FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF SOCIETATEA MUZEULUI ARDELEAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Applications nos. 30295/19 and 6 others –

 see appended list)

JUDGMENT
 

This version was rectified on 20 July 2026
under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.

STRASBOURG

7 April 2026

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

In the case of Societatea Muzeului Ardelean and Others 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 applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;

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

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 17 March 2026,

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

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The cases concern the applicants’ inability to recover possession of properties which had been unlawfully nationalised under the former communist regime and subsequently sold by the State to third parties.

2.  The factual and legal circumstances of the current applications are similar to those pertaining to the applicants in the cases of Străin and Others v. Romania (no. 57001/00, §§ 5-18, ECHR 2005-VII), and Ana Ionescu and Others v. Romania (no. 19788/03, §§ 6-7, 26 February 2019) and 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).

• THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
  1.         JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

3.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2.          LOCUS STANDI

4.  The heirs of some of the applicants informed the Court of those applicants’ deaths and, as their close relatives, expressed the intention to pursue the applications in their stead.

5.  In respect of application no. 41260/19, the Government requested that the application be struck out for lack of legal standing on the part of the heir, who was the widow of the applicant’s late brother; they argued that she was not a sufficiently close family member to justify her legal standing in the case.

6.  The Court notes that Ms Alexandrescu has submitted official documents attesting her status as universal heir of Ms Honet. Having regard to the close family ties and the heirs’ legitimate interest in pursuing the applications, 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; also see, mutatis mutandis, Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000‑XII), the Court considers ‑ including in respect of the application no. 41260/19 ‑ that the deceased applicants’ heirs may pursue the applications in their stead.

7.  It will therefore dismiss the Government’s request to strike out the application no. 41260/19 and continue to deal with all these applications at the heirs’ request (see the appended table for details).

3.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

8.  The applicants complained that their inability to recover possession of properties that had been unlawfully nationalised or to secure compensation for them, despite court decisions acknowledging their property rights, amounted to a breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under 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
   1.      Failure to exhaust available remedies in application no. 38930/19

9.  The Government submitted that the applicants in application no. 38930/19 had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies, as they had not instituted administrative proceedings under the provisions of Law no. 10/2001 and Law no. 165/2013.

10.  The Court reiterates that it has already considered and repeatedly rejected the Government’s submissions as to the alleged effectiveness of various court proceedings and the restitution laws, including Law no. 10/2001 and Law no. 165/2013, in cases where there are concurrent valid title deeds (see Ana Ionescu and Others, cited above, § 23).

11.  It considers that in the instant case the Government have not put forward any new fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility of the applicants’ complaints. The Government’s objections in this regard must therefore be rejected.

2.      Conclusions as to admissibility

12.  The Court concludes that the applicants’ complaints relating to their property rights 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

13.  The Court notes that, like the applicants in Străin and Others (cited above), and Ms and Mr Rodan in the case of Preda and Others, the applicants in the present case had obtained final decisions. Those decisions acknowledged with retroactive effect the unlawfulness of the seizure of their property by the State and their legitimate ownership over those properties and have not been challenged or quashed to date. Similarly, in so far it concerns application no. 30295/19, such acknowledgement was effected, including by means of the Emergency Ordinance no. 13/1998 of 7 July 1998, the applicant’s property being listed as no. 12 among the seventeen properties mentioned in the annex (see, mutatis mutandis, Catholic Archdiocese of Alba Iulia v. Romania, no. 33003/03, §§ 13 and 83‑84, 25 September 2012).

14.  The Court reiterates that in Preda and Others (cited above) it 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.

15.  In the present case, the applicants have not been able, to date, either to recover possession of the properties mentioned in the appended table or to obtain compensation for this deprivation. 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, and 148-49).

The Court reiterated those findings in the similar cases of Dickmann and Gion v. Romania (nos. 10346/03 and 10893/04, §§ 103-04, 24 October 2017) and Ana Ionescu and Others (cited above, §§ 23 and 28‑30), and, more recently, in Văleanu and Others (cited above, § 262).

16.  The Court further finds that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.

17.  The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

4.    Remaining complaints

18.  The applicants in applications nos. 41260/19 and 50246/20, and the applicant in application no. 49861/20, complained of a breach of their right of access to a court (Article 6 of the Convention) and a breach of the right to an effective remedy (Article 13 of the Convention) respectively, on account of their inability to recover their property or, alternatively, to receive compensation.

19.  The Court has carefully examined all these complaints. In the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

• APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
  1.         Pecuniary damage

20.  As the Court has held on a number of occasions, 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).

21.  In the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that the return of the properties at issue 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.

22.  Failing such restitution, the Court holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, in respect of pecuniary damage, an amount calculated according to the methodology established in Văleanu and Others v. Romania ((just satisfaction), nos. 59012/17 and 27 others, §§ 114-18, 7 January 2025). Having regard to the information at its disposal, in particular the relevant notarial grids, the documents submitted by the parties and its established case‑law (ibid., § 116), and taking into consideration the ne ultra petita principle, the Court considers it reasonable and equitable, as required by Article 41, to award the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of pecuniary damage.

23.  The Court must reiterate, however, that the applicants cannot derive any right to double compensation or unjust enrichment from the Court’s judgment. 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 therefore considers that all amounts relating to the compensation due to the applicants which are relevant to the present case and which would already have 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 appended table.

24.  As regards the amount of money claimed in respect of loss of profit or benefit from the applicants’ possessions (application no. 50246/20), 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 (see Văleanu and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, § 119).

2.       Non-pecuniary damage

25.  With regard to the applicants who have claimed compensation 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.

3.     Costs and expenses

26.  Some applicants have either not submitted any claims for costs and expenses or have failed to substantiate them. Accordingly, the Court finds no reason to award them any sum on that account (see appended table).

27.  As concerns the claims submitted by the remaining applicants, regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table, covering costs under all heads.

4.    Default interest

28.  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 should be added three percentage points.

• FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;
2.      Holds that the heirs of the applicants who have expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings in place of the late applicants have standing to do so (see appended table);
3.      Rejects the Government’s request to strike the application no. 41260/19 out of its list of cases;
4.      Declares the complaints concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
5.      Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
6.      Holds
   1.   that the respondent State is to return the applicants’ properties to them within three months;
   2.   that, failing such restitution, the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within the same three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;
   3.   that, in any event, the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within the same three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses;
   4.   that the above-mentioned amounts shall be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
   5.   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;
7.      Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 April 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Valentin Nicolescu Faris Vehabović
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

[1] Rectified on 20 July 2026: the association’s name was changed in 2023 to “Asociația Muzeului Ardelean”.