Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica - Volume 10. Issue 1/2021 - http://juridica.ugb.ro/ - Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU

The Island of Snakes in the heart of Romania: the trial of the Hungarian optants and other injustices of the vile system, affected by a serious widespread corruption Part II

Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU, PhD Lawyer, Bucharest Bar, Romania Scientific researcher associated with Institute of Legal Research, „Acad. Andrei Rădulescu ” from the Romanian Academy [email protected]

„The country has become the private property of some scoundrels! „Don't forget, Darie!" Don't forget to tell your children and grandchildren that we had a proud and rich country and that we didn't need anything from outside Romania!

Abstract: „Transylvania is the country par excellence of the ancestors of the Romanian people, the Dacians, who had, within its borders, the center of their power and the capital of their state during the wars with the Romans. It is then an essential part of the Roman province of Dacia, which also had its capital here, as well as the headquarters of the two legions. Inhabited incessantly during the pre-feudal period by the descendants of the Daco-Romans, ie by the ancient Romanians, Transylvania is the homeland of the first Romanian voivode attested by historical sources, a voivode who opposes the armies of the Hungarian invaders. Here I mention the medieval documents for the first time "the country of the Romanians". Just as, from its contents, the great rivers that cross the Carpatho-Danubian space are born, in the same way, incessantly, over the centuries, the overflow of the Romanian population flows from it, crossing the mountains to the south, to the east and to the north. Valued by the persevering, bimillennial work of our people, Transylvania is a typical Romanian land. The Romanians are the first inhabitants that history remembers in Transylvania, local inhabitants, sons of its land, “we are from here” as the Romanian peasants from the place say; the Romanians form the vast majority of the population of Transylvania, with them living here a number of Hungarians, Szeklers, Saxons and Swabians. Through their incessant, hard work, the inhabitants of Transylvania made the earth bear fruit, bringing to light its wealth. For thousands of years we have been sowing and reaping, raising flocks of cattle, digging vines, making ponds and extracting salt, gold and fuel oil from the depths of the earth. On the basis of all these facts, it is normal, therefore, that the natural, unshakable unity of Transylvania with the entire Romanian land should have gained a repeated international consecration, first through the Peace Treaty of Trianon (1920), then that of Paris (1947)”. [Constantin C. Giurăscu, „Transylvania in the history of the Romanian people”].

Keywords: revisionism; domestic and internationalized process of Hungarian electors; public international law. Framing subdomain: Human Rights and Humanitarian Law

1. Argumentum. Why did I get here?

I said in the first part of our study [1] that the issue of the Hungarian optants in Transylvania is a file, a writing, about an end and a rebirth, the end of the Central European empire and the rebirth of the nations liberated by sacrifice from the dungeon of that empire. A dossier on the collapse of an empire at the hour of its sinking, the dual Austro-Hungarian empire, and on the leap of the nations into the light of the rebirth of the long Habsburg night is a special phenomenon in a culture. It is a picture that we can contemplate with amazement, but also with fear, the monstrous grandeur of an empire where the Hungarian electors evolve on a twilight scene, on which are distributed nations, chancellors, governments, embassies, armies, political internationals of the time, on which already foreshadows the ghost of a panid that seems to come back to life today, such as the forgotten martyrdom of the Romanians in Făgăraș committed by the Austrian General Adolf Buccow, the guardians of Orthodoxy in Transylvania. His name was Buccow, he was Maria Teresa's trusted man and he destroyed, trying to kill the faith with a cannon, 37 monasteries at the foot of Făgăraş [2].

= ISSN 2285-0171 ISSN-L=2285-0171 Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica - Volume 10. Issue 1/2021 - http://juridica.ugb.ro/ - Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU Until 1760, Făgăraş was a mountain full of monks, not infrequently it happened that the richer villages held three or four monasteries, not counting the hidden hermitages or the huts of the timid hermits. But one day, the faith of the people of Făgăraş was killed with a cannon. By order of Maria Theresa, Austrian General Adolf Buccow placed the cannons on Orthodox foundations. Of the 37 monasteries, the cannonballs left none standing, 37 Orthodox lavra, which at the hour of vespers and night prayers all started ringing bells, shaking the earth and the edges of the air. The Făgăraşi Mountains have been transformed into a huge ossuary. An old man from Lisa or Cârtişoara says that even today, human cries and bell voices are still heard, echoing deep in the ground. The memory of the Austrian general is still, after 250 years, an ugly and painful wound. Even if they tried, the people of Făgăraş cannot forget, forgive, leave them, reconcile serenely and Christianly with all that they were, with the martyrdom to which their faith was subjected. For them, Adolf Nikolaus von Buccow remains forever the embodiment of enmity and absolute evil, a smoky and parallel appearance, as well as death, a man without a face and without a biography. A foreign name, which they want to punish, leaving it to haunt forgotten history, the dark Middle Ages of Transylvania, all that is left of the memory of the Orthodox lavra of yesteryear; Recea, Comana, Colt, Berivoi, Sâmbăta de Sus. No matter how much you search, searching the archives, chronicles and testimonies of the time, you don't find out much about it. Adolf Nikolaus von Buccow remains a shadow shrouded in silence and mystery. From the only portrait preserved by the chronicle of the imperial Vienna, a bald and willless man looks at you. A slightly effeminate hedonist, with a long prickly face and timidly hidden hands behind the silver sleeves of the field marshal's tunic with a short, carefully powdered wig, as well as the apathetic smile and studied will of his arms, , violent with hastily trained chiefs and placid with fiery women at Court. A hesitant and hidden man, a bigot, in brocade and silk clothes, an unscrupulous killer, a "lover" of beauty and humanists, of the great humanist ideas of equality, justice and truth [3]. Certainly, Empress Maria Theresa did not choose him by chance. After the revolted murmur of the Romanian serfs and the perseverance of the Orthodox monks Visarion and Sofronie against the Unitarian covenant, someone had to bring to Transylvania a spirit of peace and reconciliation, of love and benevolence in all ... houses, churches, villages populated by Romans. The decision of the Let Diet to expel the monks from the laity, or the Catholic synodal decision to ban the Romanian custom of offering food and drink to the dead at the grave, all proved to be unnecessarily hasty and unwise. General Buccow seemed best able to set things right, calm the spirits, and pacify the Crown's submissive "heretics." It was as if you saw him. Righteous, military, and disciplined like no other, he listened intently to the graceful empress's command and did not lose. He leaves Vienna in a hurry and on April 5, 1761, appears in Sibiu, with all his entourage and insignia of his imperial authority. There is no time to lose. On April 9, the investigation of the "Dismemberment Commission" must begin to find out which of the Romanians declared themselves against the union. Sibiu is a hostile and cold spring day, as if announcing the harshness and urgency of the decisions that will follow. Buccow doesn't even have time to pack his trunks of clothes and parade costumes or visit the thriving burg of Saxon guilds. He only manages to weigh the officials of the Chancellery Hall with his eyes and with an authoritarian gesture, he signals to the doorman to invite the delegation of the 40 Romanians, who have been waiting for him for several days to hand over his memory with their insistent wishes, to return the Romanian churches. together with the goods and the place of land, the Greek Catholics should remain with what they built, leaving the Union to be held only by those who want it and especially, not to bring revenge, but to be forgiving with the Orthodox and the monastic army of Sofronie de to the Crow. Diplomatic and peaceful, Buccow listened with a smile. He gives them and promises them justice, without saying anything concrete. His mission is "the conscription of believers", the census and reconciliation, mercy and national concord. The very next day he receives Sofronie in audience. He confuses him with clever words and, at the end, seals the understanding with an exchange of gifts. in the evening he does not mention or cancel it. ”Sofronie is arrested and chained as he descends the stairs of the Residence. Refugee in his austere drawing room, decorated only with paintings of the empress and his volunteer mother, whom he deified, the general looks at the map of Transylvania for a long time. Marked in red, the Orthodox monasteries seem lined up in the very order of their disappearance. You don't know very well what hides his apathetic and prematurely aged cocoon figure, the feminine line of the shoulders and the elongated drawn chin. He is betrayed only by the gilded plate, with glittering silver inlays, the discreet necklace of military virtue at the base of his neck and the small, restless eyes - evil man's eyes, looking visionary into the horizon, towards a heroic and firm future, which he wants unshakable and with all his heart to belong to him. Built of contrasts, gestures and theatrical concealments, he must have been skilled in his mission. For three years, while he held the seat of Governor of Transylvania, the general put order in the local administration and signed numerous amnesties. He met with Visarion's warrior disciples, Stan and Oancea, he made it clear that he listened to them and jumped to their aid, above all offering the Romanians from Năsăud and Făgăraş the

