1 OVERVIEW OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY RESTITUTION

OVERVIEW OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY RESTITUTION/COMPENSATION

REGIME – ROMANIA (AS OF 13 DECEMBER 2016)

CONTENTS

A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

B. POST-WAR ARMISTICES, TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS

DEALING WITH RESTITUTION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

C. RESTITUTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

D. RESTITUTION OF COMMUNAL PROPERTY

E. RESTITUTION OF HEIRLESS PROPERTY

F. BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Romania was an ally of Germany for most of World War II. During the war, extensive

“Romanization” (akin to Germany's Aryanization) of Jewish and Roma property took

place in Romania. Roughly 825,000 Jews and 263,000 Roma lived in Romania before the

war. 420,000 Romanian Jews died along with between 13,000 and 20,000 Roma during

the Holocaust. Approximately 3,200 Jews and 620,000 Roma live in Romania today.

Like other states previously allied with Germany, after switching sides in the war,

Romania promptly enacted legislation to reverse the theft of Jewish and Roma property.

The most significant legislation was Law No. 641/1944 (regarding the abolition of anti-

Semitic measures) and Law No. 607/1945 (regarding the annulment of certain contracts

that transferred property during exceptional circumstances). Little was done, however, to

act on these commitments during the Communist regime (1945-1989). Instead,

widespread nationalization resulted in a second wave of confiscation. Restitution only

began to take place after the fall of the Communist regime in 1989. The restitution laws

have not been effectively applied and, as a result, to date only limited restitution has

taken place in Romania. A new 2013 restitution law, however, has been recognized by

the European Court of Human Rights as providing an “accessible and effective

framework of redress for alleged violations of the right to peaceful enjoyment of property

confiscated or nationalised by the communist regime.”

Private Property. Claims by some foreign citizens relating to war damage and

nationalization were settled through bilateral agreements with foreign governments (e.g.,

United States, Canada, United Kingdom). Claimants from other countries and Romanian

citizens had to wait until the 1990’s when domestic legislation was enacted to settle

private property claims. Under an early restitution law – Law No. 112/1995 – private

properties could only be returned to former owners if they were already living on the

property as tenants or if the property was unoccupied. This law was replaced in 2001 by

Law No. 10/2001 permitting restitution in rem and compensation (in form of vouchers

for privatized companies, stocks, goods and services) when physical restitution was not

feasible. In 2005, Law No. 247/2005 was enacted to harmonize and streamline previous

restitution schemes. This law created a Property Fund to pay successful claimants.

However, recipients of shares from the Fund found that their shares were essentially

untradeable and difficult to value. Litigation about the Property Fund reached the

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which in 2010 issued a pilot judgment in

Atanasiu and Others v. Romania. In Atanasiu, the ECHR ordered Romania to rectify the

systemic problems with its restitution program. In response, in 2013 Romania enacted

Law No. 165/2013. The 2013 law did not allow new claims to be lodged. Claims

previously filed were now subject to a program which, in theory, was more fair to the

claimants. The program includes stricter time limits for the review of claims and the

possibility of judicial review by regular Romanian courts for claims denied in

administrative rulings. Yet, Law No. 165/2013 also reduces the amount of compensation

that had been available to claimants under previous laws. In 2014, in Preda and Others v.

Romania, the ECHR examined Law No. 165/2013 and held that in principle the law

provides an accessible and effective framework to address the shortcomings of

Romania’s previous restitution law. In May 2016, the Romanian Parliament passed

legislation that will prioritize the processing of claims lodged by Holocaust victims prior

to the 2003 deadline. More than 40,000 claims overall have yet to be processed.

Romania was described in 2013 by then European Commissioner for Justice Viviane

Reding, as a country with a systemic threat to the rule of law, giving the specific example

of a political attempt to attack the independence of Romania's Constitutional Court

because of its frequent criticism of Romanian laws. These threats led at least one family

living in the United States whose property was nationalized by the Communist regime to

seek redress in an American court in 2014, Sukyas v. Romania.

Communal Property. In the post-Communist period, Romania has enacted a number of

laws relating to the restitution of communal property belonging to religious organizations

and national minorities. These laws chiefly cover communal property taken during the

Communist era. Jewish communal property claims have been filed by the Caritatea

Foundation, a private foundation created by the Federation of Jewish Communities of

Romania (FEDROM) and the World Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO). The

Foundation is responsible for the maintenance of returned Jewish communal properties.

According to the WJRO, the Foundation submitted nearly 1,500 claims by the deadline

in 2003, but by September 2015 only 515 had been adjudicated. The Foundation has

received 75 properties and parcels of land. Outstanding claims for restitution by the

Jewish community are still being reviewed by the Romanian government under the new

Law No. 165/2013, but as with private property, no new claims can be lodged.

Legislation passed in May 2016 by the Romanian Parliament resolves two (2) issues that

had previously delayed the return of certain Jewish communal property and allows these

claims to move forward. The legislation addressed the roughly 55 communal properties

Project Co-Directors Lee Crawford Boyd and Michael Bazyler are counsel for the

Sukyas plaintiffs in their property action in the United States.

that had been incorporated separately from the pre-war central Jewish communities

(thereby resolving a successorship issue), and the roughly 40 properties which the Jewish

community had been compelled to “donate” to the Communist regime (presumed to be

abusive confiscations).

Heirless Property. The often-wholesale extermination of families in Romania during the

Holocaust had the effect of leaving substantial property without heirs to claim it. Heirless

property was the subject of considerable focus of the Allied powers at the end of World

War II. A provision in the 1947 Treaty of Peace with Romania even required the

Romanian government to transfer heirless property to communities in order to assist in

providing relief and rehabilitation to community members. In response to its obligations

under the 1947 Treaty, the Romanian Parliament enacted Law No. 113/1948 in 1948.

The law stated that heirless property formerly belonging to victims of racial or religious

persecution would be transferred to a particular organization to benefit remaining

members of a community. This law was never meaningfully implemented and no further

legislation has been enacted to address heirless property in Romania. Although Law No.

113/1948 is still technically still good law, the documentation required as a prerequisite

to the transfer of heirless property (e.g., proof of death, proof of no heirs) precludes the

use of the law today.

As part of the European Shoah Legacy Institute’s Immovable Property Restitution Study,

a Questionnaire covering past and present restitution regimes for private, communal and

heirless property was sent to all 47 Terezin Declaration governments in 2015. As of 13

December 2016, no response from Romania has been received.

B. POST-WAR ARMISTICE, TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS DEALING

WITH RESTITUTION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

During World War II, Romania fought as an ally of Germany until 23 August 1944. That

day, King Michael I overthrew General Ion Antonescu and his Fascist government,

responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Jews and Romani. At the same

time, Romania withdrew from the war against the Allied Powers and officially

proclaimed war against Germany and Hungary.

