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: CHAMBER
Document date: 2015-05-19 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0519JUD007694311
Respondent state: ROU
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;9;9-1;14;14+6-1;35;35-3;41;P1-1;P1-1-1
Judges: Branko Lubarda;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra
Represented by: HATNEANU D.O. ; BORSANYI C.T. 
Issue: Article 3 of Legislative Decree no. 126/1990 ; Government Order no. 64/2004 of 13 August 2004 ; Law no. 182/2005 ; Government Emergency Ordinance no. 94/2000 of July 2005 (“Ordinance no. 94/2000”) ; Article 480 of the Civil Code
Strasbourg case-law cited: Ādamsons v. Latvia, no 3669/03, § 118, 24 June 2008;Albu and Others v. Romania, no 34796/09, 10 May 2012;Atanasovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no 36815/03, § 38, 14 January 2010;Beian v. Romania (no 1), no 30658/05, ECHR 2007 XIII;Bellet v. France, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no 333 B;Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain, 19 December 1997, § 31, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 VIII;Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 13378/05 , § 58, ECHR 2008;Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 42184/05, § 64, ECHR 2010;Catholic Archdiocese of Alba Iulia v. Romania, no. 33003/03, §§ 82-88, 25 September 2012;Cobzaru v. Romania, no 48254/99, § 111, 26 July 2007;D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007 IV;E.B. v. France [GC], no 43546/02, §§ 47-48, 22 January 2008;Edificaciones March Gallego S.A. v. Spain, 19 February 1998, § 33, Reports 1998-I;Frydlender v. France [GC], no 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000 VII;Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002 VII;Gregório de Andrade v. Portugal, no 41537/02, § 36, 14 November 2006;Griechische Kirchengemeinde Munchen and Bayern E.V. v. Germany (dec.), no 52336/99, 18 September 2007;Hoogendijk v. the Netherlands (dec.), no 58641/00, 6 January 2005;Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no 23530/02, 2 July 2009;Juma Mosque Congregation and Others v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no 15405/04, §58, 8 January 2013;Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004 IX;Liepājnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no 37586/06, §§ 95-96, 2 November 2010;Magyar Keresztény Mennonita Egyház and Others v. Hungary, nos. 70945/11, 23611/12, 26998/12, 41150/12, 41155/12, 41463/12, 41553/12, 54977/12 and 56581/12, ECHR 2014;Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no 33071/96, 13 December 2000;Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, no 45701/99, § 114, ECHR 2001 XII;Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no 13279/05, 20 October 2011;Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999 VIII;Ouzounis and Others v. Greece, no 49144/99, § 24, 18 April 2002;Potocka and Others v. Poland, no 33776/96, §§ 56-59, ECHR 2001 X;Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, Series A no 332;Ravon and Others v. France, no 18497/03, § 27, 21 February 2008;Sâmbata Bihor Greco-Catholic Parish v. Romania, no. 48107/99, 12 January 2010;Santos Pinto v. Portugal, no 39005/04, § 41, 20 May 2008;Schwarzkopf and Taussik v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no 42162/02, 2 December 2008;Sindicatul « Păstorul cel Bun » v. Romania [GC], no 2330/09, § 165, ECHR 2013 (extracts);Stagno v. Belgium, no 1062/07, § 25, 7 July 2009;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, ECHR 2005 X;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 65731/01, § 51, ECHR 2006 VI;Terra Woningen B.V. v. the Netherlands, 17 December 1996, § 52, Reports 1996 VI;Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV;Tserkva Sela Sosulivka v. Ukraine, no 37878/02, § 51, 28 February 2008;Unédic v. France, no 20153/04, § 73, 18 December 2008;Usnul v. the Czech Republic, no 33945/06, 29 March 2011;Zarb Adami v. Malta, no 17209/02, § 76, ECHR 2006 VIII
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded;Ratione materiae);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);No 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;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: FALSE