The STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS BABEŞ-BOLYAI issue article summary

The summary of the selected article appears at the bottom of the page. In order to get back to the contents of the issue this article belongs to you have to access the link from the title. In order to see all the articles of the archive which have as author/co-author one of the authors mentioned below, you have to access the link from the author's name.

With the occasion of passing the Maria Atanasiu Judgment, the European Court of Human Rights underlined the existence of a structural shortcoming in Romania whereas the issue of handing back of nationalized properties in the communist period is concerned. The noted deficiency occurred because of the inefficient and incoherent legislation in this area that led to major uncertainties regarding the solutions given by the authorities to the former owners for their claims. Through the judgment passed on behalf of article 46 in the Convention, the Court set out an obligation for Romania. Namely, the Court clearly stated that Romania must carry out a wide process of passing public goods into private ownership in 18 months, in order to finally end the refunding issue. This article firstly indicates the shortcomings of this judgment, namely the fact that by setting out an 18 months term, the Court did nothing else but prologue the waiting for a large number of people who have received nothing so far. Secondly, the article offers a perspective for the interpretation of the judgment, giving the fact that the Romanian courts of law cannot from this point reject the owners’ claims of their rights on behalf of the 18 months term. On the contrary, the courts must pass an efficient solution, on behalf of the Romanian fundamental law.

Cuvinte cheie: Curtea europeană a drepturilor omului, hotărâre pilot, imobile naţionalizate, Legea nr. 10/2001

Keywords: European Court of Human Rights, pilot judgment, nationalized properties, Act no. 10/2001