FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF
REFORMED DIOCESE OF TRANSYLVANIA v. ROMANIA

(Application no. 27948/03)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

24 March 2026

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

In the case of Reformed Diocese of Transylvania v. Romania,

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

 Ana Maria Guerra Martins, President,
 Anne Louise Bormann,
 Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,
and Valentin Nicolescu, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 27948/03) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 21 July 2003 by the Reformed Diocese of Transylvania (“the applicant”), which is seated in Cluj‑Napoca and was represented by Mr J. Szekely, a lawyer practising in Satu Mare;

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

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 3 March 2026,

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

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The case concerns the inability of the applicant to recover possession of its property located at 5 Horea Street, Cluj-Napoca, composed of several apartments (see also paragraph 6 below), which had been sold by the State to third parties leaving the applicant unable to recover possession of it or to receive compensation thereto despite the findings of the court (see paragraph 4 below) whereby the nationalisation by the former communist regime of the above-mentioned property had been unlawful.

2.  The factual and legal circumstances set out in the current application are similar to those pertaining to the applicants in the case of Străin and Others v. Romania (no. 57001/00, §§ 5-18, ECHR 2005-VII), to the applicants Ms and Mr Rodan in the case of Preda and Others v. Romania (nos. 9584/02 and 7 others, §§ 35-41, 29 April 2014) and to the applicants in the case of Ana Ionescu and Others v. Romania (no. 19788/03, §§ 6-7, 26 February 2019).

3.  In particular, during the totalitarian regime, the aforementioned building located at 5 Horea Street, Cluj-Napoca, was transferred to State ownership pursuant to Decree no. 176/1948 on the transfer to State ownership of property belonging to churches, congregations and private individuals for use in the proper functioning of educational institutions.

As of 1996, the applicant lodged several restitution claims, both before the administrative bodies (inter alia, pursuant to Emergency Government Ordinance no. 94/2000 on the restoration of buildings having belonged to religious denominations in Romania), as well as before the domestic courts, as summarized below.

4.  The information available in the file concerning the proceedings lodged by the applicant before the domestic courts, in so far as relevant to the present case, reveal that in the reasoning part of the final judgment of 28 January 2003, the Supreme Court of Justice found that the nationalisation of the property at issue had been in breach of the Constitution in force at the relevant time; however, the court considered that even though the third parties who had bought some of the apartments located at 5 Horea Street, Cluj-Napoca, the State had in fact not bought from the real owner, their sale contracts were still valid on account of the good faith of the buyers (see also paragraph 1 above).

5.  In 2003 the applicant lodged its restitution claims before the administrative authorities. The special commission for the restitution of buildings having belonged to religious denominations in Romania issued a first decision on 10 October 2003 by, returning to the claimant those apartments which had not been already sold to third parties, namely, apartments nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 33, 35, 35 (other), 36 as well as 1,029.57 sq.m of appurtenant land. This decision was enforced in December 2005.

6.  On 28 May 2020 a second decision was issued by the same commission, which held that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the apartments nos. 3, 4, 6, 7-8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 19 (other), 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 25-26, 28, 29, 29 (other) 31, 32 and for the appurtenant land of 745.43 sq.m. This decision also stated that in accordance with the law, the applicant was not entitled to restitution or compensation in respect of apartment no. 13, which had been sold to third parties prior to 1989.

7.  On 10 August 2023 the National Commission validated the above‑indicated decision and awarded the applicant compensation in an amount of 9,401,430 Romanian lei (RON, approximately EUR 1,893,800 at the relevant time), in respect of that part of the property (see paragraph 6 above).

8.  The applicant challenged the aforementioned decision before the Cluj County Court, arguing that the award had not been calculated in accordance with the 2022 notarial grid (which was the year prior to the decision on compensation as required by Article 21 § 6 of the Law no. 165/2013, see Văleanu and Others v. Romania, nos. 59012/17 and 27 others, § 150, 8 November 2022). The applicant submitted that the amount to be awarded according to the relevant notary valuations was 18,325,677.11 RON.

9.  It appears from publicly available information that the request has been dismissed as ill-founded by the first-instance court on 10 May 2024 and in appeal on 29 October 2024. There is no information available concerning any potential appeal proceedings before higher courts, nor concerning any payment made on the basis of the 2023 decision (see paragraph 7 above).

• THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 of Protocol No. 1 to THE CONVENTION

1.    Admissibility
   1.      Incompatibility ratione materiae

10.  The Government submitted that the application was inadmissible as being incompatible ratione materiae. In this connection, they pointed out that the domestic courts had not given a final decision recognising the applicant’s right to the restitution of the property in question or the unlawfulness of its transfer to State ownership.

11.  The applicant disagreed, considering that it has already been acknowledged as entitled to obtain restitution and/or compensation for the claimed property, both by the administrative bodies, as well as by the domestic court.

12.  The Court has already held that the finding, whether in the reasoning or in the operative part of a final decision, which has not been quashed or challenged to date, that the nationalisation of the property was unlawful, had the effect of recognising, with retrospective effect, that the applicants had title to the respective property, so long as they also met the statutory conditions required in order to qualify for reparatory measures (Dickmann and Gion v. Romania, nos. 10346/03 and 10893/04, § 93, 24 October 2017).

