Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Continuing ineffectiveness of restitution mechanism in respect of property confiscated or nationalised by the communist regime, despite new remedies under Law no. 165/2013, placing excessive burden on applicants • Inability to obtain restitution or any or adequate compensation
Art 46 • Execution of judgment • Respondent State required to take further general measures to address continuing structural problem in restitution mechanism • Measures to be aimed at streamlining and clarifying applicable procedures and criteria when enforcement of outstanding restitution judgments objectively impossible • Need for short, realistic and binding time-limits for completion of ongoing administrative proceedings
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 � 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
��������� Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer , President , ��������� Krzysztof Wojtyczek, ��������� Faris Vehabović, ��������� Yonko Grozev, ��������� Armen Harutyunyan, ��������� Pere Pastor Vilanova, ��������� Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar,
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.