CASE OF LUPENI GREEK CATHOLIC PARISH AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Hearing: Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania (no. 76943/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-03-02 00:00:00)
Application no.: 76943/11
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2016-11-29 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1129JUD007694311
Respondent state: ROU
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;14;14+6-1;41
Judges: Alena Poláčková;András Sajó;Angelika Nußberger;Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Iulia Motoc;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Mārtiņš Mits;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano;Síofra O'Leary;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani
Represented by: HATNEANU D.O. ; BORSANYI C.T.
Issue: Article 3 of Legislative Decree no. 126/1990 amended by Government Ordinance no. 64/2004 and Law no. 182/2005 ; Government Emergency Ordinance no. 94/2000 on the restitution of buildings having belonged to religious denominations in Romania, as amended on 25 July 2005 and published in the Official Gazette on 1 September 2005 ; Legislative Decree no. 126/1990 on certain measures concerning the Romanian Church United to Rome (the Greek Catholic Church) 


Strasbourg case-law cited: Albu and Others v. Romania, nos. 34796/09 and sixty three others applications, 10 May 2012;Anđelković v. Serbia, no 1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013;Beian v. Romania (no 1), no 30658/05, §§ 38-39, ECHR 2007-V (extracts);Bellet v. France, 4 December 1995, § 36, Series A no 333 B;Biao v. Denmark [GC], no 38590/10, § 88, 24 May 2016;Bochan v. Ukraine (no 2) [GC], no 22251/08, ECHR 2015;Bogdan Vodă Greek-Catholic Parish v. Romania, no. 26270/04, 41, 19 November 2013;Boulois v. Luxembourg [GC], no 37575/04, § 90, ECHR 2012;Cobzaru v. Romania, no 48254/99, §§ 2 and 111, 26 July 2007;Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no 35382/97, ECHR 2000 IV;Cordova v. Italy (no 1), no 40877/98, § 54, ECHR 2003-I;Cudak v. Lithuania [GC], no 15869/02, ECHR 2010;Dulaurans v. France, no 34553/97, §§ 33-34 and 38, 21 March 2000;E.B. v. France [GC], no 43546/02, §§ 47-48, 22 January 2008;Fălie v. Romania, no 23257/04, §§ 22 and 24, 19 May 2015;Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no 294-B;Ferreira Santos Pardal v. Portugal, no 30123/10, §§ 42-47, 30 July 2015;García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999 I;Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, §§ 28-36, Series A no 18;Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 I;Hayati Çelebi and Others v. Turkey, no 582/05, 9 February 2016;Khamidov v. Russia, no 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007;Kutić v. Croatia, no 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002 II;Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania, nos. 30767/05 and 33800/06, § 73, 12 October 2010;Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no 1398/03, §§ 94-98, ECHR 2006 XIV;McElhinney v. Ireland [GC], no 31253/96, §§ 24-25, 21 November 2001;Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, no. 45701/99, § 118, ECHR 2001 XII;Micallef v. Malta [GC], no 17056/06, § 74, ECHR 2009;Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no 13279/05, §§ 49-58 and 61, 20 October 2011;Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999 VIII;Nunes Dias v. Portugal (dec.), nos. 2672/03 and 69829/01, ECHR 2003-IV;Perez v. France [GC], no 47287/99, § 82, ECHR 2004 I;Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no 42527/98, § 45, ECHR 2001 VIII;Pruniș Greek Catholic Parish v. Romania (dec.), no 38134/02, §§ 37 and 40, 8 April 2014;Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 32555/96, §§ 116-119, ECHR 2005 X;Sâmbata Bihor Greek Catholic Parish v. Romania, no 48107/99, §§ 66-75, 12 January 2010;Șerban Marinescu v. Romania, no 68842/13, § 78-80, 15 December 2015;Sfântul Vasile Polonă Greek Catholic Parish v. Romania, no 65965/01, 7 April 2009;Siseşti Greek Catholic Parish v. Romania, no. 32419/04, § 27, 3 November 2015;Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no 36760/06, § 230, ECHR 2012;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, §§ 39-40, ECHR 2005 X;Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no 75529/01, § 128, ECHR 2006 VII;Tinnelly & Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom, 10 July 1998, §§ 73 and 74, Reports 1998 IV;Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, § 72, ECHR 2013;Vassilios Athanasiou and Others v. Greece, no 50973/08, § 26, 21 December 2010;Yvon v. France, no 44962/98, § 44, ECHR 2003 V;Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 29392/95, §§ 91-98, ECHR 2001 V;Zelca and Others v. Romania (dec.), no 65161/10, § 14, 6 September 2011;Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, § 59, ECHR 1999-VII
Conclusion: No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);No violation of Article 14+6-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE