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).

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation