Quick answer
In Străin and Others v. Romania (Application no. 57001/00, judgment of 21 July 2005), the European Court of Human Rights held that Romania had violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by selling to the sitting tenants a nationalised property that the applicants were seeking to recover, while their restitution claim was still pending and without providing compensation. It also found a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Background and facts
The applicants sought restitution of a property that had been nationalised under the communist regime. While their court proceedings for recovery of the property were still ongoing, the State sold part of the property to the tenants who occupied it. The domestic courts ultimately recognised that the nationalisation had been unlawful, but the sale to third parties left the applicants unable to recover their property and without any effective compensation mechanism.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court found that the applicants had a ‘possession’ for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The sale of the property by the State to the tenants, at a time when the applicants’ entitlement was being litigated, amounted to a deprivation of property. That deprivation pursued no clear public-interest justification and, crucially, was not accompanied by any compensation; the absence of an effective compensatory remedy upset the fair balance between the general interest and the applicants’ rights. The Court also found that the length and handling of the proceedings breached Article 6 § 1.
The judgment
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and a violation of Article 6 § 1. It ordered the return of the property or, failing that, payment of its value, together with sums for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
Why this case matters
Străin is one of the leading judgments in the vast body of Romanian property-restitution litigation. It confirms that the State cannot dispose of contested nationalised property to the detriment of a claimant without compensation, and it helped drive the reform of Romania’s restitution and compensation system — a theme continued in the later pilot judgment Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania. It is a key reference for property claims engaging Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
What this means for applicants
- A pending restitution claim can be a ‘possession’. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 may protect a sufficiently established entitlement to recover property.
- Deprivation requires compensation. Taking or selling property without an effective compensatory remedy upsets the fair balance and breaches the Convention.
- The State must not undermine claims. Selling contested property to third parties while litigation is pending can itself be a violation.
- Restitution disputes are fact-specific. Success depends on the strength of the entitlement and the domestic remedies available.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Străin and Others v. Romania decide?
That the State’s sale of nationalised property to tenants, while the applicants’ restitution claim was pending and without compensation, violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and that there was also a violation of Article 6 § 1.
Why was there a property violation?
Because the applicants had a possession, the sale deprived them of it without a public-interest justification, and there was no effective compensation — upsetting the fair balance required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
How does this fit the wider Romanian restitution saga?
It is a leading early judgment that, with cases like Maria Atanasiu, pushed Romania to reform its restitution and compensation system.
What remedy did the Court order?
Return of the property or payment of its value, plus non-pecuniary damage and costs.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Rotaru v. Romania
- Brumărescu 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.