5.  On 31 October 2002 the Bucharest Commission for the Enforcement of Law no. 18/1991 on Land Return acknowledged the applicant’s property rights in respect of 350 square metres of land that had been nationalised under the communist regime, issued a property title, and granted him possession of the said land. The land was located on V. Street, in Bucharest. 6.  According to the applicant, on an unspecified date the unidentified owner of a plot of land located across the street from his property built a fence, which encroached onto V. Street. 7.  On an unspecified date in 2007 the applicant asked the Department of Discipline in Constructions (Serviciul de Disciplină ȋn Construcṭii hereinafter “the SDC”) attached to the office of the Mayor of Bucharest District No. 5 to remove the part of the fence that was encroaching onto V. Street. He argued that he had intended to build on his property, but had noticed that the width of V. Street (and therefore the access to his land) had been significantly reduced because the owner of the property located opposite to his had unlawfully closed off a large part of the street by building the fence in question. 8.  On 23 November 2007 the applicant asked the Mayor of Bucharest, as well as the Bucharest General and Local Councils, to take the necessary measures to remove the fence. The applicant informed those authorities that on 17 September 2007 the SDC had, by letter, dismissed his request for the removal of the fence built by his neighbour. The SDC had done so on the ground that his request related to a fence – for which a building permit had been issued – erected by a certain C.M. The applicant stated that after the fence had been built he could no longer access his land by car, but only on foot. He asked the authorities to verify his claims because, as confirmed by the land expert who had prepared the documents needed for the registration of the applicant’s property rights, they had been “wrongfully established” in the letter that the applicant received from the SDC on 17 September 2007. 9.  On 22 April 2008 the applicant brought an action against the Mayor of Bucharest and the Bucharest General Council and the Bucharest District No. 5 Local Council seeking a court order requiring the Mayor to give the owner of the fence notice to remove it. Moreover, he asked the court to require the Mayor to arrange for the removal of the fence without the owner’s consent if the fence’s owner ignored such removal notice. In the alternative, he asked the court to order the Bucharest General and Local Councils to start expropriation proceedings with a view to enlarging the road and thus restoring full car access. He stated inter alia that in its letter to him of 17 September 2007 the SDC had indicated that the neighbour who was the target of his complaint had had a building permit for the fence. However, the applicant also stated that those responsible for investigating his claim had failed to notice that C.M. was not the owner of the property located opposite his land, which was owned by an unidentified neighbour, but the owner of the property adjoining his. Consequently, their findings had had no bearing on his claim. Moreover, his requests of 23 November 2007 had not received any answers. 10.  On 9 May 2008, at the first-instance court’s instruction, the applicant specified his court action. By relying on the relevant domestic legislation (see paragraph 24, below) he argued that the proceedings had concerned the refusal by the public authorities to issue an act or to carry out the administrative formalities needed for the removal of the fence built on V. Street and for the reopening of access to the street. He also argued that the administrative authorities had failed to examine his demands – probably because they had been confused as to which neighbour was the subject of his concerns. The authorities’ confusion had been caused by an identical complaint against C.M. having been lodged by a third party living on the same street. 11.  On 17 June 2008 the Bucharest County Court dismissed the applicant’s action. It held that the applicant had not specified which of his neighbours had closed off part of the street by building the fence, either in his applications to the administrative authorities or in his application to that court. Moreover, the neighbour in question could not be identified because the applicant had not specified that neighbour’s address. Consequently, the Mayor of Bucharest’s Office had informed the applicant that the owner of the land at no. 30 V. Street – namely C.M. – had had a lawful building permit. Because the applicant had referred only in general terms to the person whose fence had closed off part of the street, the Bucharest General Council had merely replied to him in general terms about the future development plans for the area in question and the size of the street in question. In such circumstances, the court could not accept that the authorities had refused to address the applicant’s request. 12.  The court further considered that the Mayor of Bucharest would have had to be informed of a person’s identity and his actions before he could have issued an order or notice to such person. Given that the street in question had been used by several other property owners, the applicant would have had to identify the person unlawfully occupying part of the street before the authorities could have acted. The administrative authorities could not have been considered to have been inactive as long as the applicant had failed to specify which of the owners of the neighbouring plots of land had diminished the width of the road. 13.  