= ISSN 2285-0171 ISSN-L=2285-0171 Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica - Volume 10. Issue 1/2021 - http://juridica.ugb.ro/ - Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU great privileges of "border" ... the property of the forests , the carrying of weapons and the exemption from military service, no one can understand what has happened even now, no one can believe that everything was set in advance, the fire map, the lists of convictions, the impeccable detail of the executions and especially the unleashed hatred and A somewhat artistic and refined hatred, full of nuances, returns and concessions dictated by the effluvia and the needs of the moment, on the popes of Recea, Cristur and Luna de Jos he was satisfied only with public mockery. from Năsăud) but nailed him in front of many, so that no one else would ever dare to complain that the Orthodox are persecuted and without rights. Then you see it in the gloomy and oppressive setting of the Făgăraş fortress. The three-meter-thick walls, the waterfall-like defensive ditch and the mobile bridge at the entrance make him feel safe, safe. From his audience hall he made a small princely hall, decorated with paintings, Venetian mirrors, French tapestries and carved furniture in the most famous workshops in Vienna. In himself, he must suffer, feeling alone and abandoned on the fringes of the Empire, far from the elegance and brilliance of the Viennese salons, surrounded only by the Hungarian schemes and the endless weeping litanies of the Romanians. "So hart und schwer" (so hard and hard) - he kept repeating, regarding the reports of the "dismemberment commission", black and worrying statistics which showed that only in Făgăraş, out of 128,000 Orthodox families, only 320 are Greek Catholics . With his eyes on the clock given by the Prague watchmakers' guild, the general interrupts the audience with an elegant gesture of fatigue, signs a few orders of "birsag", as well as the list of the conscription of the Transylvanian believers, recites the prepared missive momentarily, he arranges his shining armor and hurries, at the head of the hussar regiment, to complete the chore of setting fire to two Orthodox hermitages, until the evening hour, when the first guests of the ball began to arrive in the courtyard. offered in honor of the noble subjects of the Crown and the distinguished cardinals of the Pope.From the rich frame and full of gilded ornaments, Buccow looks beyond history, from -an ugly and backward world, which neither understands it and certainly does not deserve it. His appearance, rendered in Raphaelite nuances and sweeteners, further enhances the mystery. As he is supported by the high arm of the imperial seat, it is clear that the general likes to pose. Position of actor, ready at any moment to play impeccably the role imposed by every moment of the day, pacifist, steadfast military, enlightened mason, missionary Catholic, relentless judge. He easily changes his armor and the metal rest of his weapons with the lacy jab and the velvety frock coat of the dance costume. He sips carefully and modestly, like a fine connoisseur, from the old and carefully matured liqueur of Tokay wine, while vigilantly checking, from the Chancellery's window, the last preparations of the scaffold of those condemned the day before. The crowd of Cabinet officials and cadres follows him in fright, reading in the eyes of the Governor the danger, the relentless pleasure of the man to punish, at the same time with that sharp gleam of the military, without nuance. Everyone suspects him of fairness and excessive zeal, of that hot and mad desire not to disappoint in any way the august empress and the hopes of an entire Empire. A born actor, Buccow knows how to hide. No one suspects his religious fanaticism and hatred against the pathetic, miserable, ankle-length Orthodox monks dressed in patched, ankle-length clothes with muddy toes on their feet and a pitiful "cuckoo" on their heads. In Berivoi, generous and courtly, he lets the monks flee, taking the church bells with him, but he is careful to catch them at Bucium and marry them together. two other old monks - one 105 years old, another 120. At Cârța, he demolishes the church, but he has no peace until he follows the monks in the forest, in order to eradicate them completely, setting them on fire and the second church On Saturday he steals and sets fire to the most beautiful icons and books of tradition, and punishes the village leaders who shelter the fleeting "heretics" of the monasteries according to the gravity of the deed - either by a rope or by service military for life. In three years, as in an epic of evil, General Buccow's hatred turned the mountains of Transylvania into a martyr's Golgotha, leaving behind the suffering and blood of innocent Christians. He did not fight the popes, the poor and almost illiterate, to whom, after 60 years of waiting, he was even given by a Greek bishop - Dionisie Novacovici, a Serbian bishop from Buda. His struggle was with the monasteries - as small and populated with only two or three monks as they were; with their stubbornness and unwavering orthodoxy, with the tradition and worship of the dead, with their pride in knowing themselves to be born Christians, unguarded guardians of anyone of the true faith. He did not eradicate orthodoxy as he wished. Instead of monasteries, the crosses on the mountain and the names of meadows remained: La Chilii, Poiana Pustnicului, La Altare. Stretching for tens and tens of kilometers, steady and steadily raised to the sky, the Făgăraş Mountains remain an enormous ossuary, an anonymous crypt of all the monks killed, driven away or burned alive. For three years, without interruption, General Buccow crucified walls and towers of Orthodox churches in the Transylvanian mountains. Their cry reverberated by the enormous dome of Făgăraş can still be heard. It's like a litany, like a murmur of pain and annoyance. The Orthodox Romanians, as superstitious, apostate and heretical as Buccow thought they were, took revenge in their strange, peaceful and silent way. They took

