Article 17 - Right to property
Article 52 - Scope and interpretation
Key facts of the case:
The case relates to the issue of restitution or compensation in respect of properties nationalised or confiscated by the Romania before 1989. The applicants have a property title for a property which was nationalised. The property was the sold to people who were renting it and the applicants unsuccessfully challenged this transaction. Following the European Court of Human Rights pilot judgement against Romania in the case of Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania (ECHR, Applications nos. 30767/05 and 33800/06) they sought to try again to obtain property rights of the nationalised building. They claimed that this pilot judgement decision shows that the nationalisation was illegal and because of this they feel they need to take back the nationalised property.
Outcome the case:
The High Court decided against the applicants and argued that the pilot judgement decision only applies to those who have a final national court judgement in their favour which states they are the rightful owner and states the right to restitution over the property.
Although Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was invoked, it should be read in conjunction with Article 52 para. 2 of mentioned regulation: 2. Rights recognised by this Charter for which provision is made in the Treaties shall be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by those Treaties.
A systematic and teleological interpretation lead to the conclusion that rights under the Charter must be correlated with EU legislation. In other words, a person cannot claim a right under the Charter, irrespective of a right protected under EU law. For example, a person might invoke the rights of intellectual or industrial property, protected by several directives and regulations, which is an important area of EU Law. In principle one could invoked a property right or another fundamental right only if the exercise of that right would impede the free movement of goods, services, capital and persons. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg is very relevant in this regard, for example, because Elena Podinche against Romania (ECLI: EU: C: 2015: 313) it was held that:
"In a preliminary reference under Article 267 TFEU, the Court may interpret EU law only within the powers attributed to the European Union (see Vino, C-161/11, EU: C: 2011: 420, Section 25, Ordinance Corps national Police C-434/11, EU: C: 2011: 830, paragraph 13, and Case Schuster & Co Ecologic C-371/13, EU: C: 2013: 748, paragraph 14).
Regarding in particular the Charter, Article 51 (1) thereof provides that its provisions are addressed to Member States only when they are implementing Union law. Article 6 (1) TEU, which assigns a value binding Charter and Article 51 (2) of that convention states that the provisions of the Charter shall not extend in any way the competences of the Union as defined in the Treaties (see to that effect Siragusa, C-206/13, EU: C: 2014: 126, paragraph 20, the order Balázs Papp, C-45/14 EU: C: 2014: 2021, paragraph 20, and order Yumer, C-505/13, EU: C: 2014: 2129, paragraph 25).
When a legal situation does not fall within the scope of Union law, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine and claims invoking the Charter cannot, by themselves, afford this jurisdiction (see Case Åkerberg Fransson, C-617/10, EU: C: 2013: 105, paragraph 22; Case Torralbo Marcos, C-265/13, EU: C: 2014: 187, paragraph 30, and Case Pelckmans Turnhout, C-483/12, EU: C: 2014: 304, paragraph 20). "
The case beforehand does not raise issues relation to European Union Law and consequently the Charter does not apply and its provisions cannot be relied upon.
Deși au fost invocate dispozițiile art. 17 din Carta drepturilor fundamentale a UE, acestea trebuie coroborate cu dispozițiile art. 52 alin. 2 din actul normativ menționat : Drepturile recunoscute prin prezenta cartă care fac obiectul unor dispoziții prevăzute de tratate se exercită în condițiile și cu respectarea limitelor stabilite de acestea.
Interpretareasistematicășiceateleologicăimpunconcluziacădrepturileprevăzute de cartătrebuiesă fie corelate cu dreptulunional. Cu altecuvinte, nu se poateinvocaundreptprevăzut de Cartă, independent de undreptprotejatprindreptulUniuniiEuropene. De pildă, s-arputeainvocaapărareadrepturilor de proprietateintelectualăsauindustrială, protejatprinmaimultedirectiveșiregulamente, acestafiindundomeniu important al dreptuluiunional. De principiu, arputea fi invocat un drept de proprietatesau un alt drept fundamental, numaidacăprinexercitareaacestuia s-arîmpiedicaliberacirculație a mărfurilor, serviciilor, capitalurilorsau persoanelor. JurisprudențaCurțiiEuropene de Justiție de la Luxembourg estefoarterelevantăînacestsens, de exemplu, încauza Elena PodincheîmpotrivaRomâniei (ECLI:EU:C:2015:313) s-a statuatcă:
„Încadruluneitrimiteripreliminareîntemeiularticolului 267 TFUE, CurteapoateinterpretadreptulUniuniinumaiînlimitelecompetențeloratribuiteUniuniiEuropene (a se vedeaOrdonanța Vino, C161/11, EU:C:2011:420, punctul 25, OrdonanțaCorpulNațional al Polițiștilor, C434/11, EU:C:2011:830, punctul 13, șiOrdonanța Schuster & Co Ecologic, C371/13, EU:C:2013:748, punctul 14).
Înceeacepriveșteîn special carta, articolul 51 alineatul (1) din aceastaprevedecădispozițiile sale se adreseazăstatelormembrenumaiîncazulîn care acestea pun înaplicaredreptulUniunii. Articolul 6 alineatul (1) TUE, care atribuie o valoareobligatoriecartei, precumșiarticolul 51 alineatul (2) din aceasta din urmăprecizeazăcădispozițiilecuprinseîncartă nu extindînniciunfelcompetențeleUniuniiastfel cum sunt definite întratate (a se vedeaînacestsens Hotărârea Siragusa, C206/13, EU:C:2014:126, punctul 20, OrdonanțaBalázs și Papp, C45/14, EU:C:2014:2021, punctul 20, precumșiOrdonanțaYumer, C505/13, EU:C:2014:2129, punctul 25).
Or, atuncicând o situațiejuridică nu intrăîndomeniul de aplicare al dreptuluiUniunii, Curtea nu estecompetentăsă o examineze, iar dispozițiile eventual invocate ale cartei nu pot constitui, prineleînsele, temeiulacesteicompetențe (a se vedea Hotărârea Åkerberg Fransson, C617/10, EU:C:2013:105, punctul 22, HotărâreaTorralbo Marcos, C265/13, EU:C:2014:187, punctul 30 șiHotărârea Pelckmans Turnhout, C483/12, EU:C:2014:304, punctul 20).”
Înlitigiuldedusjudecățiinu se ridicăprobleme legate de dreptulunional, astfelîncât, carta nu esteaplicabilă, iardispozițiile sale nu pot fi invocate ca atare.
