Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 103kWORD 16k
20 November 2018
Question for written answer E-005839-18
to the Commission
Rule 130
Kinga Gál (PPE)

 Subject:  Infringement related to taking evidence into account

On the basis of the settled case law of the Courts of the European Union, which is also confirmed by the answer of the EC to a question for written answer (E-000700/18), the compensation measures of a Member State taken after its accession to the EU in relation to real properties confiscated prior to accession are subject to EC law, in particular, the free movement of capital.

In this compensation process, in compliance with the free movement of capital, Member States may consider the cases within their discretion, taking into account the provisions imposing restrictions on the Member State’s procedural and institutional autonomy, among other things, the provisions applicable to taking into account evidence if it is required by the circumstances.

I am aware of a final and non-appealable court decision of a Member State (Romania) (Judgment No 445, 30 March 2011, Judecatoria Targu Secuiesc, dosar nr. 1278/322/2010), which did not allow a person holding both Romanian and Austrian citizenship to support, with evidence, the fact that, in his case, the property in question had been confiscated on the basis of legislation not in connection with the agricultural reform in 1921, but the property had been still owned by his ancestors in 1945. During the lawsuit, he presented authentic evidence about this from the land registry in accordance with the rules as, pursuant to the relevant legislation, compensation may be applied for only in respect of properties confiscated after 1945.

Is the court decision described above compatible with the rule of law and the requirement set by EC law for taking evidence into account if granting compensation was prevented by disregarding such evidence?

Original language of question: HU 
Last updated: 6 December 2018Legal notice