= ISSN 2285-0171 ISSN-L=2285-0171 Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica - Volume 10. Issue 1/2021 - http://juridica.ugb.ro/ - Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU unusual revenge, forever naming his name and punishing his deeds in frescoes and icons. They did not drive him away as a satanic apparition, but brought him with them to church, depicting him in the most horrible faces. It is an effigy appearance, a shout superimposed on an image, a dramatic summary of the suffering of the Transylvanian Romanians, blamed without guilt on the cross of the forgiving and hopeful sacrifice. The curse of the Romanians, hidden in colors made of enchanted plants of the ancestral glia and naive drawings, eventually reached Buccow. Strong and in his prime, at less than 52 years old, entering on horseback in the great fortress of Alba Iulia, he will be thrown by the horse and crushed by hooves, under the horrified eyes of his imperial suite and the people who came out to greet him with all honors. due to a field marshal. She would die like an ordinary citizen, like a naive and ignorant villager, far from the military honors she had always dreamed of. He will die as an anonymous person, without a face and without a biography - a foreign name, which the people of Făgăraș do not want to punish otherwise, than letting it continue to rot, haunted by history, the darkness of the Transylvanian Middle Ages and, more elected, restoring in recent years all, but absolutely all the monasteries killed by him, in a gesture of extraordinary restorative beauty, the people of Făgăraş rebuilt their monasteries more proudly, more in harmony with every place of torture, bombed or burned , turning into the lyre of the wails of human saints, accompanying the bells of suffering. And the history of stacking the Romanians, at their home continued, with other sinister oppressors, neighbors and neighbors greedy for the riches of our millennial land, until the First World War that defined the empires of those times and plagued us with the problem of Hungarian optants , a process that seems endless, continued even after the end of the Second World War. So, when asked how the process of the oppressors came to be, we notice that, from a historical perspective, things have deep roots, the conflict existed permanently, hotter or calmer, as the internal or external context evolved, reaching a complex phase, after the first world war and especially after the proclamation of the Great Union of Alba Iulia in 1918. Then, after a temporary settlement of things in their tracks, the evil minds of the time, triggered a new world conflagration, practically the first, whose consequences they were barely trying to fade from the collective memory of humanity. This massacre demolished from its foundations, the legal regime and the structure of the property in Romania. In short, the Nazi ideology and the communist ideology were perfectly similar, a fact that was highlighted, both by the beginning of the devastating conflagration and the moments that preceded it, and for us Romanians produced dramatic consequences, hard to forget and worth remembering. In short, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR agreed to sign a non-aggression treaty signed in Moscow on August 23, 1939, a treaty known as the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. The reasons why the two dictators of the time slapped this agreement are generally known and are not the subject of this study. What is certain is that, in a short time, the two powers animated by extremist ideologies initial and arbitrarily decide the fate of the Baltic states and nations, the fate of Poland and the Polish people, but also the fate of Romania and the Romanian people [4]. The attack on Poland by Germany on September 1, 1939, based on the neutrality of the USSR thus obtained, triggers World War II. In this historical context, consistently following the revisionist ideals, in the first Vienna Dictate, signed on November 2, 1938, with the support of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, Hungary led by Miklos Horthy obtained a part of Slovakia and in March 1939 managed to occupies Transcarpathia (Ruthenia), today located on the territory of Ukraine [5]. The annexation of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina by the USSR, the historical conjuncture at European level but also the politico-military picture of Romania in 1939, paved the way for the revisionist claims of Horthy Hungary and regarding Romania. Thus, on August 29, 1940, the German Foreign Minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, summoned the Romanian and Hungarian Foreign Ministers to whom he communicated and imposed the unconditional pre-acceptance of the German-Italian arbitration, later known as the Second Vienna Dictate. As a result of this imposition, northwestern Transylvania, with a majority Romanian population, is incorporated into the borders of Hungary [6]. Beyond the historical events on which we do not insist, we note how some of the most radical measures taken by the Hungarian occupier shortly after the annexation of Northwestern Transylvania were taken in the legal regime of the land fund, in the same key of Hungarian racism that distorts the history of the Romanians in Transylvania according to Rösler's theories [7], according to which the Romanians came from the Balkans in the 14th-15th centuries and manifested themselves as a "disruptive factor" of the Hungarian order, Moreover, the Hungarians also claim the existence of a major difference between the Romanians inside and outside the Carpathian arch - the former being much superior following the contact with the Hungarians. The denigration of the Romanians regarding the "inferiority of the Romanian race" is still an x-ray of an extremist political conception. Therefore, the Hungarians, consistent with the revisionist ideals, resort to any means, including legal ones, to achieve their goal, to put the issue of the candidates back on the table. From a legal perspective, their arbitrariness is clearly contrary to any generally accepted principles of law, whether we refer to the non-retroactivity of civil law or

= ISSN 2285-0171 ISSN-L=2285-0171 Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica - Volume 10. Issue 1/2021 - http://juridica.ugb.ro/ - Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU the inviolability of property, which can only be affected by expropriation, as the Kingdom of Romania did in 1921. And here we have view, PM Decree no. 1450 of 21 February 1941 of the Hungarian royal ministry which, with reference to the properties in the annexed Romanian territories: a) prohibits retroactively, starting with August 30, 1940, the operation in the land books of the entries arranged before this date but not operated, and, b) declares null and void the registrations made prior to August 30, 1940 [8]. And this, in the conditions when the Romanians, owned by the agrarian reform, did not make documents on their properties, thinking how someone else can take what is theirs! Unfortunately, the owners were so poor and illiterate that the vast majority did not register in the land register. A situation that still exists today, when, more than 30 years after the revolution, there are still people without documents on the land they own. In addition, there were other impediments then. For example, Land Book specialists were very rare, they had gone to Hungary. Basically, it was very difficult to find a surveyor at that time. Not to mention that many Land Books were taken by the counts and those who left, and the Romanian state woke up with this major national problem, impossible to solve in the short term. The problem is well known and, although the Hungarian state had to return those documents, they have not been returned even today, even if we have new treaties that regulate this issue with Hungary. Obviously, the measure constituted not only an abuse that disregarded basic principles of law but also a violation of international agreements and treaties, such as the one concluded in the case of electors. However, the principles of civil and international law as well as international treaties were insignificant details in relation to the massacres committed by the occupation army, along with extremist paramilitary organizations, against the Romanian population. . The massacre, ill-treatment, robbery and confiscation of property were practices meant to determine the denationalization, ethnic cleansing and expulsion across the border of the majority Romanian population from North West Transylvania annexed to Horthy Hungary. On September 12, 1944, Romania signed the Armistice Convention with the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States of America and, according to point 2 of the Convention, undertakes to take measures for the disarmament and internment of the armed forces of Germany and Hungary. which, according to point 19 of the Convention, the Allied Governments consider the Vienna Arbitration ruling on Transylvania to be null and void and agree that Transylvania be returned to Romania subject to confirmation by the Peace Treaty, and the Soviet Government agrees that the Soviet forces take part for this purpose in military operations, combined with Romania, against Germany and Hungary. The end of the Second World War finds Romania in a position to take measures in the field of the legal regime of property. And we are considering legitimate measures, taken on the basis of a predictable legal framework and not by brutal measures such as those taken by the Hungarian fascist state during 1940-1944 [9]. Thus, based on point 8 of the Armistice Convention [10], is adopted the Law no. 91 of February 10, 1945 for the establishment of Houses for the Administration and Surveillance of Enemy Goods [11]. Subsidiary to Law 91/1945, Decree no. 228 of September 4, 1948 for the dissolution of the Ministerial Commission for the Execution of the Peace Treaty for the Abolition of the House of Administration and Surveillance of Enemy Property (C.A.S.B.I.) and for regulating the preservation, administration and liquidation of property administered in this House [12]. According to art. 10 of the Decree no. 228/1948 the entitled persons could request the return of the goods administered by the C.A.S.B.I. on the basis of the application and supporting documents and, in case the applications were not submitted within 90 days from the publication of the law, the unclaimed buildings passed by right into the patrimony of the Romanian State. Although we are not in a situation of abusive takeover of real estate owned by the communist state but in a situation of regulation of the legal regime of the properties of the subjects of enemy states according to the Armistice Convention, some of them absentees, a custom found in all states at the end of the Second World War, the political decision makers - the anti-Romanian alligators, traitors of the nation and the country, the perpetrators of the 1989 coup, as well as their descendants open the way for the real estate robbery to which the Romanian people were subjected. Thus, in principle, Law no. 10/2001 regarding the legal regime of some buildings abusively taken over between March 6, 1945 - December 22, 1989 [13] legally arranges the way of restitution of these buildings, although the practice was not found in any of the other states in the communist bloc. Moreover, without further distinction between the acts of liquidation of property, according to the conventions and treaties of the end of World War II and the acts of abusive takeover of state property specific to the communist period, after 1948, the legislator, authorities of public administration but also courts illegally order from a historical point of view the reconstitution of the right of private property over the buildings in this historical and legal situation. Not infrequently in the category of real estate C.A.S.B.I. claimed and returned also by court rulings handed down after 2000 were also found lands with agricultural and forestry vegetation that had been the subject of agrarian reform since 1921, including the property of the optants, conflict ended as we showed in the previous chapter in favor of Romania.