Prior to the war, there were approximately 825,000 Jewish people living in Romanian

territories, which until 1940 also included parts of Bulgaria and the current Republic of

Moldova. Roughly 420,000 Romanian Jews died during the Holocaust era.

Approximately 3,200 Jews live in Romania today. The Jewish community is decreasing

every year due to the advanced age of most local Jews.

Between 1939 and 1940 there were an estimated 263,000 Roma in Romania. Most

scholars of Roma history agree that approximately 25,000-30,000 Roma were deported to

Transnistria during the war. Approximately one-half of the Roma deportees returned to

Romania, putting the number of Roma victims between 13,000-20,000. (See Stefan

Ionescu, Jewish Resistance to ‘Romanianization’, 1940-1944 (2015), pp. 124-146

(“Ionescu”); Viorel Achim, The Roma in Romanian History (2005).) According to the

2011 census, about 620,000 Roma live in Romania today (3.3 percent of the population).

1. 12 September 1944 Armistice Agreement

On 12 September 1944, Romania concluded an Armistice Agreement with the Allied

Powers (Agreement Between The Governments Of The United States Of America, The

United Kingdom, And The Union Of The Soviet Socialist Republics, On The One Hand,

And The Government Of Rumania, On The Other Hand, Concerning An Armistice).

Article 6 of the Armistice Agreement stipulated that Romania must free all the people

detained on racial grounds (i.e., Jews and Roma) and cancel all anti-Semitic laws and

administrative directives. It stated: “[t]he Rumanian Government will immediately set

free, irrespective of citizenship and nationality, all persons held in confinement on

account of their activities in favor of the United Nations or because of their sympathies

with the cause of the United Nations, or because of their racial origin, and will repeal all

discriminatory legislation and restrictions imposed thereunder.” Most Jews whose

property was confiscated before August 1944 were either citizens of Romania or were

stateless. Nearly a quarter of a million Jews lost their Romanian citizenship as a result of

a denaturalization process based on Decree Law No. 169/1938 (regarding the revision of

the Romanian citizenship adopted by the Goga-Cuza government). Article 6’s provision

that all discriminatory legislation be repealed was particularly relevant for post-war

restitution because the Antonescu regime had confiscated Jewish urban and rural real

estate through a series of racially discriminatory laws. (See Ionescu, pp. 34-65.)

Article 13 of the Armistice Agreement also required that “[t]he Rumanian Government

undertake to restore all legal rights and interests of the United Nations and their nationals

on Rumanian territory as they existed before the war and to ret[urn] (sic) their property in

complete good order.” Article 13 applied to the comparatively smaller number of Jews

who were citizens of the United Nations countries.

2. 10 February 1947 Treaty of Peace with Romania

Articles 24 and 25 from the Treaty of Peace with Romania, signed on 10 February

1947, also addressed immovable property restitution and compensation, and confirmed

Romania’s previous obligations on the subject from the Armistice Agreement.

Article 24 related to the restoration of property in Romania belonging to the United

Nations and their nationals. If the property could not be returned the owner, the

Romanian government would be obliged to pay the owner compensation equal to two-

thirds (2/3) of the amount necessary at the date of payment to purchase similar property.

Article 25 related to the restoration of immovable property confiscated “on account of

the racial origin or religion of such persons.” Where restitution was not possible,

compensation was required. Article 25 also addressed treatment of heirless or unclaimed

property. It required the Romanian government to transfer heirless property to

organizations and communities “for purpose of relief and rehabilitation of surviving

members of such groups [who were the object of racial, religious or other Fascist

measures of persecution], organisations and communities in Roumania.”

3. Claims Settlement with Other Countries

Following the war, Romania entered into at least nine (9) lump sum agreements or

bilateral indemnification agreements with ten countries. (See Richard B. Lillich and

Burns H. Weston, International Claims, Their Settlement by Lump Sum Agreements

(1975), pp. 328-334). These agreements pertained to claims belonging to foreign

nationals (natural and legal persons) arising out of war damages or property that had been

seized during and after WWII. They included claims settlements reached with:

• Switzerland on 3 August 1951

• Greece on 25 August 1956 and 2 September 1966

• France on 9 February 1959

• Denmark on 17 March 1960

• United States on 30 March 1960

• United Kingdom on 10 November 1960 and 12 January 1976

• Austria on 3 July 1963

• Norway on 21 May 1964

• Italy on 23 January 1968

• Canada on 13 July 1971

(Id.)

4. Specific Claims Settlements Between Romania and Other Countries

a. Claims Settlement with the United States

As set forth in the Treaty of Peace with Romania and the United States’ International

Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, Romania was responsible for claims of

nationals of the United States for losses arising out of war damages, nationalization,

compulsory liquidation, or other taking of property prior to August 9, 1955. The U.S.

Treasury liquidated Romanian assets that had been blocked during the war in the amount

of USD 22,026,370 and designated them for use in paying the claims. The U.S. Foreign

Claims Settlement Commission (“FCSC”) heard the claims and completed the First

Romania Claims Program in 1959.

On 30 March 1960, Romania concluded a bilateral agreement with the United States,

Agreement Between The United States Of America And The Rumanian People’s

Republic Relating To Financial Questions Between The Two Countries (“U.S.

Bilateral Agreement”). In this bilateral agreement, Romania and the United States

agreed that the lump sum of USD 24,526,370 would constitute full and final settlement

and discharge of claims, including claims for restoration/compensation of property rights

of nationals of the United States, as specified in Articles 24 and 25 of the Treaty of

Peace with Romania, and nationalization or liquidation or other takings occurring prior

to 30 March 1960 (see U.S. Bilateral Agreement, Articles 1(a) and (b)). The lump sum

was composed of the USD 22,026,370 used in the First Romania Claims Program, and

an additional USD 2,500,000 to be paid by the Romanian government in installments, for

the Second Romania Claims Program (see U.S. Bilateral Agreement, Articles III (a)

and (b)).

In total, the United States, through the FCSC awarded over USD 62,000,000 to U.S.

national claimants in the First and Second Romania Claims Program. However, only

approximately USD 23,000,000 was ultimately available for payment based upon the

terms of the Treaty of Peace with Romania (and the International Claims Settlement

Act of 1949, as amended) and the U.S. Bilateral Agreement. Successful claimants

therefore received only USD 1,000 plus 37.84% of the principal of their awards.

For more information concerning the Romania Claims Program, the FCSC maintains

statistics and primary documents on its Romania: Program Overview webpage.

b. Claims Settlement with Canada

On 13 July 1971, Romania and Canada entered into a bilateral agreement, Agreement

Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Socialist Republic

of Romania Concerning the Settlement of Outstanding Financial Problems

(“Canada Bilateral Agreement”). Under the Canada Bilateral Agreement, Romania

agreed to pay Canada CAD 1,400,000 (in a series of quarterly installments) to settle

claims of Canadian nationals, including claims relating to property affected by Romanian

measures of nationalization or expropriation, which were effective before the date the

Canada Bilateral Agreement came into force (see Article I(a)). The Canada Bilateral

Agreement also settled “[a]ll claims deriving from the terms of the Treaty of Peace with

Romania, signed in Paris, February 10, 1947” (see Article I(b)).

