Land at the entrance to Mamaia, claimed by a private company! ABADL says it’s a beach and the company demands that returns file references be removed!

  • It is a plot of land measuring 1,460.81 square metres, located near the exhibition stand, currently owned by Principal SN.
  • However, regarding this area, the Romanian National Water Administration, through the Dobrogea Litoral Water Basin Administration, shows that this is in fact the shore of the Romanian coast.
  • ABADL has opened a case in the lawsuit, and the process was initially pending before the Constana Court, where it was registered under Code 2938/212/2020.
  • But in a second case, the private company Principal SN, in turn, requested the municipality’s obligation to delete from its records the references to the returns file relating to the land in question.

He argues fiercely about the role of the courts in Constanta, which have been called to establish the landowners of an area of ​​about 1,500 square meters, which representatives of Apelor Române say is the shore of the Romanian coast, an inalienable good, according to the constitution!

In response, the private company currently listed as the owner of the land is asking the judges to compel the municipality to delete references to the restitution file in relation to the land in question from its records.

Specifically, it is a plot of 1460.81 square metres, located near the exhibition stand, currently owned by the main company SN and which shows the Romanian National Water Administration, through the management of the Dobrogea Litoral water basin, that it represents, in fact, the shore of the Romanian coast.

In this sense, ABADL has opened a case in the lawsuit, the process was initially pending before the Constana Court, where it was registered under Code 2938/212/2020.

Subsequently, the judges of the civil section of the court came to the conclusion that the jurisdiction to decide the case in this case belongs to the Constanta court.

That is why the case is currently before the first civil division of the court, where the expert report is awaiting.

Experience in the claim process

According to the court, technical expertise in real estate, in the field of topography, was approved in the case, with the aim of “determining whether the claimed building is represented by the land of 1,461 square meters, located in Constana, the province of Constanta, registered in the land book No. 220230 (old number 11733) represents the shore of the Roman coast.”

A partial Principal SN expert will also share in this expertise.

In this case, it is indicated in Resolution No. 4401/2020, quoted in Jurindex, through the lawsuit, ABADL requested “the restoration of the building of the land – the coastal Romanian beach, with an area of ​​1461 square metres, located in the municipality of Constanta, the province of Constanta in the public heritage of the Romanian state and in the administration of ANAR-ABADL”.

At the same time, a “correction of the land book (…) in the sense of deleting the references to the registered title in favor of the principal defendant SN SRL over the land of 1461 square meters” was also requested.

In this regard, ‘In the factual statement of the reasons for the application, the applicant stated, in substance, that the cliffs and beaches were goods of the public domain of the state, and the land in question was the subject of Criminal Case No. (…), and according to the results report prepared by DNA, the land represents the shore of the Roman coast.”

In response, representatives of the private company requested that this request be rejected as unfounded.

The case was referred to the “International Tribunal”, after the Constanta court ruled the court’s material incompetence exception.

But in a second case, the private company Principal SN, in turn, requested the municipality’s obligation to delete from its records the references to the returns file relating to the land in question.

The applications of the head of the SN, also initially registered also in the Constanta Court, Civil Division, under the code 28929/212/2021, now also reached the Constanta Court, but as a result of the court’s rejection of the company’s application.

It appears in the minutes of Resolution No. 3103/2022 to the Constanta Court that the court “rejects the summons as unfounded.”

Director SN has lodged an appeal against this decision, so the case will now be analyzed by the Constanta Court.

Procedure to delete entries in returns file

It was explained in Resolution 3103/2022, a document cited in the National Jurisprudence Portal, that the company requested “In contradiction with the respondent, the Constana Municipal Regional Administrative Unit obliges the respondent to delete the statement relating to Resolution No. W. Justice, pronounced in File No. 6536/2/2008, from its records regarding the legal status of the following property: Land of 5693 m2 located in the built-up area of ​​Constanta, Mamaia resort, Dalat hotel area, ###.1, Joud. ######### , Cadastral No. 216444 (Old Cadastral No. 273); land of 1460.81 sq.m. located in a built-up area of ​​Constanta, BD Mamaia No. 312, Pasteur Institute area, Jude. #########, Cadastral No. 11733.

We mention here that File 6536/2/2008 is generally known as Constanta Refund File, a criminal case in which the former mayor was sentenced to nine years in prison along with other people, as judges decided for several lands. They were returned to state property or the municipality of Constanta.

In order to return to the case, representatives of the company are also reported to have stated that “In fact, by requesting the address SPIT Constanta, the applicant requested a financial certificate of natural persons in respect of local taxes, duties and other income to the local budget No. T86077/19.10.2021 and T86076/ 19.10.2021, documents bearing the following: “Pursuant to Resolution No. 32/07.02.2019 of the Supreme Court of Cassation and Justice, and the reasoning in File No. 6536/2/2008, the disposition order was issued by the Mayor of Constanta through which it exited The piece of which you are part and your land is the heritage of the municipality of Constanta.”