= ISSN 2285-0171 ISSN-L=2285-0171 Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica - Volume 10. Issue 1/2021 - http://juridica.ugb.ro/ - Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU On the one hand, the lack of entries in the land register of the agrarian reform measures of 1921 as a result of the end of the conflict of electors only after years around the outbreak of World War II but also the measures of deregistration from land registers contributed to this situation. disposed of by the Hungarian occupier during 1940-1944. Decree Law no. 260/1945 on the law applicable in Northern Transylvania, as well as on the rights acquired in this territory during the Hungarian occupation [14], reparatory act at the end of the Second World War considers the acts committed and the rights acquired under it to be null and void of Hungarian ordinances no. 1,440 of 1941 M.E .; Nr. 1,630 of 1941 M.E .; Nr. 5,200 of 1943 M.E .; Nr. 970 of 1943 M.E .; Nr. 3,710 of 1943 M.E .; Nr. 2780 of 1941 M.E .; Nr. 18,900 of 1941 I.M .; Nr. 3,400 M.E .; Nr. 2,660 of 1942 M.E .; Nr. 9,370 of 1940 M.E .; Nr. 8,230 of 1940 M.E .; Nr. 50,000 from 1942 M.E. and in general, under any discriminatory Hungarian legal or regulatory provisions. For the purposes of this law, those Hungarian legal or regulatory provisions, derogating from Hungarian common law, which have been applied only in Northern Transylvania or in this territory and in the other territories occupied by Hungary, after 15 March shall be considered discriminatory. 1939. In other words, on the one hand, the discriminatory acts in the field of property adopted and applied on the territory of North-West Transylvania ceded to Hungary as a result of the Vienna Dictate in the period 1940-1944 and, implicitly, the measures the legitimate Agrarian Reform of 1921 carried out by the Kingdom of Romania under the conditions already made explicit lacked effects in this territory. To these normative acts in the matter of the legal regime of property, pre-existing the communist nationalizations and whose consequences and effects could not be contested or without consequences by the legislation of reconstitution of the property right after 1989, or by its interpretation and application, is added the Law 187/1945 for the accomplishment of the agrarian reform [15]. According to art. 3 of it: for the purpose of the agrarian reform, they pass over the State in order to be distributed to the ploughmen entitled to ownership and to constitute the reserves provided in art. 2, points c and d, the following agricultural goods with their live and dead inventory affected: a) Lands and agrarian properties of any kind belonging to German citizens and Romanian citizens, natural or legal persons, of German nationality, who collaborated with Hitler's Germany; b) The lands and other properties of war criminals and those guilty of the country's disaster; c) The lands of those who took refuge in the countries with which Romania is at war or took refuge abroad after August 23, 1944; d) The lands and all the agricultural goods of the absentees; e) The lands of those who in the last seven consecutive years have not cultivated their lands under their own management, except for the lots up to 10 ha; f) Agricultural goods of any kind of Romanian citizens who have volunteered to fight against the United Nations; g) Dead hand goods [16]; h) The surplus of agricultural lands constituting properties of natural persons exceeding the surface of 50 ha, namely: arable land, orchards, hayfields, ponds and artificial ponds, whether or not used for fishing, swamps and floodplains. Among those expropriated in the agrarian reform were, among others, once again, the persons expropriated and rewarded in the agrarian reform of 1921, including the Hungarian optants, beneficiaries of horticultural legislation during the occupation, persons holding the right to own real estate. under the incidence of CASBI, absentees and war criminals. Not a few of them were in all the categories listed above [17]. Much has been said and written about the agrarian reform of 1945, depending on the side of the barricade. We will focus only on an emblematic figure of those times Dr. Petru Groza (l884-1958). He was a man of his time, a direct participant in the Great Assembly of Alba Iulia, from December 1, 1918, where the process of making Greater Romania was completed, six times deputy in the Romanian Parliament, during 1919-1927, he fulfilled the position of minister in the government of Marshal Averescu, in the years 1920- 1921 and 1926-1927, in 1933 he founded the Plowmen's Front of which he was president until 1953. After 23 August 1944, from November 1944 until June 1952 he was Prime Minister of Romania and in the period 1952- 1958, he was the President of the Presidium of the Grand National Assembly, a position assimilated to that of Head of State. He was one of the most sinister figures in the history of Romania, the prototype of the histrionic and eternal opportunist thirsty for power, always ready to make any compromises in order to keep his functions. One of the most successful portraits of Petru Groza was made by a politician who represented exactly the opposite: Corneliu Coposu, the leader of PNTCD, a man who sacrificed his life to defend his ideals and who suffered enormously in the name of values such as faith in the country [18]. Corneliu Coposu knew Petru Groza personally and was received right in his house. Petru Groza was a main actor in the suppression of PNT and PNL and in the sentencing for life of personalities such as Iuliu Maniu, Ion Mihalache or Gheorghe Brătianu. Then followed, on the day of sad memory, December 30, 1947, the blackmail of King Michael I, who was forced to sign an abdication struck by nullity, under the threat that 1,000 students would be shot. In all the positions and positions occupied, Groza demonstrated his efficiency, his determination in decisions. He had a fortune since he practiced law in Deva, but arriving in Bucharest he accumulated estates, banks, factories, shops, hotels, cinemas, mills, power plants, mineral water springs, became president, vice president, member

= ISSN 2285-0171 ISSN-L=2285-0171 Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica - Volume 10. Issue 1/2021 - http://juridica.ugb.ro/ - Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU of the boards of directors of the larger enterprises, has shares in the most prosperous companies. Stranger than we can imagine, in 1923, Petru Groza has a short, platonic, but deep idyll with Elena Lupescu. They often met on Calea Victoriei and stared. She was "tall, of full stature, like the muses of Rubens, with red hair, pronounced freckles on her face, and green eyes, features which, all together, thanks to the Master's master's hand, embodied the feminine charm which strongly attracted the other sex from the first moment." . Her eyes could hardly be stolen in this coquettish atmosphere of the corso, so it took a lot of skill to catch her eyes for a moment. She always walked with dignity, usually looking ahead, and that made me stubborn, and my determination to satisfy the capricious curiosity that encompassed me was opposed to the thought that everything is directed by the art of a coquette in the big world, small game. To pass by such a feminine appearance without noticing it would have meant giving yourself a certificate of lack of initiative and fantasy, a fantasy that colors our lives and makes us so pleasant. " Groza asks who the woman is. After a few weeks, he receives a letter in French, which his wife opens and reads to him. "It's night, it's two o'clock, sleep overwhelms me. I miss the looks we caught on our walks on the Way. Signed: „She". I mean Elena Lupescu! Two years later, the woman fled with Carol to Paris. Even more strangely, speaking of the cynical Petru gialla, Pamfil Şeicaru gives vitriol: "He was a kind fool, with the head of a blond hotentot-ignorant lawyer and a lawyer (from Deva), busy with lumber business, looking to get the reward that Greater Romania owed him". Another contemporary, Petre Pandrea, a famous lawyer and publicist in the interwar period, intellectually outlawed in the postwar period, does not perceive communism installed in Bucharest and in the country mainly as an imported product. He identifies and records the pre-existing premises in the local reception of communism. The methods of the national policy through which communism penetrated here are also precisely indicated. Thus, his references to the new political leaders - whether it is Ana Pauker, Gheorghiu- Dej or Petru Groza - or to the new "influencers" - a Mihail Ralea or Petre Constantinescu-Iași - are direct, concretely, without labeling useless. Those mentioned are not primarily communists, but a combination of characteristics known and inventoried in the time of the author, over which the communist dress coincidentally fit very well. And in turn, the communist dress was not as exotic as we might think, it was even part of the landscape in a fairly natural way. Petre Pandrea is politically familiar with these characters, even if he does not share their choice; but from this concomitant familiarity and disjunction results an authentic and objective knowledge of their mentality, considering that “in Wallachia there are intellectuals who stand next to their comrade wounded in battles by opponents and, instead of dressing him, remove the seam, treat him like a game , cannibalistically cuts and swallows from the brother in groans and extinction ”. One such example was, in his own way, Petru Groza, "a prostitute on the political sidewalk, with a prostitute mentality and a similar emotional memory." His rise was due to the way in which "he knew how to seduce Stalin with his Viennese jokes and the art of the party." Of course, after Stalin's death, he had become a "Khrushchevist" and was preparing to become a "Malenkovist" if necessary. A close friend of Marshal Voroshilov, who came to Romania especially to party in his company, Groza was always focused on the "Sublime Gate of Moscow", to know "where the power is, to extend his caftan." Otherwise, known as a vivacious voucher and noted as "the man without a mustache and a beard, but with hot, testicle-like testicles," he was "the fear of women walking on the street, because he approaches them like a hooligan teenager," sovereign: "I know that the street does not love me, but I love the street madly." But the true "greatness" of Petru Groza, "a featherweight boxer, even a dwarf, inside", who "has the status of a heavy category only among his Muscovites", is fully outlined and, literally speaking, of the charming right, in this memorable paragraph: “His ship is without burdens. He threw everything away. It's a boat with his august person. He idolizes himself. He left his friends, the plowmen's front, relatives, memories. It's like a flake in a boat. He is not listened to, he is not considered. He can't appoint a militiaman to work. The papers with his apostles are thrown in the trash. Promise as a wise man and the fools or the naive hope. For the final sentence to fall like a guillotine: “He was a bourgeois. Now he makes the nobleman speechless and without honor” [19]. Petru Groza's resistance to King Michael I's demands was based on the fact that the histrion who had become the head of the Government in Bucharest had secured the protection of the Kremlin executioner. The way he did this was embarrassing. Petru Groza related the scene to Corneliu Coposu during the period when he was in good relations with the PNTCD leader, at that time Iuliu Maniu's chief of staff. Petru Groza went humbly to Moscow. "He told me that he arrived in the anteroom, after an audience had been set for him, and at one point the doors opened and a secretary came out and announced: 'Welcome to Generalissim. And I went in there - I repeat his words to you - I approached him, he was sitting on a kind of cot, a little higher than the floor, I threw myself on my knees, kissed his legs and said to him: « Finally, I reached my ideal as a child. This day will be the most beautiful day of my life ». Stalin, obviously impressed, took me by the arm, lifted me up, hugged me. My circus had made a special impression on him and then we talked amicably ». He said: "I think I won it - I told you I was an unparalleled playwright,” said Corneliu Coposu.