The court also dismissed – on the grounds that they were unnecessary and would not further the resolution of the case – the applicant’s request for additional testimonial evidence, an onsite investigation and an expert report that would (according to the applicant) have demonstrated that the road had been obstructed by the construction of the fence. 14.  The court lastly dismissed the administrative authorities’ claim that the applicant’s action had been inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had claimed a breach of his rights as a result of the restricted use of a public road which ensured his access to his property. Moreover, it dismissed the aforementioned authorities’ claim that they lacked legal standing (capacitate procesuală pasivă) on the ground that the street ensuring access to the applicant’s property was on the public domain which was managed by them. 15.  The applicant appealed on points of law (recurs) against the judgment. He argued, inter alia, that the evidence that had been requested by him before the first-instance court would have clarified the circumstances of the case and the identity of the owner of the fence; however, the court had wrongfully dismissed that request. Moreover, during a meeting with the administrative authorities, the applicant’s representative had informed them that in his opinion it had not been C.M. but the neighbour whose property had been located opposite his who had blocked the street by building the fence. The applicant had himself been unable to establish the identity of the owner of the fence, because that owner’s property had been empty and no visible postal number had been attached to the entrance gate. The fence had diminished the width of V. Street, preventing vehicular access to the applicant’s property. Consequently, he had been unable to use that property for its practical purpose – namely, to build a home. The authorities had not asked him to provide the name of the owner of the fence; indeed, it was the duty of the public servants – not the applicant – to inform the Mayor of Bucharest of the impugned person’s identity. 16.  On 15 August 2008 the applicant informed in writing the Public Domain Administration (attached to the office of the Mayor of Bucharest District No. 5) that, inter alia, his complaint concerning the occupation of part of V. Street had concerned not C.M. but the unidentified neighbour whose property was located across the street from C.M.’s property. 17.  On 19 September 2008 the Public Domain Administration attached to the office of the Mayor of Bucharest District No. 5 informed the applicant by letter that, inter alia, they had contacted the local tax and land register office in order to identify the owner of the fence. There is no information in the file about the final outcome of the aforementioned measures taken by the authorities or whether they had yielded any results for the applicant. 18.  By a final judgment of 3 November 2008 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law against the judgment of 17 June 2008. It noted that no further evidence had been added to the file and that the local authorities had not submitted any observations (ȋntâmpinare) even though they had been lawfully summoned. 19.  The court held that the applicant’s claims had been ill-founded. Moreover, according to the SDC’s letter of 17 September 2007, C.M. had been the owner of the land to which the applicant had been referring. It followed that the administrative authorities had not unjustifiably refused to address the applicant’s complaints, as those authorities had not been competent to issue orders in respect of a third party’s private property. The applicant had argued before the judicial authorities that the administrative authorities had been mistaken as to the identity of the owner of the fence; however, he had failed to inform them of the alleged mistake in order that they might clarify the situation. As to a request by the applicant concerning the initiation of eviction proceedings, the court considered that only the relevant administrative authorities could have assessed whether such a measure would have been appropriate. Therefore, it could not conclude that the applicant had been unjustifiably denied an answer in that regard. 20.  On 22 January 2009 the office of the Mayor of Bucharest District No. 5 issued the urban planning certificate (certificat de urbanism) requested by the applicant in respect of his land; this document attested that construction may have been authorised (autorizat) on the land in question. 21.  On 30 October 2015 the applicant’s son, who had inherited the land following his father’s death, had sold the land to a third party. The sale contract had expressly mentioned that the applicant’s son had reserved all the rights resulting from the present application before the Court. 22.  On 11 November 2015 the applicant’s son informed the Court that he had incurred additional damage following the sale of the land and had asked it to examine his loss. He stated that the notary public who had drafted the sale contract had calculated the taxes for the transfer of the land’s ownership based on a guideline for property prices used by notary public offices and not based on the price actually received by him for the land. As a result the applicant had to pay an additional 414 Euros (EUR) in tax. Also given the state of the land, in particular no road access and no utilities (fără utilități), he had been unable to ask the buyer to pay the price per square meter mentioned by the aforementioned guideline. Consequently, he had lost EUR 20,725 as a result of the lower sale price.