Brumarescu v. Romania, decided in 1999, was the first case where the European Court of Human Rights found an ex-socialist state in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to claims arising in respect of a residential property expropriated during socialism. Our contribution, based on conversations with the applicant and other protagonists in the case, reveals the multiple spectres both from the past and from current concerns which feed into the relationship which various social actors entertain towards the property at the centre of the dispute (locally known as the 'house of ghosts') or, rather, towards each other and society at large. The chapter also shows how Strasbourg, which became a symbolic resource in local and national politics, actually failed to provide any closure either to the dispute which gave rise to the continuous litigation or to the issue of property restitution in Romania more generally. This leads the authors to explore possible purposes of human rights law beyond straightforward recognition of a natural right’s entitlement, in terms of participation to the reinforcement of the rule of law and assertion of protest in the face of humiliation and spoliation.
The House of Ghosts: Post-socialist Property Restitution and the European Court’s Rendition of Human Rights in ‘Brumarescu v. Romania’
ZERILLI, FILIPPO MASSIMO;
2007-01-01
Abstract
Brumarescu v. Romania, decided in 1999, was the first case where the European Court of Human Rights found an ex-socialist state in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to claims arising in respect of a residential property expropriated during socialism. Our contribution, based on conversations with the applicant and other protagonists in the case, reveals the multiple spectres both from the past and from current concerns which feed into the relationship which various social actors entertain towards the property at the centre of the dispute (locally known as the 'house of ghosts') or, rather, towards each other and society at large. The chapter also shows how Strasbourg, which became a symbolic resource in local and national politics, actually failed to provide any closure either to the dispute which gave rise to the continuous litigation or to the issue of property restitution in Romania more generally. This leads the authors to explore possible purposes of human rights law beyond straightforward recognition of a natural right’s entitlement, in terms of participation to the reinforcement of the rule of law and assertion of protest in the face of humiliation and spoliation.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.