= ISSN 2285-0171 ISSN-L=2285-0171 Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica - Volume 10. Issue 1/2021 - http://juridica.ugb.ro/ - Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU He was never a member of the P.C.R., but the Communists used him to camouflage his goals, due to his character as a Marxist nabab. Although he played the role of a self-conscious man, Groza was always a puppet of the Romanian communists and it seemed that the Soviets were determined for a long time to use him as a screen in the country's communist penetration. And in the Second World War, the Romanian peasants were promised as a recognition of their participation in the war, to carry out a new Agrarian Reform. But we know well, how things evolved and through coercive measures, the allogeneic, anti-Romanian Judeo- Communists nationalized everything that could be nationalized in Romania. Subsequently, after the coup d'etat of December 1989, at the time of our still unfinished transition, amid legislation that seemed to result from the lobbying of the successors, the superficiality, the lack of knowledge and understanding of the historical substratum of how to enter the state patrimony of these real estate, the lack of patriotism of the representatives of the Romanian State in all its three powers, but also the endemic corruption, huge properties, agricultural lands, lands with forest vegetation or thousands of buildings came to be granted as restitution to the descendants of the found persons among the categories indicated above. For a complete picture it should be mentioned that to these illegitimate beneficiaries, natural persons, are added a series of other illegitimate beneficiaries, institutions, associative forms and organizations erected as successors of entities that, before the two world wars either owned only deprived of them as a result of legitimate expropriations or of liquidations and confiscations ordered under peace treaties [20]. The application of the principle of restitutio in integrum, the payments of uncapped ceilings quantified on the basis of often controversial appraisal expertise and the reconstitution of property rights for real estate with the history presented in previous sections, is a singular case, not found in any former communist bloc. To a large extent, the application of property laws in Romania after 1989, restored the property situation before the two world wars and annulled the effects of postwar agricultural reforms whose fairness and legitimacy had been recognized internationally, thanks to the efforts of the responsible Romanian political class. of the weather. Last but not least, another consequence was the lack of reconstitution of the property rights of the descendants of the peasants in the agrarian reforms who did not have the strength, skill, financial resources to oppose the descendants of the expropriated landowners under the conditions set out above. Therefore, today Romania has found itself vulnerable due to poorly designed legislation and corruption and is put in a position to return in full properties, buildings or land for which the Romanian state anyway paid compensation in tons of gold, in the 30s of last century . In other words, Romania is damaged two or even three times if we consider that the taxes used to build many of the buildings in Transylvania were paid by the lower social strata, ie by peasants and small craftsmen or merchants, who in the sea most of them were Romanians, the nobility of the three privileged nations being exempt from taxes. But let's go back to the problem of the Hungarian optants from its incipient period, after the First World War and to analyze how an essential attribute of the Romanian state's sovereignty was transferred to bodies with international vocation, not yet mature enough to solve such problems.

2. How a matter of domestic law has become a matter of international law

2.1. Clarifying issues regarding the external and internal context of the opt-in process. Apparently the answer to this question should be a simple one given by the history of relations between nation-states. On closer inspection, however, this answer is not satisfactory. What kind of relationships? Diplomatic, economic, political, cultural? Where is the place of international organizations, non-governmental actors, phenomena of interaction at a more subtle level defined than the state, especially in the interwar period where the political model represented by the nation-state is increasingly present. Consequently, the answer to the above question needs to be refined a little. Initially, this model was only a part of political history - that chronicle of "great" deeds populated by grandiose figures, rulers, kings, ministers. On the other hand, the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century bore the mark of a formidable transformation that took place over a century: public access to foreign policy. At the end of World War I, millions of ex-combatants and their families were a factor in political pressure, for which the words of American President Woodrow Wilson - "open diplomacy" - were especially relevant. In the twentieth century, public opinion influenced or determined much more strongly the development of international events. The masses participated, directly or indirectly, in the realization of the foreign policy of a state, much more complex social phenomena left their mark on the relations between the countries, the military, economic, financial factors were as important as the diplomatic ones. All these coordinates had undoubtedly existed in other epochs, developed more subtly or on certain social levels, but historians had repeatedly neglected them, being fascinated by personal developments or those of political elites. Consequently, the way in which it was transferred from the sovereign competence of the Romanian state to some international organizations is a mystery that was partly solved, but not fully