In March 1972, pursuant to the Appropriation Act, No. 9 1966, the Regulations

respecting the determination and payment out of the Foreign Claims Fund of

certain claims against the Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania and its

citizens (“1972 Regulations”) were enacted in Canada. These Regulations permitted

Canada’s Foreign Claims Commission to adjudicate claims within the scope of the

Canada Bilateral Agreement. The Foreign Claims Commission was only empowered

to adjudicate claims where notice of the claim had been given on or before 14 December

1971 (the date of the Canada Bilateral Agreement).

Successful claimants under Article I(a) (relating to nationalized property) had to be

Canadian citizens as of the date of the signature of the Canada Bilateral Agreement (13

July 1971) and also had to be Canadian citizens at the date when the Romanian

nationalization measures took place. In practical terms, this meant that the property in

question had to have been continuously held by a Canadian citizen from the time the

claim arose to the date of the Canada Bilateral Agreement and Jews and Roma who lost

property as a result of wartime Romanization laws could not seek compensation from the

Foreign Claims Commission. Successful claimants under Article I(b) (relating to the

terms of the Treaty of Peace with Romania) had to be Canadian citizens as of the date

of the signature of the Canada Bilateral Agreement (13 July 1971) and also had to have

been a United Nations national from 19 September 19, 1947 to 13 July 1971 (1972

Regulations, Section 4(2)).

As far as we are aware, the claims process established under the Canada Bilateral

Agreement is complete. We are not aware of how many claims were made under the

agreement, how many claims were ultimately successful or whether Romania paid

Canada the full agreed-upon settlement amount.

The original text of this agreement is available for download in English from the website

of the Government of Canada, Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

c. Claims Settlement with the United Kingdom

On 12 January 1976, Romania and the United Kingdom entered into a bilateral

agreement, Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great

Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Socialist Republic of

Romania (“UK Bilateral Agreement”). According to Articles 1 and 4, Romania agreed

to pay the United Kingdom GBP 3,500,000 (paid in four (4) annual installments) in

settlement of (1) certain specified claims arising out the Treaty of Peace with Romania

signed in Paris on 10 February 1947 (Article 1(a)), (2) all claims with respect to “British

property affected prior to the date signature of the present Agreement by Romanian

measures of nationalization, expropriation, State administration, liquidation and other

similar measures and regulations made or administrative action taken thereunder . . .”

(Article 1(b)), and (3) other financial debts owed by Romania. Claimable “British

property” under Article 1(b) included only property, rights and interests in former oil

companies in Romania (Article 3).

As far as we are aware, the claims process established under the UK Bilateral

Agreement is complete. We are not aware of how many claims were made under the

agreement, how many claims were ultimately successful or whether Romania paid the

UK the full agreed-upon settlement amount.

The original text of this agreement is available for download in English from the website

of the Foreign Commonwealth Office, UK Treaties Online (last accessed 24 September

2015)).

We do not have more detailed information for the remaining six (6) lump sum settlement

agreements.

C. RESTITUTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

Private immovable (real) property, as defined in the Terezin Declaration Guidelines and

Best Practices for the Restitution and Compensation of Immovable (Real) Property

Confiscated or Otherwise Wrongfully Seized by the Nazis, Fascists and Their

Collaborators during the Holocaust (Shoah) Ear between 1933-1945, Including the Period

of World War II (“Terezin Best Practices”) for the purpose of restitution, is:

property owned by private individuals or legal persons, who either themselves or

through their families owned homes, buildings, apartments or land, or who had

other legal property rights, recognized by national law as of the last date before

the commencement of persecution by the Nazis, Fascists and their collaborators,

in such properties.

(Terezin Best Practices, para. b.)

During the war, extensive “Romanization” (akin to Germany's Aryanization) of Jewish

property took place in Romania. (See Ionescu.) Property belonging to Jews and Roma in

Romania was subjected to at least two (2) confiscations. Immovable property was first

confiscated by specific anti-Semitic and anti-Roma laws of the far-right Antonescu

Fascist regime in power during WWII and then subsequently nationalized after the war

by the generally applicable nationalization laws of Communist governments. In addition,

a 2010 European Parliament report on Romania noted that “a more subtle form of

expropriation took place in the case of Jewish and Germans in the following decades,

until 1989, when they were applying for passports to emigrate to Israel or Germany.”

(European Parliament (Policy Department (Citizen’s Rights and Constitutional Affairs)

of the Directorate-General for Internal Policies), Private Property Issues Following the

Change of Political Regime in Former Socialist or Communist Countries, 2010 (“2010

European Parliament Report”), p. 100.) This expropriation reportedly included the

requirement that émigrés sign “donation acts” for their property with the state as

beneficiary – which, in some instances resulted in a blackmail-type situation whereby

property was handed over to the state in exchange for a passport. In other instances

émigrés had to renovate their properties at their own expense before the government paid

compensation. (Id.)

1. Law No. 641/1944 Regarding the Abolition of Anti-Semitic Measures

Even prior to the signing of the Treaty of Peace with Romania, Romania, under King

Michael, passed Law No. 641/1944 (regarding the abolition of anti-semitic measures),

directing that “all legal provisions adopted as anti-Jewish . . . will be abolished,

including those comprised in court decisions, as well as all discriminatory measures

adopted without legal basis against Jews by the public authorities”.

This law was not meaningfully implemented to effectively permit restitution of stolen

property and is best described as a normative act, where the very text of the law simply

stated that anti-Jewish measures would remain abolished “de jure, without any formality”

(i.e., by default). Indeed, even though the anti-Jewish legislation and administrative

measures were abolished de jure, Jewish owners still had to claim their property in court.

While the number of successful Jewish restitutions (i.e., the percentage of Jews actually

got back their property through courts or outside courts) during this time period is not

known, it appears a majority of Jewish survivors from Bucharest (and perhaps from other

parts of the country as well) were successful in recuperating their real estate. This would

have been achieved either by court decision or by the eviction (sometimes after

negotiating with former Jewish owner) of the Romanianization beneficiaries who had

been living on those properties. Further, for a variety of reasons (including death,

dislocation, etc.), not all victims of the anti-Semitic legislation were able to reclaim their

property under Law No. 641/1944 before the property was nationalized by the

communist government. (See 2010 European Parliament Report, p. 99.)

