High Court of Justice and Cassation stated in accordance with article 5 paragraph 1 letter b) Law no. 221/2009 having as object the political convictions and the assimilated administrative measures pronounced in period of 6th March 1945- 22nd December 1989, material damages can be accorded only for real estates which can be object of Law no. 10/2001, in this case lands and buildings ( real estates owing their nature ), machinery and equipment undertaken with the property (real estates through their destination). This conclusion results from the condition imposed by the legislator to pay back the damages representing the equivalent of the seized goods, namely that the goods have not been returned or has not been achieved by equivalent compensation under Law no. 10/2001 and Law no. 247/2005. High Court pointed out that only in this way is justified express reference made by the legislature, in Law no. 221/2009, to Law no. 10/2001 and Law no. 247/2005.
In this case, the claimant through his application of summons requested besides moral damages and the obligation of paying some material damages representing the value’s impossibility of using the house, the garden and the land and also the agricultural machinery (plows, seeders, reapers, threshing, wagons etc. ) and the farm animals ( horses, colts, heifers, chickens ) seized as an effect of the forced moving. The High Court held that the goods for which payment is requested by the applicant are either movable, owing to their nature, do not fall under the regulation of Law no. 10/2001 or immovables by destination covered by this law regulating (agricultural machinery), but for which the applicant has not proved that he followed the procedure regulated by Law no. 10/2001, in which not obtain restitution in kind or their equivalent. Regarding the demands for the value of not using the house, garden and land during the forced moving, the High Court appreciated that these claims cannot be an object of article 5 paragraph 1 letter b) Law no. 221/2009 which concerns only the equivalent of the seized and forfeited goods value, not also the value of returned goods. ( Decision no, 2192 from 23rd of March 2012 pronounced in appeal by the Civil Section I of High Court of Justice and Cassation having as object moral and material damages according to Law no. 221/2009 )
>> The source: JURIDICE.ro