= ISSN 2285-0171 ISSN-L=2285-0171 Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica - Volume 10. Issue 1/2021 - http://juridica.ugb.ro/ - Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU elucidated by investigating how the foreign policy of such an actor is realized. What are the decision makers, what role do they play, what are the objectives and tools used to achieve them? What are the internal and external sources of a gesture in international politics, what are the economic, military but also cultural or mental factors that influence the decision? How did the perception of decision-makers on the reality of the international environment, undoubtedly sublimated from the collective mind of the time, determine a certain evolution of events on the international stage? All these questions and many more still challenge the researcher and the general public alike, and the history of international relations, though sometimes preoccupied with tedious details, is doubly fascinating because it „combines the complexity of a chessboard with the mental stimulus of studying the irrationality of active human nature in politics of power” [21]. The answers to these questions than by resorting to the sources of history which are extremely varied and have a considerable advantage. We cannot omit from research the abundance of contemporary sources, but there is a danger of errors of interpretation. The discovery, classification, systematization and investigation of the sources of history is a process in full swing even if we address some "older" topics such as the process of optants. However, the investigation of primary sources and the judicious use of secondary sources remain the first and most important of the researcher's activities. Primary sources undoubtedly abound in our field. We have access, more and more, over time, to official diplomatic documents - international treaties, telegrams, reports, memoranda, transcripts of official or private conversations, etc. Then we must not forget the official statements, political speeches and other public interventions of decision makers. Opinion polls and statistics of various kinds also provide valuable clues about a state's foreign policy, and personal journals and private or official correspondence are just as important sources for the researcher. Another type of primary source is that of photo images and document films (made by contemporaries of those events). Today we have access to video recordings and electronic correspondence coming right behind the scenes of the segments authorized to build foreign policy. Although many of these sources are still under government control, classified and only partially disclosed, in most democratic states there are clear laws that provide for the storage of this data for later declassification. Other sources come from the media and popular culture. Newspapers, magazines, films, radio and TV shows can be essential for studying the values, objectives and tools that influence both the decision and events in international politics. In an end imposed more by the dimensions of the exhibition than by the exhaustion of the subject, the literary and artistic sources, the objects of various types can be relevant for the history of the optants process, especially the international relations in the period 1920-1923. The first part of the twenties finds its priorities primarily in attempts to overcome the consequences of the First World War. The German problem, the American withdrawal, the Soviet enigma, the fragmentation of Central and Eastern Europe, the unprecedented economic crisis represent extraordinary challenges for European politicians, many of them trained before the war and who consequently have difficulty adapting to new domestic and international realities. with direct and indirect consequences on the internationalization of contentious candidates. In this external context, as a result of the ropes drawn behind the scenes of the European chancelleries, where the shared sympathies for Romania and Hungary were divided, after the Union, the fervor of the personalities who supported the just cause in the West and the sacrifices brought by the Romanian people a mission accomplished, whether especially by engaging in internal struggles for power and for the accumulation of wealth, for many political leaders the interests of the country have been put in the background. The influence was not decisive, but significant, so that the germs that dug at the foundation of Greater Romania and inside the country began to appear, the struggle for power and wealth orchestrated even by the Royal House showed signs of weakness of the Romanian State, eroded Western sympathy or diminished. After the war, all actors focused on the internal reconstruction of the states resulting from the first great conflagration. It was conducive for Romania to carve its own path and assert itself equally with the other states, throwing the ballast that had slowed it until then. Prudence and perhaps ignorance as well as disinterest in the country's destinies, which haunt us as a historical fatality to this day, have led some things to go in the wrong direction, with accumulation over time and chain effects, until nowadays, when we pay the policies of a consistent historical captivity. This is also the situation generated by the political-historical process of the Hungarian optants, which was at the root of the trials of the same optants at the Paris Arbitration Tribunal. It is true that Titulescu supported Romania's interests in all phases of the long process, but this after Apponyi pulled strings with skill and managed to impose that the problem must be solved at the level of the League of Nations, that is, the internal character of agrarian reform is debatable and must be brought solutions in international courts. Again, this did not happen in the case of Czechoslovakia, where in the Slovak province 25% of the population was of Hungarian origin and large estates belonged to Hungarian magnates, and so in Yugoslavia, where the ownership situation in the Novi Sad province was similar. The question is legitimately how Czechoslovakia managed to avoid the internationalization of litigation, while the agrarian reform of this country was not as

= ISSN 2285-0171 ISSN-L=2285-0171 Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica - Volume 10. Issue 1/2021 - http://juridica.ugb.ro/ - Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU progressive as that initiated by Romania, the history of Hungarianness was more present in Slovakia, where centers of culture and Hungarian civilization (Gheorghe Rakoczi and Count Andrassi), also large estates, finally the capital of feudal Hungary was at Pojon (modern-day Bratislava). The answer will be given to us by unfolding the temporal landmarks of the diplomatic-legal contentious that had as object the issue of the electors. 2.2. The stages of the optants process and the decisions adopted 2.2.1. The failed attempts by the government in Budepesta for a territorial revision nullified the settlement of the issue through a friendly arrangement. The first stage, the internal one, of the optants process, with going through all the procedural stages. Dissatisfied with the effects of the agrarian reforms, the optants tried to impose in their favor a series of privileges, a goal for which they lobbied most political and legal forums both in Romania and internationally. Hungary has made this dispute a priority state policy. The optants initially filed claims before the Romanian Courts challenging the measure of expropriation that was made equally for all large properties. Therefore, as a temporary landmark, we can identify a first phase in what is called the process of optants, respectively the phase before the Romanian courts, with all the procedural stages. Several clarifying aspects are required: it is certain that art. 250 of the treaty envisages the liquidation or confiscation of the assets of Hungarian citizens from the territories that joined according to Wilsonian principles to the neighboring states of the empire, new or pre-existing, as a measure of protection against possible such situations that may have occurred at that historical moment. . However, this text could not and cannot be interpreted as a barrier to a constitutional, non-discriminatory measure of expropriation of immovable property located in the territory of successor states. Thus, the adoption and application of a non- discriminatory law, throughout the territory of a state, belongs to the very exercise of the sovereignty of that state over its physical basis - the territory. By virtue of its sovereignty, the state may have the obligation to establish the legal regime of property and to take measures to regulate and reorganize the land fund, regardless of whether these properties belong to its citizens or foreigners. From this point of view, the conflicts born from the application of the agrarian reform could be made exclusively the object of the national courts by sanctioning possible punctual situations of erroneous application of the law. However, the process of optants was brought before the foreign jurisdictions of the time contesting the very sovereign right of the Romanian State to regulate the land and the legal regime of the properties on its territory, belonging to foreign citizens, optants. And this because the optants were dissatisfied with the fact that after centuries of feudal privileges, the agricultural and forestry lands are divided to the peasant class, who also worked them, interpreting art. 250 of the Treaty of Trianon according to which “the property, rights and interests of Hungarian subjects, located in the territory of the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy, may not be confiscated or liquidated in accordance with these provisions. Such property, rights or interests shall be returned to those entitled, free from any such measure or any other measure of disposition, forced administration or seizure. They will be returned in the state in which they are before the application of the measures in question, ie confiscation or liquidation ", the Hungarian optants consider that they cannot fall under a Romanian expropriation law and, based on the same article that regulated the complaints that could be made by the Hungarian subjects will be submitted to the Joint Arbitrary Tribunal, provided by art. 239 ”were addressed to this court. The Romanian courts in the years 1921-1923 confirmed the legitimacy of the expropriations and the Agrarian Reform through the ownership of the poor population. In the period after the overthrow of Bella Kun's Bolshevik regime, in August 1919, with the support of the Romanian Army, the government led by Miklos Horty came to power in Hungary. Hungarian property officials in Transylvania notified the Horthyst government in Budapest, which addressed the Paris Ambassadors' Peace Conference on 16 August 1922, arguing that the measures implementing the Agrarian Reform and the legal treatment of large Hungarian landowners "constitute a flagrant violation". of the treaties ”. Romania applied equal treatment for all properties subject to expropriation and, later, allocation in small areas for the population without wealth. And even if "optants" recognized this model, they claimed that they deserved preferential treatment. Although it occupied a lot of European public opinion at the time, that approach before international bodies and courts still has a significant number of unknowns. From the very beginning, the Budapest government became the spokesman for those legally expropriated in Transylvania, intervening in various international bodies to challenge the reform, as it was considered to be in violation of the Treaty of Trianon and an attempt to ruin Hungarian landowners in Transylvania. n a first phase, the Hungarian government complains to the USA, in this case to the American embassy in Budapest, wanting to create an anti-Romanian current, and in May 1921, before the adoption of the final Romanian agrarian law, the Hungarians, through their delegate, send a letter To the Conference of Ambassadors in Paris, a letter which the Conference delivered to the League of Nations on June 24, 1921.

