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
  1.         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.

2.      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.

3.     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,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Dismisses the Government’s preliminary objection in respect of application no. 1819/24;
3. Declares the applications admissible;
4. 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;
5. Holds
   1.                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;
   2.                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 no. 8), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;
   3.  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 (column no. 8), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;
   4.                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;
   5.                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.
6. 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)

[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.