2. Decree Law No. 607/1945 Regarding the Annulment of Certain

Contracts that Transferred Property during Exceptional

Circumstances

The government adopted Decree Law No. 607/1945 (regarding the annulment of

certain contracts that transferred [property] during exceptional circumstances) on

30 July 1945 (published on 1 August 1945) in an effort to resolve some of the

controversies created by Law No. 641/1944. The belief at the time was that due to the

discriminatory, violent and anti-Semitic policies of the Antonescu regime, many Jews

agreed to transfers of property (immovable property, businesses and movable goods),

which they never would have otherwise agreed to during peacetime. Their free will had

been compromised by physical and psychological violence. Law No. 607/1945 undid the

forced transfers of property if claimants filed their claims with the local courts (Tribunal

level) and/or appeals with a superior court. The law also permitted Jews to request the

cancellation of donations they had made to non-Jews (gentiles), except insofar as they

were family members. The law presumed that consent by Jews to these property

transactions was flawed or occurred under duress.

However, Law No. 607/1945 only applied to transactions concluded between 6

September 1940 and 23 August 1944 by Jews that had lived in Romania or had been

deported from Romania. This meant that Jews living in Northern Transylvania under

Hungarian rule between 1940 and 1944 – a region returned to Romania in 1945 – were

excluded from the law.

Jews outside of Romania due to deportation or internment benefited from an extended

deadline to fill their claims – until 1 January 1946.

Overall, it is not clear how effective Law No. 607/1945 was and to what extent

Romanian Jews managed to gain back their property – that they had transferred during

the Antonescu regime – in domestic courts.

With more members of the Communist Party gaining power and a pro-Soviet government

installed, King Michael was forced to abdicate in December 1947. Romania then became

known as the Romanian People’s Republic from 1947-1965, and the Socialist Republic

of Romania from 1965-1989. Under Communist rule, extensive portions of the economy,

including most land and buildings, were nationalized. The main Communist

nationalization laws – which affected both Jews and non-Jews – concerning real estate

and businesses, were the following:

• Decree Law No. 187/1945 (published in Monitorul Oficial no. 68 of 23 March 1945)

(regarding the implementation of the agrarian reform). Through this law,

agricultural land of ethnic-Germans, war criminals, absentees, and landlords

(regardless of their ethnicity) owning more than 50 hectares, were seized and

distributed to poor peasants. Some Jewish owners whose rural estates (larger than 50

hectares) had been recently restituted, were also targeted for nationalization by the

new Communist government.

• Law No. 119/1948 (published in Monitorul Oficial No. 133 bis of 11 June 1948)

(regarding the nationalization of industrial, banking, insurance, mining, and

transportation companies). After seizing complete power in Romania, this law

facilitated the Communist regime’s first major confiscation of businesses . By

adopting Law No. 119/1948, the Communist regime nationalized most of the means

of production in the country (1,060 industrial and financial companies representing

around 90% of the economy) and thus eliminated the majority of private

entrepreneurs (including Jews) from the economy.

Law No. 119/1948 was followed by a number of other laws that

nationalized/confiscated businesses from particular subfield of the economy, such as

Decree No. 232/1948 of 9 September 1948 (regarding the nationalization of

certain private railways companies); Decree No. 302/1948 (published in Monitorul

Oficial No. 265 of 13 November 1948) (regarding the nationalization of certain

private health care institution); Decree No. 134/1949 (regarding the

nationalization of private pharmacies).

• Decree No. 92/1950 (published in Buletinul Oficial no. 36 of 20 April 1950)

(regarding the nationalization of certain real estate (the buildings belonging to

former industrialists, bankers, tradesmen, and all the elements of the high

bourgeoisie, buildings of hotel owners, accommodation speculators and others

like these) was perhaps the most significant nationalization law in Romania. It

enabled a massive expropriation without any compensation. Between 120,000 and

140,000 buildings throughout Romania (approximately 25 percent of all privately-

owned homes) were transferred to state ownership.

The expropriation was socially based and targeted several categories of “exploiters”

including rich nobles, landlords, and bourgeoisie. Many Jews also lost their property

but the numbers cannot be confirmed because since 1945, Romanian law forbade the

registration of ethnicity or race of local citizens and the Communist expropriation

laws did not mention the religion of the victims. Law No. 92/150 included a list of

thousands of names of owners whose property was nationalized under the law.

Hundreds if not thousands of those names were typical Jewish names. While names

were not always a precise indicator of ethnicity/religion, between 1940 and 1950 non-

Jewish Romanians were not adopting Jewish names. Conversely, many Jews actually

adopted ethnic Romanian names in an effort to avoid anti-Semitism. It is therefore

likely that property was expropriated from more Jews than just those with typically

Jewish names listed in Decree No. 92/1950.

Following the collapse of the Communist regime in Romania in 1989, the Romanian

government sought to address the issue of restitution/compensation of agricultural

property, urban property, and religious and communal property nationalized by the

Communist regime between 6 March 1945 and 22 December 1989. Jewish owners whose

real estate was returned to them by courts in the early post-Antonescu years based on

Law No. 641/1944 and whose property was again confiscated a few years later

(especially from 1948 on) by the Communist regime, were entitled to file for restitution

of their former real estate after 1989, provided that they fulfilled the requirements and

procedures in the laws.

3. Law No. 112/1995

Pursuant to Law No. 112/1995, properties could only be returned to former owners if

they were already living on the property as tenants or if the property was unoccupied. If

restitution in rem was not possible, owners were entitled to compensation, which was

capped. (See Atanasiu and Others v. Romania, ECHR, Application Nos. 30767/05 and

33800/06, Judgment of 12 October 2010 (“Atanasiu”), ¶ 47.)

4. 2001 Restitution Law

Law No. 10/2001 on the Legal Status of Property Abusively Taken Over by the

Communist State During the 6 March 1945-22 December 1989 Period (“2001

Restitution Law”) permitted restitution in rem and compensation (in the form of

vouchers for privatized companies, stocks, goods and services) when physical restitution

was not feasible. (Lavinia Stan, The Roof over Our Heads: Property Restitution in

Romania, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, Vol. 22, No. 2 (2006), p.

195 (“Stan”).) Unlike the previous Law No. 112/1995, compensation was not capped

under the 2001 Restitution Law. (Atanasiu, ¶ 47.) The law applied to nationalized

property belonging to industrial, banking, insurance, mining and transportation

companies, as well as to property belonging to private individuals that had been

confiscated or requisitioned by the state. (Stan, p. 95.) It also only applied to property

taken between 6 March 1945 and 22 December 1989.

Claimants had only six (6) months from the date of the law’s adoption to lodge restitution

claims. Another difficulty with the law was that owners of properties were required to

pay tenants for improvements made to the property, but owners were not compensated for

the decades in which they were deprived of the property. (Id., p.196.) Many tenants had

also previously purchased the property and the original owners now had to challenge the

titles of the tenants. It was also unclear as to whether Holocaust era claims were covered

by the law. In addition, the compensation requirement of the 2001 Restitution Law

remained unfulfilled because Romania’s national budget never included compensation

funds. (Id., p.197.)