= ISSN 2285-0171 ISSN-L=2285-0171 Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica - Volume 10. Issue 1/2021 - http://juridica.ugb.ro/ - Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU 2.2.2. The second stage: outsourcing the process of Hungarian electors to the Conference of Ambassadors in Paris. Following the entry into force of the agrarian law in 1921, the Hungarian government intervened in addition to the Romanian government to ask them to regulate the issue in favor of Hungarian citizens, and then unsatisfied, addressed a protest to the Conference of Ambassadors on August 16, 1921. The Hungarian government's request was rejected only two weeks after its submission, as it had been established by the Peace Treaties to have competences in the field of border-fixing and did not have the power to interpret treaty texts or rule on national minorities. More clearly, the Conference of Ambassadors declined its competence on August 31, 1931, and advised them to address the League of Nations, as it was a violation of the provisions of the Treaty of Trianon, which the Hungarian government did on March 15, 1923 by protesting to the League of Nations Council, against the expropriation of Hungarian owners, expropriation considered a flagrant violation of the provisions of the Treaty of Trianon and the Treaty of Minorities [22]. In fact, as Titulescu himself pointed out, the case of the optants was an attempt at territorial revision, by creating isolated groups of Hungarians in the middle of the Romanian communities so that they could think: “life is better if you are Hungarian than if you are Romanian, for even today, when Hungary was defeated, it still commands. " But not before the Romanian courts - as unfortunately things are happening today - courts that have found the unfoundedness and illegality of the claims of the Hungarian optants. Also at the Conference of Ambassadors in Paris. The Hungarian optants do not give up and continue the process at the Council of the League of Nations, where things are enormously complicated by causes already analyzed, others follow. 2.2.3. The third stage in the election process: the protest addressed by the Hungarian government to the Council of the League of Nations. The opt-in process was the most important process following the legislation on agrarian reform [23]. This process was born from the desire to support Hungarian revisionism and was directed against the Romanian citizen, who would have been wronged, both by removing from expropriation the lands owned by optants and absentees and thus reducing the ownership fund, but also by compensating the optants. in gold and not in lei, as happened in the case of the Romanian expropriated. To the protest addressed by the Hungarian government to the Council of the League of Nations, Nicolae Titulescu, the representative of Romania, demonstrates in the meeting of April 20, 1923 that expropriation and ownership was a necessity imposed by the peasant unrest of 1907, which had been admitted in 1913. nor was the Treaty of Trianon violated, nor the rights of the electors, since this treaty could not create a special situation for foreigners, in this case the Hungarian optants, a privileged situation compared to that created for Romanian citizens, since the expropriation of estates, it fell under the same regime, and both the Romanian and the Hungarian peasants enjoyed ownership. Titulescu also noted that there is no contradiction between the agrarian reform in Romania and the provisions of the peace treaties, as the agrarian reform law did not resort to a confiscation of the property of Hungarian citizens, who were compensated for expropriation, so the League Council he did not have the means to intervene in this problem, because the agrarian reforms were the exclusive competence of each state. The third stage in the election process is represented by the notification by the Hungarian government, after the failure suffered before the Conference of Ambassadors, of the League of Nations. This time, art. 11, para. (2) of the Covenant of the League of Nations under which members of the League of Nations may amicably draw the attention of the Assembly or the Council to any circumstances likely to affect international relations and threatening to disturb the peace, or good understanding between nations, of which peace depends. In its complaint, the Hungarian Government requests the Council of the League of Nations to consider the substance of the matter expeditiously, to find that the agrarian reform legislation is contrary to the peace treaties, to order that the assets of the expropriated oppressors (confiscated by the agrarian reforms to compensate the optants for the injuries suffered. The Hungarian Government's arguments were based on the interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty of Trianon in the sense that the citizens of the former empire who had opted for Hungarian citizenship could retain their property located in the territories of the successor states. Through its Minister of Foreign Affairs, Romania counter-arguments strictly on legal grounds, namely: expropriation is not a form of confiscation or liquidation of property, the application of the agrarian reform law targeted especially Romanian citizens and foreign citizens (optants), exemption from law enforcement the agrarian reform of the Hungarian electors representing on the one hand a privilege for them in relation to the Romanian citizens and, on the other hand, a deterioration of the sovereignty of the state which would be deprived of the right to dispose and apply laws on the entire national territory. Last but not least, the Romanian side showed that the idea of agrarian reform appeared and is due to causes existing in the war and regardless of its purpose. The Council of the League of Nations, notified by Hungary, had to answer the following questions: 1. What, according to the peace treaties, are the rights of Hungarian landlords and Hungarian subjects in matters of land ownership? 2. What is, according to international law, the regime of foreign property? 3. What is meant by optant? 4. What is the correlation between the performance of obligations under

= ISSN 2285-0171 ISSN-L=2285-0171 Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica - Volume 10. Issue 1/2021 - http://juridica.ugb.ro/ - Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU a treaty and the correlative rights? 5. What is a liquidation within the meaning of art. 250 of the Treaty of Trianon? 6. What are the limits of the jurisdiction of mixed courts in such cases? 7. What is the fate of excess power in international law? 8. Did the Council of the League of Nations have the right to appoint a judge? 9. The right to appreciate peace treaties? 10. What are the powers of the Council by virtue of art. 11, paragraph 2, of the Treaty? 11. What were the limits of political power and the judiciary in international law? In this context, the Ambassador of Japan to Belgium is appointed rapporteur for the preparation of a new Council meeting. On May 25, 1923, during meetings between the two parties, under the mediation of the Japanese report, the Hungarian side came to admit that the expropriation is not incompatible with the provisions of the treaty, which, the Romanian side concluded, is likely to close the case because the expropriation is a an internal matter, unrelated to the liquidations provided for in the peace treaties, an international operation. Following the draft resolution drafted in this regard, Hungary repudiates its delegations, contrary to international custom. In order to repudiate its delegations, Hungary argued that: the mandate of its negotiators was limited exclusively to direct negotiations with Romania, despite the fact that it had taken note of the decision of the League of Nations Council to discuss the Japanese ambassador to Belgium. they took part in private negotiations and that they exceeded the limits of their mandate. Without resolving the issue on the merits, on which it had no competence anyway, on the basis of documents prepared by the neutral international rapporteur, the Council of the League of Nations took note of the statements and expressed the hope that the Hungarian and Romanian governments would work to resolve the issue. it does not become the cause of the deterioration of good neighborly relations between the two states. With the exception of Hungary, which abstained, all other Member States voted to adopt the resolution with this content. Until this stage, the Hungarian government invoked in support of its positions exclusively art. 63 of the Treaty of Trianon and the analysis of the merits of the proceedings and of the bodies to which it was addressed indicates rather an attitude of probing and speculative attempts to resolve this issue from a subjective point of view. All the more, however, the consistency and tenacity of the Hungarian side should be noted, an aspect highlighted by the way in which the litigation is brought, beyond the failures suffered, before new bodies and changing the legal framework and philosophy of its complaints. Thus, in December 1923 the several hundred electors, with the support and guidance of the Budapest government, resumed their notification, but this time invoking art. 250 of the treaty and addressing the Romanian-Hungarian Joint Tribunal [24], the heads of claim remaining mainly the same. This, despite the fact that, in principle, the issue had been settled since 1919, at the time of the discussions on art. 250 of the Treaty of Trianon, invoked since 1923 by Hungary after the failure of the already exposed actions carried out between 1921 and 1923. In short, during the discussions regarding the legal regime of the options prior to the peace treaties and which were the basis of art. 250, referring to the texts on Hungarian options according to which persons exercising the right of option are free to retain their real estate, the Czechoslovak delegation somehow anticipating the future position of the Hungarian options and Hungary in this matter, had requested a supplement, namely the circumstance of the right preservation of property provided that such property is subject to the same regime as the property of Czechoslovak subjects. In other words, the disavowal of a condition of positive discrimination of foreigners - Hungarian optants, in relation to nationals. Czechoslovakia's proposal was rejected on the grounds that it was redundant, meaning that all property on its territory would have the same legal regime without preferences. Obviously, this perspective, established by the Commission of the New States itself, a body of the Paris Peace Conference [25], could not but be applied similarly in the case of Romania. The conflict, obviously of a political nature, could not be debated and resolved by an international court such as the Romanian-Hungarian Joint Arbitration Tribunal, all the more so as, as has already been shown, expropriation is an internal matter where specific cases they can be settled exclusively by the national courts. In addition, the dispute arising from the applicants' claims exceeded the material jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, which had no jurisdiction in matters of land. As the plaintiff was an exceptional court closely linked to the proof of direct and personal interest, the plaintiffs were only the Hungarian electors, and not all of them, and not the Hungarian Government, which, however, strongly supported them. Disregarding the inadmissibility of the complaints due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Romanian-Hungarian Joint Arbitration Tribunal, as a consequence the solutions to be pronounced could not produce legal effects regarding the Hungarian government or the optants who had not filed such complaints. Despite the limited and exclusive jurisdiction, with the vote of the Hungarian judge and its President, in January 1927 the Romanian-Hungarian Joint Arbitration Tribunal declared itself competent and requested the Romanian side to submit conclusions on the merits, which led to the Romanian judge's withdrawal from the cases. on the ground of usurpation of power by the General Court by the exercise of a right which had not been conferred on it by jurisdiction. Consequently, the activity of the Romanian-Hungarian Joint Arbitration Tribunal was suspended with reference to these cases, given the right of the parties to stop the activity of the

