the 2013 notarial grid.

23.  A judgment in which the Court finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to the breach and make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see among many other authorities Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, § 32, ECHR 2000‑XI, and Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00, § 90, 22 December 2009).

24.  Taking into account the violation found under Article 1 Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and the applicants’ just satisfaction claim (see paragraph 22 above), the Court considers that payment of compensation for the failure of the authorities to return to the applicants their property free of any encumbrances or conditions, due to the unlawful establishment of a right of superficies over their land, would put the applicants as far as possible in a situation equivalent to the one in which they would have been if there had not been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

25.  Hence, the respondent State is to pay the applicants, in respect of pecuniary damage, an amount calculated in accordance with the methodology established in Văleanu and Others (just satisfaction), nos. 59012/17 and 27 others, 7 January 2025, §§ 114-18, and the legal provisions concerning the right to superficies (see paragraph 8 above).

26.  Taking into account the property’s location, and based on the 2025 notarial grids (zone A, page 80 of the Constanța grids) and its technical characteristics (417 sq.m of intra muros land, category: yards/constructions), the Court notes that the value of 1 m² of land is EUR 80 (totalling EUR 33,360), to which a correction coefficient (coeficient de corecție) of 1.2 should be applied for “proximity to natural elements of interest” (i.e., the sea) (page 12 of the grids), resulting in a total of EUR 40,032. A rate of 20% applicable to the right of superficies applied to that value results in a total of EUR 8,006.40, to be awarded jointly to the applicants in respect of pecuniary damage.

27.  The Court must reiterate, however, that the applicants cannot derive any right to double compensation or unjust enrichment from the Court’s judgment. Therefore, insofar as domestic administrative and/or judicial proceedings relating to the applicants’ claims to their land 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 may have already been enforced in their favour by the date of the present judgment, should be deducted, as the case may be, from the amount mentioned in paragraph 26 above.

2. Non-pecuniary damage

28.  The applicants requested EUR 200,000 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 jointly EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

3. Costs and expenses

29.  The applicants did not make any claim in respect of costs and expenses.

4. Default interest

30.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which three percentage points should be added.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Holds that the heirs of the applicant Stoicovici Ioan-Dragomir, Ms. Stoicovici Alexandrina, Ms. Ciortan Alina-Maria and Mr. Zelinger Katrin, who have expressed the wish to pursue the proceeding in his place have standing to do so;
2. Declares the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, in so far as it concerns the alleged ownership over a part of the hotel built on their land, inadmissible ratione materiae;
3. Declares the remainder of the application admissible;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
5. Holds:

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i)  EUR 8,006.40 (eight thousand six euros and forty cents), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;

(ii)  EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 March 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Valentin Nicolescu Faris Vehabović
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

appendix