Talk:Fondul Proprietatea

This article is fair and gives facts regarding a Romanian institution that has failed. The jurisprudence of the ECHR is very clear. Unfortunately it is not available in English and it is not really a good idea to translate judgements. If it were available, I would obviously include the English version. But if you can read it in French, the judgements are very clear and fair: the fund is not efficient and is not able to deliver any compensation.

This fact cannot be contested since there are a lot of court decisions by the ECHR. This situation is now a fact, a real statement.

What would not be fair is to let believe anyone that Romania is effectively compensating people whose goods (properties and lands) have been confiscated abusively between 1945 and 1989. This is false.

The aim of Wikipedia is to show an accurate and fair information on any subject. If the situation regarding this fund changes toward a better efficiency, the article will be changed accordingly.

--Cbrajon (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)  response to user:Guy0307 I do not understand why you wiped out the "Contestation" paragraph. It is full of accurate and verifiable information. Court decisions are final and irrevocable. Why do you consider this should not be included in this article? Without this part, the article is incomplete and misleading. Better to scrap it entirely! The fact that Proprietatea is not working for the beneficiaries it had been created for is a fact, not a journalist suspicion and it is an essential statement. Nobody contests that. Do you know what mean ECHR decisions? Are you aware of The European Union concerns about this? Would you find fair an article about the Communism wihout the Goulag part or the Moscow trials or even more striking an article on the Nazi party without the Nuremberg trial? Certainly not. --Cbrajon (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)--Cbrajon (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)