Representatives of Director SN said: “This statement represents and is presented from the perspective of the legal situation in the defendant’s records, as understood by the defendant to interpret and obligate the IRS to make such statements, as opposed to the real situation.”

In this regard, the businessmen also said that “the resolution of the conviction ordered by the Criminal Court, as well as the procedures ordered by the same resolution, regarding the cancellation of some documents, and the restoration of the situation to what it was before the crimes were committed.” Decision – in the public domain of the state or, as the case may be, in the public or private domain of the territorial administrative unit of the municipality of Constanta, upon the commitment of the Ministry of Public Finance, as a representative of the Romanian State and of the territorial administrative unit of the municipality of Constanta, the necessary steps for the acquisition of goods for which orders to restore the status Previously, the confiscation of sums of money from the defendants indicated in the operative decision of the court or to maintain the seizure stipulated in Decree No. 32 / P / 2008 of the National Anti-Corruption Directorate on goods, which are expressly identified individually in the practical part of the decision, do not justify, in any way, the indication of the existence of this criminal decision and the resolution of the cancellation Act of the Mayor of Constanta no. 3570 / 12.11.2002 in the content of the legal status of the lands currently in the inheritance of the plaintiff company “.

„Although the order was issued to cancel many documents, including the order issued by the Mayor of Constanta No. And in Resolution No. 1344/2004, the order was not issued to cancel the subsequent transfer of ownership, according to which the ownership of the lands that were the subject of the canceled actions were transferred to third parties in succession,” according to company representatives.

However, after deliberations, the judges of the Constanta Court decided to dismiss the company’s lawsuit, considering it unfounded.

Why did the judges reject the deletion?

The judges, in defense of the decision, said that “it was found that the ‘legal status’ disputed in the case contained correct information. Mayor’s Order No. 835 / 18.04.2003 was even the subject of Resolution No. 32 / 07.02.2019 of the Court of Cassation and Justice Supreme Court in File No. 6536/2/2008.”

“Similarly, the information is necessary because if the legal situation is to provide the data and information resulting from the records of the authority held by it, then this information must be complete,” the court added.

The judges also stated that the “Legal Situation” does not contain any statement/conclusion as to the effects that Criminal Decision No. 32/07.02.2019 may have in relation to the lands that the applicant is entitled to use, does not include any warning to buyers, as it does not even include the reference Until the mayor’s order No. No. 835/18.04.2003 was repealed, but that was only the subject of Resolution No. 32/07.02.2019.”

Thus, the disputed information is true, necessary and limited for the purpose of drafting the law, that is, to provide information on the legal status of the building, without other conclusions, provisions or prohibitions, according to the court.

“In view of the criminal decision No. 32/07.02.2019 issued by the Supreme Court of Cassation and Justice – Criminal Division in File No. 6536/2/2008 the court ordered the cancellation of the document “Order of the Mayor of Constanta No. No. 835 / 18.04.2003 », according to which the building which is the subject of the present case has been removed from the heritage of the Constana municipality, these data are clearly indications relevant to the legal status of the building”, explained in the court decision.

In all this context, it remains to be seen what the decisions of the Constanta court will be with regard to the claim request for the land in question, as well as in terms of the request to delete the entries relating to the restitution file with respect to the claimed land.

Shareholders and numbers

According to Confidas.ro, the platform consulted on March 24, 2022, Principal SN shares are owned in equal shares by Nitalexil SRL and Seaside Estate Company SRL, and the director is Florian Alexandru Eli.

The company deals with “the retailing of non-specialized stores, with the sale of food, beverages and tobacco prevalent”, was founded in 2005 and is headquartered on Aurel Vlaicu Boulevard, No. 264, in Constanta.

In 2018, the company had an employee, the profit was 334,363 lei, and the turnover was 1,031,191 lei.

In 2019, there were two employees, profit was 370,990 lei, and turnover was 753,294 lei.

In 2020, there were two employees, the profit amounted to 178.440 lei, and the turnover was 618,542 lei.

According to Confidas.ro, the name Florian Alexandru Ilie is associated with Aqualand, Farma Tour and Marnero Tour SRL.

Documentary sources: portal.just.ro, rejust.ro, rolii.ro, confidas.ro

to specify:

Law 190 of 2018, in Article 7, states that journalistic activity is exempt from certain provisions of the GDPR, if a balance is maintained between freedom of expression and protection of personal data.

The information in this article is of public interest and is obtained from open public sources.

keep reading
Land in the port of Constanta, the value of which exceeded 3 million euros – accuses the fight against corruption! File a claim against the appraiser. Links to the return file

Leave a Comment