According to one Romania scholar, hundreds of thousands of claims worth billions of

dollars were lodged under the 2001 Restitution Law but few were resolved:

By mid-2001 local authorities had registered 210,000 claims, 128,000 of which

were for ‘natural’ [in rem] restitution and 82,000 for financial compensation, but

resolved only two per cent of all requests. Most claimants received no reply,

although local authorities were supposed to respond within 60 days. By 2002 only

615 Bucharest owners had received their houses back, and it was estimated that

the bureau needed 40 years to resolve the 24,350 outstanding claims. By late 2003

the bureau had accepted 50,000 claims for financial compensation totaling the

equivalent of US$ 5.3 billion and 20,000 requests for ‘reparatory measures’

totaling US$ 3 billion, but it had resolved only 3,475 petitions.

(Stan, p.198.)

5. Law No. 247/2005 on Judicial and Property Reform

Law No. 247/2005 (on judicial and property reform) (“2005 Property Reform Law”)

attempted to harmonize the administrative procedures set forth in prior laws addressing

the restitution of various types of property, including the 2001 Restitution Law, but the

2005 Property Reform Law proved to be equally complex and burdensome.

The 2005 Property Reform Law provided that where restitution in rem is not possible

(like the 2001 Restitution Law, it applied to property taken beginning in 1945),

claimants can either choose compensation in the form of (1) goods and services or (2)

payment of an amount determined in accordance with “domestic and international

practice and standards on compensation for buildings and houses wrongfully acquired by

the State.” (Atanasiu, ¶ 53.)

Claimants had 60 days to lodge claims for agricultural land and six (6) months to lodge

claims for immovable property that had belonged to religious institutions and national

minority organizations. (Atanasiu, ¶ 55.)

The law established a Central Compensation Board and the National Agency for

Property Restitution (“NAPR”) to deal with the claims and compensation process.

Compensation awards issued by local authorities under the 2005 Property Reform Law

had to be reviewed by the Central Compensation Board for lawfulness and then a

determination on amount of compensation. The Central Compensation Board would

then issue successful claimants a compensation certificate.

For properties that could not be restituted in rem, the 2005 Property Reform Law set up

a Property Fund to pay out financial compensation. Successful claimants would receive

shares in the Property Fund, whose capital was to be comprised of state-owned

companies. However, these shares could not be traded or easily converted into cash.

Over the years various amendments were made to the 2005 Property Reform Law,

including giving successful claimants the option of receiving all compensation in form of

shares in the Property Fund, or receiving part of the amount in cash – up to 500,000

Romanian lei (USD 127,000) – and the rest in shares. (Atanasiu, ¶ 64.) Successful

claimants had three (3) years from the issuance of their compensation certificate to elect

their payment choice and notify the NAPR of the choice, whereupon the NAPR would

issue a payment certificate. (Id., ¶ 65.) Cash payments up to 250,000 Romanian lei were

to be paid within a year of the issuance of the payment certificate, while payments

between 250,000 and 500,000 Romanian lei were to be paid within two (2) years. (Id., ¶

66.)

In 2009, the Romanian High Court of Cassation and Justice held that courts could not do

the job of the Central Compensation Board and determine the amount of compensation

for property. The Board, and not a court, must determine restitution/compensation claims

within a “reasonable time”. (Atanasiu, ¶ 76.)

In 2010, Emergency Government Ordinance No. 62/2010 suspended cash payouts for

a two (2)-year period in order to balance the budget. Compensation certificates could

therefore only be issued for shares in the Property Fund during this period. According to

government estimates in 2010, EUR 21 billion would be needed to pay out compensation

to successful claimants under the compensation laws. (Atanasiu, ¶ 66.)

In March 2012, the government issued another emergency ordinance suspending all

compensation procedures until new restitution legislation was completed. As a result, in

2012 the NAPR ceased issuing shares in the Property Fund as a form of compensation.

This was despite the existence of many claimants with previously-approved claims who

were waiting only for their compensation. These claimants would ultimately be subject to

the payment scheme established under the new legislation. The effect was that the

compensation which the previously-approved claimants would otherwise have received

under the 2005 Property Reform Law would be dramatically reduced under the new

legislation.

The flawed implementation of the 2005 Property Reform Law and its Property Fund

significantly undermined its effectiveness, which was the centerpiece of a 2010 European

Court of Human Rights pilot judgment in Atanasiu and Others v Romnia.

6. Atanasiu and Others v. Romania

In 2010, the ECHR issued a pilot judgment

in Atanasiu and Others v. Romania, in

which the Court found that Romania’s restitution procedures (including the Property

Fund) violated rights guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights,

chiefly the right to a fair and public hearing (Article 6, Section I) and the right to

peaceful enjoyment of property (Article 1, Protocol No. 1). (See Atanasiu and Others v.

The pilot judgment procedure is a mechanism available to the ECHR to address a large

number of identical or near-identical cases from a particular country arising from the

same systemic problems within that country’s legal system. In its pilot judgment

decision, the ECHR resolves the claims of a particular case and also sets forth

prescriptive guidance for the government of the relevant country to resolve similar cases.

(See European Court of Human Rights, Pilot Judgment Procedure.)

Romania, ECHR, Application Nos. 30767/05 and 33800/06 , Judgment of 12 October

2010.)

In Atanasiu, several buildings belonging to applicant Atanasiu’s family, including one

located in Bucharest, were nationalized in 1950 pursuant to Decree No. 92.

In 1999, applicant Atanasiu lodged a claim for restitution of the Bucharest building

pursuant to Law No. 112/1995. The building had since been divided into a number of

flats, one of which was the subject of Atanasiu’s ECHR action. Atanasiu had filed an

action in the Bucharest County Court against the City of Bucharest (who had managed

the property) and the people who purchased the flat in 1996. In 2002, the County Court

held that because the nationalization of the building was unlawful (applicant’s family was

not part of any social category listed in the nationalization decree), the sale of the flat in

1996 was also unlawful. The Bucharest Court of Appeal reversed, finding the contract of

sale of the flat in 1996 lawful because it complied with Law No. 112/1995. On appeal to

the High Court of Cassation and Justice in 2005, the Court found applicant’s appeal

inadmissible because applicant lodged the action after the date of entry into force of the

2001 Restitution Law and after that date the applicant could only claim restitution in the

circumstances set out by the 2001 Restitution Law. (Id., ¶¶ 20-27.)

In tandem with the judicial actions, applicant Atanasiu also filed a claim pursuant to the

2001 Restitution Law with the Bucharest City Council for the restitution of the entire

building in Bucharest. Over the next nine (9) years, the claim was not resolved, with the

city council continuing to assert that the applicant failed to submit a complete claim file.