13.  Having regard to the above and to the decisions given in accordance with the relevant domestic law by the judicial and administrative bodies in relation to the applicant’s restitution claim, the Court considers that the applicant had a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of the property located on 5 Horea Street, Cluj-Napoca, with the exception of apartment no. 13, which, as it had been sold before 1989, was expressly excluded from the restitution mechanism (see also paragraphs 4-6 above).

14.  It follows that in respect of apartment no. 13, located on 5 Horea Street Cluj-Napoca, the applicant did not meet the statutory conditions required in order to qualify for reparatory measures and hence the restitution claims related to it are incompatible ratione materiae with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

2.      Non-exhaustion

15.  The Government argued that a restitution mechanism had been set up under domestic law and that the applicant had already obtained the restitution of some of the apartments in the building in question in administrative proceedings, which were still pending in respect of part of the claimed property (see paragraphs 6 and 8 above).

16.  The Court reiterates that it has already considered at length and rejected similar objections concerning the alleged effectiveness of various court proceedings as well as of the restitution laws, in cases where there are concurrent valid title deeds (see Preda and Others, §§ 133 and 141; Dickmann and Gion, §§ 72 and 78; and Ana Ionescu and Others, § 23, all cited above). The Court considers that the Government’s objections in this regard must be rejected also in the present case.

3.      Conclusions as to admissibility

17.  The Court concludes that the applicant’s complaint concerning apartment no. 13 is incompatible ratione materiae (see paragraph 6 above) and concerning apartments nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 33, 35, 35 (other), 36 as well as 1,029.57 sq.m of appurtenant land located on 5 Horea Street, Cluj-Napoca is inadmissible for lack of victim status, in so far as they had been returned to the applicant in 2005 (see paragraph 5 above).

It further notes that the complaint in respect of the remainder of the apartments located on 5 Horea Street, Cluj-Napoca as well as of 745.43 sq.m of appurtenant land is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

2.    Merits

18.  The applicant in the present case had obtained a final decision acknowledging with retroactive effect the unlawfulness of the seizure of its property by the State and implicitly its legitimate ownership over that property. That decision has not been challenged or quashed to date. The applicant has not been able, to date, either to recover possession of the remainder of the properties referred to in paragraph 17 above, other than those indicated specifically as excluded from the scope of the present case, or to obtain compensation for this deprivation.

19.  In the case of Preda and Others, cited above, the Court found that the applicants’ inability to recover possession of their properties despite final court decisions retroactively acknowledging their property rights constituted a deprivation of their possessions within the meaning of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that such a deprivation, 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 (see Preda and Others, cited above, §§ 146, 148-49; Dickmann and Gion, cited above, §§ 103-04; and Ana Ionescu and Others, cited above, §§ 28-30).

20.  No facts or arguments were put forward in the present case capable of persuading the Court to reach a different conclusion, notwithstanding the fact that compensation proceedings may still be pending before the domestic courts and no payment appears to have been made on the basis of the 2023 decision (see paragraphs 8-9 above). In that respect, the Court observes that more than twenty years have passed since the mechanism was put into motion by the applicant under the restitution laws, however it has still not seen its entitlement to compensation implemented in a Convention compliant manner (see mutatis mutandis Văleanu and Others, cited above, §§ 270-72). The Court cannot but conclude that there has been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

• APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

21.  The applicant claimed a global amount of 3,692,608.43 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage (including apartment no. 13, evaluated at 154,314.73 EUR), amount which included individual values for each property, relying on the relevant 2022 notarial grid. It further claimed EUR 20,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. No costs and expenses were requested.

22.  The Government considered the applicant’s claims to be excessive. Relying on the 2013 notarial grids, they estimated the value of the claimed properties to 3,284,074.62 Romanian lei (RON, approximately EUR 656,814.92).

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 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.  Hence, the Court holds that in the present case the respondent State is to pay the applicant, in respect of pecuniary damage, an amount calculated according with the methodology established in Văleanu and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, §§ 114-18. 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), as well as the ne ultra petita principle, the Court considers it reasonable and equitable, as required by Article 41, to award the applicant the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of pecuniary damage.

25.  The Court must reiterate, however, that the applicant 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 claims to the applicant’s 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 applicant which are relevant to the present case and which would have already been enforced in its favour by the date of the present judgment, should be deducted, as the case may be, from the awarded amount.

26.  Also, the serious interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its 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 line with its relevant case-law (Văleanu and Others, cited above, § 279) the Court awards the applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

27.  As the applicant claimed no costs and expenses, the Court awards none.

• FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the application admissible in respect of the property, apartments and land located on 5 Horea Street, Cluj-Napoca, which has not yet been returned to the applicant and in respect of which it has met the statutory conditions required in order to qualify for reparatory measures and the remainder of the application inadmissible (as stated in paragraphs 13, 14 and 17 above);
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
3. Holds
   1.   that the respondent State is to pay, 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:
      1.   the amounts indicated in the appended table plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant in respect of pecuniary damage;
      2.   EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
   2.   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned 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;

4.      Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 March 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Valentin Nicolescu Ana Maria Guerra Martins
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

• appendix