Quick answer
In Brumărescu v. Romania (Application no. 28342/95, Grand Chamber judgment of 28 October 1999), the European Court of Human Rights held that Romania had violated Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Supreme Court of Justice had quashed a final, binding judgment in the applicant’s favour following an application by the Procurator-General — who was not a party to the case — thereby breaching the principle of legal certainty and depriving the applicant of his property.
Background and facts
The applicant’s house in Bucharest had been nationalised under the communist regime in 1950. In 1993 a court found the nationalisation to have been unlawful, ordered the authorities to return the house, and that judgment became final and was enforced. Subsequently the Procurator-General, using a supervisory power, applied to the Supreme Court of Justice to have the final judgment set aside. In 1995 the Supreme Court quashed it, holding that the courts had exceeded their powers in examining the lawfulness of the nationalisation, and the applicant lost the house again.
The Court’s reasoning
Article 6 § 1 — legal certainty
The Court held that one of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law is the principle of legal certainty, which requires that where the courts have finally determined an issue, their ruling should not be called into question. The Procurator-General’s unlimited power to apply for a final judgment to be quashed — and the Supreme Court’s exercise of that power — infringed the applicant’s right to a fair hearing and his right of access to a court.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 — property
Because the final judgment had recognised the applicant as the owner and had been enforced, he had a ‘possession’ within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The quashing of that judgment deprived him of his property without any compensation and without serving a legitimate public-interest aim in a proportionate way, in breach of that provision.
The judgment
The Grand Chamber held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The question of just satisfaction was reserved and dealt with in a separate judgment in 2001.
Why this case matters
Brumărescu is a foundational authority on legal certainty and on the abusive use of extraordinary supervisory remedies to reopen final judgments. It established that allowing a State officer to set aside binding court decisions at will is incompatible with the rule of law. It also became a leading case in the long line of Romanian property-restitution disputes and is cited across the Convention system whenever ‘supervisory review’ threatens the finality of judgments.
What this means for applicants
- Final judgments must be respected. Reopening a binding decision through an extraordinary remedy can breach Article 6 § 1.
- An enforced judgment can be a ‘possession’. Losing property recognised by a final judgment engages Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- Compensation and proportionality matter. Deprivation of property without compensation will rarely be justified.
- Rule-of-law arguments are powerful. Legal certainty is a core Convention principle that can decide a case.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Brumărescu v. Romania decide?
The Grand Chamber held that quashing a final judgment in the applicant’s favour, at the request of the Procurator-General, violated Article 6 § 1 (legal certainty and access to a court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (property).
What is the principle of legal certainty?
It requires that a matter finally decided by the courts should not be reopened; final judgments must be respected, which is a fundamental aspect of the rule of law.
Why was the property complaint upheld?
Because a final, enforced judgment had recognised the applicant as owner, giving him a possession; quashing it deprived him of that property without compensation.
Is the case still relevant?
Yes. It is a leading authority against the abusive reopening of final judgments and a key reference in property-restitution litigation.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Străin and Others v. Romania
- Rotaru v. Romania
- Burmych and Others v. Ukraine
- Merit v. Ukraine
- Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden
- Hutten-Czapska v. Poland
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, check the admissibility criteria, or get a free assessment of your case.