(Id.)

The ECHR ultimately found that issuing shares of the Property Fund to claimants

pursuant to then applicable 2005 Property Reform Law was not an effective

compensation mechanism because the shares of the Property Fund were not listed in

any regulated market, making the shares largely untradeable and their value difficult to

determine. The Property Fund is somewhat emblematic of the systemic problems with

the Romanian restitution system. The legislative act that created the Property Fund

required shares of the Property Fund to be listed on the Bucharest Exchange. It was not

until January 2011 that the Property Fund was listed in the exchange.

In Atanasiu, the ECHR directed Romania to rectify the systemic failures in processing

claims and to award restitution and compensation in a timely manner.

7. Romania’s Response to the Atanasiu Decision – Law No. 165/2013

In 2013, Law No. 165/2013 was enacted as a response to the Atanasiu decision. The law

established a new body (the National Committee for Real Estate Compensations and

erecting the National Fund (“National Committee”)) to process existing claims related

to private property and communal property. Restitution in rem is required when possible;

otherwise monetary compensation is ordered.

The law has established a new compensation mechanism to replace the previous

Property Fund created by the 2005 Property Reform Law. The National Fund is a

points-based compensation mechanism in which successful claimants are awarded

“points” that can be used to purchase property at auction beginning in 2016 or redeemed

for cash (after a holding period of three (3) years and then payout in installments over a

subsequent seven (7)-year period). The National Fund’s holdings currently consist of

farmland owned by the Romanian government. The auctions are to be held by video

conference at the headquarters of the National Agency for Cadastre and Land Registry.

Subject to the requirement of prior registration, participation in the auction is free of

charge to those who have been awarded points by the National Fund.

Law No. 165/2013 only applies to petitions previously submitted within the time limits

prescribed by some of Romania’s earlier restitution laws, which had not been granted

prior to Law 165/2013 coming into effect, and are either pending in national courts or

pending in the ECHR after being suspended by the Atanasiu decision. (See Law No.

165/2013, Article 4.)

Law No. 165/2013 substantially reduces the amount of compensation awarded to

successful claimants under the previous restitution law (2005 Property Reform Law).

Moreover, Law 165/2013 also permits the newly-established National Committee to

review and completely invalidate previously-approved claims issued by the NAPR

(claims that had been approved but not yet paid out at the time the government issued a

moratorium on pay-outs in 2012). The National Committee has required claimants with

previously-approved claims to submit additional documentation (in the State’s possession

and that the claimant usually cannot obtain). The result is that many claims that were

previously-approved but not paid before Law No. 165/2013 came into effect are being

cancelled. A claimant’s only recourse for a cancelled claim is to file suit in the Romanian

courts (if he/she has the resources and means to do so).

Review of claims for private property under the procedure set up by Law 165/2013 is

ongoing.

In May 2016, the Romanian Parliament passed legislation that will prioritize the

examination of claims for Holocaust survivors who lodged claims before the 2003

deadline. According to the WJRO, as of May 2016, 40,000 claims overall remain to be

processed. The new legislation resulted from recommendations made by a working group

formed in February 2015 by the then-Prime Minister Victor Ponta. The working group

included representatives from the Romanian government, the WJRO and the Federation

of Jewish Communities of Romania (FEDROM). Representatives from the United

States and Israeli governments also provided assistance. (See World Jewish Restitution

Organization, Press Release, “WJRO Commends Passage of Restitution Legislation in

Romania (10 May 2016).)

8. Preda and Others v. Romania

In 2014, following the enactment and implementation of Law No. 165/2013, the ECHR

re-visited Romania’s property restitution law in Preda and Others v. Romania. (See

Preda and Others v. Romania, ECHR, Application Nos. 9584/02, 33514/02, 38052/02,

25821/03, 29652/03, 3736/03, 17750/03, 28688/04, Judgment of 29 April 2014 (available

only in French).) In Preda, the ECHR examined the facts surrounding 16 applicants’

claims, all concerning the nationalization or confiscation of applicants’ land/buildings by

the Communist regime and which were returned in accordance with laws passed after

1989. The applicants’ claims under the Convention were eventually declared

inadmissible for failing to exhaust the domestic remedies under Law No. 165/2013.

The Court considered whether the remedies provided by the recently enacted Law No.

165/2013 where effective. The Court held that, in principle, Law No. 165/2013 provided

an accessible and effective framework for addressing the systemic shortcomings of the

Romanian restitution law as described by the Court in its prior Atanasiu decision. In

particular, the Court found that Law No. 165/2013 set out how the points-based system

worked for the purchase of compensatory property at auction, how compensation would

be determined when the claimant opted for delayed cash pay-out in lieu of property at

auction (market value of the property and payable in installments), that each

administrative step was subject to certain time limits, and that decisions were subject to

judicial review on lawfulness and court rulings could supersede decisions made by

administrative agencies. (See Press Release, ECHR, “Law passed by Romanian

Parliament provides in principle an accessible and effective framework of redress for

alleged violations of the right to peaceful enjoyment of property confiscated or

nationalised by the communist regime” (29 April 2014).)

In delivering its holding, the Court made clear that it would defer to the Romanian

government’s wide discretion in implementing regulations responsive to the Atanasiu

decision.

9. Litigation in United States Courts Concerning Property Nationalized

in Romania

In March 2015, two (2) plaintiffs, brothers born in Romania, filed an action in United

States courts against Romania and RADEF Romania Film (an agency or instrumentality

of Romania) in a case known as Sukyas v. Romania, et al. (C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:15-cv-

01946). Plaintiffs seek redress for property (a state-of-the-art post production film

laboratory and business, Cinegrafia Romano) taken from their father under the

nationalization laws of the Romanian Communist government in the late 1940s. Even

though post-Communist era legislation provides for compensation and restitution for

state-confiscated property, the plaintiffs allege they have been unable to obtain any form

of redress for their property under the Romanian legal system. Since 2008, they have

filed multiple actions in both the domestic courts in Romania and with the ECHR seeking

the return of this property, none of which have been resolved positively. Plaintiffs allege

in their complaint that even though “Romanian courts have acknowledged Plaintiffs as

rightful heirs of the owners of [the property], they have refused to compensate Plaintiffs

for Romania’s confiscation and ongoing use of the [] business for its own benefit.” This

case is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

D. RESTITUTION OF COMMUNAL PROPERTY

Communal immovable (real) property, as defined in the Terezin Best Practices for the

purpose of restitution, is:

property owned by religious or communal organizations and includes buildings

and land used for religious purposes, e.g. synagogues, churches[,] cemeteries, and

other immovable religious sites which should be restituted in proper order and

protected from desecration or misuse, as well as buildings and land used for

communal purposes, e.g. schools, hospitals, social institutions and youth camps,

or for income generating purposes.

(Terezin Best Practices, para. b.)

