Obliging the National Commission for Property Compensation to resolve with priority the administrative file established under Law no. 10/2001. Reducing the waiting time until compensation is granted for a property in Cluj-Napoca abusively taken during the communist regime in Romania.
RELEVANCE OF THE CASE
The issue of measures to complete the restitution process, whether in kind or by compensation, of properties abusively seized during Romania’s communist regime remains very current. Apart from the problem of unjustified reduction by the authority of compensation amounts, in practice there is still extremely slow resolution, or even passivity, in handling administrative files.
SUMMARY OF THE FACTUAL SITUATION
In fact, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit requesting that, by the court decision it will issue, the administrative file belonging to them be resolved with priority. They are entitled persons to restitution by compensation for a property abusively seized during the communist period in Romania.
In 2018, the predecessor of the plaintiffs, with help of a lawyer specialized in ANRP cases, in court obtained an order obliging the local land fund commission and the county land fund commission to issue a decision granting compensation measures by points for a piece of land located near the airport in Cluj-Napoca. Considering that this predecessor passed away after that court decision, the plaintiffs, as heirs, assisted by our team of specialized ANRP compensation litigators, continued efforts to realize the compensation measures and to obtain promptly the decision awarding the compensation.
PRESENTATION AND SUPPORT OF THE CASE
Law no. 165/2013, concerning measures to complete the restitution process, whether in kind or by compensation, of properties abusively taken during the communist regime in Romania, establishes a time limit for administrative file resolution: 60 months, and 36 months for land fund files.
However, the Brisc Legal team observed and demonstrated to the court of first instance that, notwithstanding these deadlines, the law also provides for exceptional situations in which restitution files must be resolved as a priority. Thus, the attorneys in compensation and restitution litigation showed the court that files must be resolved with priority in cases where the Secretariat of the National Commission has requested the file’s completion with documents, and also when by an irrevocable/final court judgment the courts have ruled on the existence and extent of the right, as well as on the status of the entitled person; the plaintiffs find themselves in the second case.
Additionally, through an amended claim, they requested, subsidiarily to their initial claim to oblige the National Commission for Property Compensation to resolve the file with priority on the grounds of having obtained a final and irrevocable judgment by the predecessor of the plaintiffs, the obligation of the Commission to resolve with priority the file also on the basis that the Commission requested the file be completed with documents.
Although the National Commission for Property Compensation raised the exception of premature filing (that the lawsuit was premature), considering Brisc Legal’s arguments — that the plaintiffs asked for obliging the Commission to resolve with priority, not necessarily to immediately issue the compensation decision by points — the court rejected the exception.
In this way, the Brisc Legal team proved fulfillment of the conditions for priority resolution of the file and succeeded in obliging the National Commission for Property Compensation to resolve the file with priority.
DECISION OF CLUJ TRIBUNAL
In accordance with what was argued by the ANRP lawyers’ team, the Cluj Tribunal, taking over the considerations developed in support of the plaintiffs’ claims, determined that the plaintiffs are in an exceptional situation regulated by Law no. 165/2013 and found the current obligation of the National Commission for Property Compensation to resolve with priority the file.
Finally, the court held properly that plaintiffs have the right to have their file resolved with priority within the 36-month limit set by Law no. 165/2013.
ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE CLUJ COURT OF APPEAL
In response to the first instance decision, the National Commission for Property Compensation appealed, requesting that the complaint of the plaintiffs be rejected as unfounded, arguing that the plaintiffs’ request was premature — an exception that was also invoked in the lower court.
In defense, the property restitution attorneys showed the court that in its appeal brief the Commission did not develop any specific criticism regarding the lack of foundation of the first instance verdict obliging it to resolve the file with priority, and deliberately omitted to give effect to the provisions of Law no. 165/2013, which regulate the exceptional situations in which the file must be resolved with priority within the 36-month term.
FINAL DECISION OF CLUJ COURT OF APPEAL
In agreement with the arguments elaborated by Brisc Legal’s ANRP compensation attorneys, by the decision pronounced by the Cluj Court of Appeal, the appeal filed by the National Commission for Property Compensation was dismissed as unfounded.