Romanian laws relating to restitution of communal property include:

• Decree No. 589/1949;

• Law No. 18/1991 (relating to agricultural lands and woodlands);

• Emergency Government Ordinance (E.G.O.) No. 21/1997 (relating to urban

properties abusively confiscated from religious cults);

• E.G.O 83/1999 (and amendments pursuant to Law No. 66/2004) (relating to

properties belonging to national minorities);

• E.G.O. 94/2000 (and amendment pursuant to Law No. 51/2002) (relating to real

property belonging to religious cults);

• Law No. 10/2001 (relating to property abusively confiscated between 6 March 1945

and 22 December 1989); and

• Law No. 165/2013.

As with private property legislation, it is unclear how and to what extent these laws have

offered redress for communal property confiscated during the Holocaust (Shoah) era,

1933-1945, and how these laws interact with Law No. 641/1944 regarding the

abolishment of anti-Semitic legislation. Property returned “de jure” under the normative

language of Law No. 641/1944 would have again been taken and subject to widespread

nationalization (applying to Jews and non-Jews alike) in the late 1940s. Claims had to be

lodged under these laws by 2003.

The umbrella organization for the Jewish community in Romania is the Federation of

Jewish Communities of Romania (“FEDROM”).

In 1997, FEDROM and the World Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO)

established the Caritatea Foundation, which assumed responsibility for submitting

claims for confiscated formerly Jewish-owned communal property. The Caritatea

Foundation submitted 1,450 claims by the claims deadline. By the end of September

2015, 515 had been adjudicated, and 367 were positive results. This included return of 75

properties and financial compensation financial compensation in 292 cases to the

Caritatea Foundation. Of these 292 cases for compensation solved prior to passage of

the 2013 law, 165 remain subject to review by the National Commission for

Compensation under the new legislation.

The Caritatea Foundation is also responsible for managing recovered property or

compensation in Romania in order to sustain and revitalized Romanian Jewish

communities, preserve Romanian Jewish religious, social and cultural heritage and assist

elderly Jews from Romania. In 2016, the Caritatea Foundation will distribute USD 8

million, which includes more than USD 2 million to assist needy Romanian Holocaust

survivors living in Israel. (See World Jewish Restitution Organization, Press Release,

“WJRO Commends Passage of Restitution Legislation in Romania” (10 May 2016).)

A few aspects of Law No. 165/2013 particularly impact communal property claims.

Under Law No. 165/2013, only immovable property that was formally expropriated (i.e.,

via written documentation) can be compensated. The law is unclear as to whether it

covers other types of expropriation, namely, coercive or unfair land swaps (a common

way the Communist regime confiscated Jewish community property) or de facto

expropriations without written documentation.

However, in May 2016, the Romanian Parliament passed legislation that will speed up

the process of examining claims lodged by the Romanian Jewish community in two (2)

main ways. First, the legislation addresses the return of roughly 55 Jewish communal

properties, which had been incorporated separately from the pre-Holocaust central Jewish

communities. These include Jewish schools, hospitals and social welfare institutions.

Before the May 2016 legislation, the Caritatea Foundation had to go to court and

establish for each property that it was a successor. The new legislation permits national

minorities to submit evidence that they are acknowledged to be a legal successors of the

entity who held the property in issue at the time of the confiscation. Second, the law

clarifies that roughly 40 Jewish communal properties which were “donated” to the

Communist regime, are presumed to have been abusively taken by the then-government.

In the past, a number of domestic courts recognized these “donations” were presumed

abusive confiscations, but the Caritatea Foundation still had to file separate court

actions to cancel such “donations”.

Law No. 165/2013 also stipulates that where public institutions occupy property subject

to restitution, there will be a 10-year delay on restitution (Article 45). The law requires

the current occupants to pay “market value” rent to rightful owner (calculated by law as

6% of the construction value and 4% of the land value). However, the Caritatea

Foundation conducted studies on the market value of rent and found that the legal

formula results in payment of below-market rent to the rightful owners.

In addition, the WJRO has pointed out that unlike individual claimants, religious

organizations under Law 165/2013 (this was also the case under previous communal

property laws) cannot receive compensation for nationalized property that was

subsequently demolished. (See WJRO, “Position Paper on Romanian Law No.

165/2013”, 17 September 2013, p. 10.)

Review of claims for communal property under the procedure set up by Law No.

165/2013, is ongoing to date. The law only applies to petitions previously submitted

within the time limits prescribed by some of Romania’s earlier restitution laws, which

had not been granted prior to this law coming into effect, and are either pending in

national courts or pending in the ECHR after they were suspended by the Atanasiu

decision. (See Law No. 165/2013, Article 4.)

E. RESTITUTION OF HEIRLESS PROPERTY

The Terezin Declaration states “that in some states heirless property could serve as a

basis for addressing the material necessities of needy Holocaust (Shoah) survivors and to

ensure ongoing education about the Holocaust (Shoah), its causes and consequences.”

(Terezin Declaration, Immovable (Real) Property, para. 3.) The Terezin Best Practices

also “encourage[s] [states] to create solutions for the restitution and compensation of

heirless or unclaimed property from victims of persecution by Nazis, Fascists and their

collaborators.” Heirless immovable (real) property, as defined in the Terezin Best

Practices for the purpose of restitution, is:

property which was confiscated or otherwise taken from the original owners by

the Nazis, Fascists and their collaborators and where the former owner died or

dies intestate without leaving a spouse or relative entitled to his inheritances. . . .

From these properties, special funds may be allocated for the benefit of needy

Holocaust (Shoah) survivors from the local community, irrespective of their

country of residence. From such funds, down payments should be allocated at

once for needy Holocaust (Shoah) survivors. Such funds, among others, may also

be allocated for purposes of commemoration of destroyed communities and

Holocaust (Shoah) education.

(Terezin Best Practices, para. j.)

1. Article 25(2) of the Treaty of Peace with Romania

Article 25(2) of the 1947 Treaty of Peace with Romania stated that all property that

had been confiscated on account of race or religion and “remain[ed] heirless or

unclaimed . . . shall be transferred by the Roumanian Government to organisations in

Roumania representative of such persons, organisations or communities . . . for purpose

of relief and rehabilitation of surviving members of such groups, organisations and

communities in Roumania.”

2. Law No. 113/1948

In response to its Article 25(2) obligations under the Treaty of Peace with Romania,

the Romanian Parliament thereafter enacted Law No. 113/1948. Law No. 113/1948

addressed real property belonging to heirless members of the Jewish community (and

other victims of racial or religious persecution) by transferring ownership of such

property to the Federation of Jewish Communities Union, as the representative of the

Romanian Jewish community. However, similar to Law No. 641/1944 (relating to the

abolishment of anti-Semitic legislation), this law was never fully or meaningfully

implemented.

Law No. 641/1944 still exists in Romanian law, but in practice, cannot be used to transfer

ownership of property. The law requires extensive documentation as a prerequisite to

transferring property, inter alia, proof of death and proof of no heirs. This type of

documentation cannot be obtained for Jewish property owners (and other victims of racial

or religious persecution) who died during World War II.

Part of the problem with the implementation of Law No. 113/1948 lay with the

decreasing independence and autonomy of the Jewish community in Romania after the

war. When the Communist regime attempted to seize complete power and control of local

society, they established a pro-Communist, obedient section of the Jewish community –

the Jewish Democratic Committee (“CDE”). The CDE gradually seized control over

Romanian Jews and eliminated the community’s traditional liberal democratic leaders by

forcing them to flee the country (as it happened with the Chief Rabbi Alexandru Safran,

who fled in 1947 and Wilhelm Filderman, the leader of the Union of Native Jews and

former leader of the Jewish community, who fled Romanian in January 1948) or arresting

them (as it happened with some local Zionist leaders). Thus, by the time new Jewish

leadership was “elected” in February 1948, the Jewish community of Romania had lost

its independence/autonomy, became mainly an annex of the Communist government, and

it followed the government’s instructions. As a result, the Jewish community could not

pursue the issue of restitution of heirless property.

Since Romania endorsed the Terezin Declaration, no new laws have been passed relating

to the restitution of heirless property.

E. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agreements and Treaties

Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Socialist

Republic of Romania Concerning the Settlement of Outstanding Financial Problems, 13

July 1971, (http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?id=101351).

Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and

Northern Ireland and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania, 12 January

1976.

Agreement Between The Governments Of The United States Of America, The United

Kingdom, And The Union Of The Soviet Socialist Republics, On The One Hand, And

The Government Of Rumania, On The Other Hand, Concerning An Armistice, 12

September 1944, (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/rumania.asp).

Agreement between the United States of America and the Rumanian People’s Republic

Relating to Financial Questions Between the Two Countries, 30 March 1960,

(http://www.justice.gov/fcsc/completed-programs-romania).

Treaty of Peace with Romania, 10 February 1947,

(http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/usmu011.asp).

Cases

European Court of Human Rights

Atanasiu and Others v. Romania, ECHR, Application Nos. 30767/05 and 33800/06,

Judgment of 12 October 2010.

Preda and Others v. Romania, ECHR, Application Nos. 9584/02, 33514/02, 38052/02,

25821/03, 29652/03, 3736/03, 17750/03, 28688/04, Judgment of 29 April 2014.

Străin and Others v. Romania, ECHR, Application No. 57001/00, Judgement of 27 July

2005.

Weissman and Others v. Romania, ECHR, Application No. 63945/00, Judgement of 24

May 2006.

United States

Sukyas v. Romania, et al. C.D. Cal. Case. No. 2:15-cv-01946, 16 March 2015.

Articles, Books and Papers

Viorel Achim, The Roma in Romanian History (2005).

Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, “Property Restitution in Central and Eastern

Europe, U.S. Department of State”, October 2, 2007 (Romania), (http://2001-

2009.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/93062.htm) (last accessed 13 December 2016).

David M. Crowe, “The Roma Holocaust”, in The Holocaust’s Ghost: Writings on Art,

Politics, Law and Education (F.C. Decoste & Bernard Schwartz, eds., 2000).

European Court of Human Rights, Press Release “Law passed by Romanian Parliament

provides in principle an accessible and effective framework of redress for alleged

violations of the right to peaceful enjoyment of property confiscated or nationalised by

the communist regimen” (29 April 2014).

European Parliament (Policy Department (Citizen’s Rights and Constitutional Affairs) of

the Directorate-General for Internal Policies), “Private Property Issues Following the

Change of Political Regime in Former Socialist or Communist Countries”, 2010,

(http://shoahlegacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Romania-European-

Parlament_Private-properties-issues-following-the-change-of-political-regime-in-former-

socialist-or-communist-countries-2-1.pdf) (last accessed 13 December 2016).

Green Paper on the Immovable Property Review Conference 2012, Romania

(http://shoahlegacy.org/wp-

content/uploads/2014/06/Green_paper_on_the_immovable_property_review_conference

_2012.pdf) (last accessed 13 December 2016).

Marilyn Henry, “The Restitution of Jewish Property in Central and Eastern Europe”,

International Perspectives (1997).

Stefan Ionescu, Jewish Resistance to ‘Romanization’, 1940-44 (Palgrave, 2015).

Richard B. Lillich and Burns H. Weston, International Claims, Their Settlement by Lump

Sum Agreements (1975).

Lavinia Stan, “Denying Justice by Delaying It?: The ECHR and Property Restitution in

Romania”, Journal of Property Rights in Transition, May 4, 2013.

Lavinia Stan & Diane Vancea, eds., Post-Communist Romania at Twenty-Five: Linking

Past, Present, and Future (Lexington Books, 2015).

Lavinia Stan, “The Roof over Our Heads: Property Restitution in Romania”, Journal of

Communist Studies and Transition Politics, Vol. 22, No. 2 (2006).

Tel Aviv University, “Report on issues related to property restitution and compensation

in former Communist countries”, November 2012, pp. 47-53 (Romania),

(http://www.kantorcenter.tau.ac.il/sites/default/files/Property%20Restitution%20Report%

20251112.pdf) (last accessed 13 December 2016).

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum – Holocaust Encyclopedia, “Romania”,

(http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005472) (last accessed 13

December 2016).

World Jewish Congress, “Communities – Romania”

(http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/about/communities/RO) (last accessed 13

December 2016).

World Jewish Restitution Organization, “Holocaust-Era Confiscated Communal and

Private Immovable Property: Central and East Europe”, June 2009, pp.23-25 (Romania).

World Jewish Restitution Organization, “Immovable Property Review Conference of the

European Shoah Legacy Institute: Status Report on Restitution and Compensation

Efforts” (November 2012), pp. 22-26 (Romania).

World Jewish Restitution Organization, “Position Paper on Romanian Law No.

165/2013” (17 September 2013).

World Jewish Restitution Organization, Press Release, “WJRO Commends Passage of

Restitution Legislation in Romania (10 May 2016).

World Jewish Restitution Organization, Romania Operations, (http://wjro.org.il/our-

work/restitution-by-country/romania/) (last accessed 13 December 2016).

Individuals

Academics

Prof. Stefan Ionescu, Elon University, Elon.

Prof. Lavinia Stan, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish.

White and Case LLP

Owen Pell, Partner, White & Case, New York.

Frank Schoen, Associate, White & Case, New York.

World Jewish Restitution Organization

Evan Hochberg, Director of International Affairs, World Jewish Restitution Organization,

New York.

Report Prepared by ESLI Restorative Justice and Post-Holocaust Immovable

Property Restitution Study Team (queries: [email protected])