= ISSN 2285-0171 ISSN-L=2285-0171 Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica - Volume 10. Issue 1/2021 - http://juridica.ugb.ro/ - Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU court if it finds an excess of power on the part of the court, provided that this happens before sentences but also the fact that the Tribunal, through the position of the Hungarian judge and its president, refused at the request of the Romanian party to rule on the differences between the liquidation, for which the tribunal was competent and expropriation, a legal operation that did not enter within the jurisdiction of this court. Being in this blockade, after more than 7 years from its generation, the issue of the Hungarian optants is put back on the wallpaper of the League of Nations, this time at the request of Romania which, in good faith and in the spirit of reconciling Romanian-Hungarian relations, invoking art . 11, para. (2) The Covenant of the League of Nations under which the members of the League of Nations may amicably draw the attention of the Assembly or the Council to any circumstances which are likely to affect international relations and which threaten to disturb the peace, or good understanding between nations, on which it depends. peace. The Council of the League of Nations instructs a Committee of Three composed of the delegate of Great Britain, Chile and Japan to analyze the issues and arguments of the parties. Based on the consultation of 6 of the greatest international law specialists of the time, of different nationalities and their unanimous opinions, the Committee draws up a report with the main conclusions, of course accompanied by legal arguments which exclude the privilege requested by Hungarian electors. it is that they can be subjects of the agrarian reform under the condition of not being subjected to situations of inequality in relation to the Romanians, an aspect not only respected but also invoked by the Romanian side. In addition, the report clarifies the terms of seizure and liquidation, as measures prohibited by art. 250 of the Treaty of Trianon invoked by the Hungarian options, as prohibited operations if they are carried out in the territories annexed to the successor states as discriminatory measures related exclusively to the criterion of Hungarian nationality of owners, which was not the case under the 1921 Agrarian Reform national law of the Kingdom of Romania and regardless of the ethnicity of the owners. The agreement in this regard, under the auspices of which the Romanian-Hungarian Arbitral Tribunal was to resume its activity, was agreed by the Romanian side and voted unanimously by the League of Nations Council but not agreed by the Hungarian side which requested an opinion of the Permanent Court of International Justice. The conflict thus remains unresolved and in order to unblock the activity of the Romanian-Hungarian Arbitral Tribunal in March 1928, it is proposed and voted by the Council of the League of Nations to supplement the composition of the Tribunal with two neutral judges. This time Romania opposes the solution invoking two aspects: the intransigence of Hungary to accept all these years the already existing reports and points of view and on the other hand the fact that not enlarging the composition of the Tribunal is the solution, with three or 5 members. only in respect of liquidations and not in respect of expropriations or, the ad-hoc acceptance of the Court's settlement of the issue of expropriation would mean the assimilation of this legal operation, which is a matter of domestic law and constitutes an exercise of sovereignty, with prohibited by the Treaty. 2.2.4. Vienna, The Hague and Paris: centers of power for the Hungarian optants procedure. Another stage is consumed without result in direct negotiations between the Kingdom of Romania and Hungary, negotiations that took place in Vienna in 1929 following the recommendations of the Council of the League of Nations. The conflict was finally resolved at the Hague Conference in January 1930, with agreements concluded on that occasion taking final form in April 1930 in Paris. Hungary and Romania ratified the Paris Agreements in May 1930. The two agreements were based on the complaints of Hungarian candidates in Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia and regulated issues of agrarian reform and joint arbitral tribunals, namely the establishment, operation and supply of the fund. from which to make payments generated by expropriations. From the perspective of the Romanian side, the solution was both politically satisfactory, as privileges granted to foreigners in relation to its citizens were not allowed and implicitly recognized the Agrarian Reform of 1921 as legitimate, in accordance with international law thus not infringing its sovereignty by lacking of applicability on its territory of the laws in relation to foreign citizens as well as financially, because Romania did not have to pay additional amounts from the state budget over those already approved within the agrarian reform. The agrarian fund thus established was established with a value of 219,500,000 gold crowns and was funded by: property rents, not collected by the former applicants, provided by Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, part of the annuities owed by Hungary as compensation for war to Belgium, France, Japan, Great Britain and Portugal for the period 1931-1943, part of the war reparations, amounting to 6,100,000 gold crowns due to Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia from the payments that Hungary was to make to the Allies between 1944-1966, as well as other annuities from contributions from England, France, Italy. It is also interesting that, within the agreements, Hungary tried to annul the sentences of the arbitrary- mixed courts given in favor of Romanian or Czechoslovak citizens who suffered abusive liquidations on the territory of Hungary and to whom, according to the sentences, Hungary was to pay compensation. The agreements were satisfactory for Romania not only for the reasons already stated but also for the fact that by creating the fund, it replaces Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia in all land disputes, the three states

= ISSN 2285-0171 ISSN-L=2285-0171 Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica - Volume 10. Issue 1/2021 - http://juridica.ugb.ro/ - Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU being exempt from any future responsibilities. he agreements also satisfy the Hungarian optants who receive additional allowances based on the Superfeeding of the Fund through the mechanisms shown above but also Hungary which is relieved of the obligations to pay annuities as war compensation, payments which are staggered in order to fund the Fund for their allocation as payment for their own citizens. When it seemed that the problems of the electors finally found a solution, the black clouds of the biggest modal conflagration gather on Romania, and the consequences of the Second World War are catastrophic for our country. Soviet-born Judeo-Communism threw the country into the arms of communist terror, and Hungary solved in its own way the problem of the optants, but also the process of the colonists, another method of denationalizing the Romanians in Transylvania.

3. The process of the colonists

Another process, but which did not enjoy the attention, especially of the press, is the process of the colonists [26]. Out of the desire to urgently plan the denationalization of the Transylvanian Romanians, the Hungarian government passed, starting with 1880, to the colonization of the Hungarians and through a small number of Germans, on the territories massively inhabited by Romanians. In 1909, the Minister of Agriculture Darányi drafted a bill by which the Hungarian government supported with 10 million crowns annually, for 12 years, the colonization of the Hungarians in Transylvania [27]. To support this policy, several banks are created, exempt from stamp duties, some taxes to financially support the colonizations, through loans granted. Such banks were: the Hungarian Land Loan (1871), the Small Owners Loan (1879), the Credit Union (1898), the Hungarian Royal Association of Credit Institutions, also called the Altruistic Bank, established in 1911 with a capital of 15 million. crowns. Through these banks, properties were bought in Someş, Deva, Hunedoara, Mureş, Arad, Cluj, Caraş-Severin, in total 7,524 lots, which totaled 91,000 ha [28]. The settlers brought received lots of 24 jugs, for the value of 7940 gold crown. Of this amount, the settler had to pay 1,000 crowns before taking possession of the land. In the first year he paid 2% interest on the amount, in the second year 3% and in the following years for 50 years 324 crowns each year. The vast majority of the colonists paid the Hungarian government out of the 7,940 crowns, until 1918, 5,546 crowns, and the Romanian government until the legislation of the agrarian reform 1,292 crowns and had to pay another 1,102 crowns [29]. The expropriation of the settlers is enshrined in law by Article 10 which specifies that the lots of those colonized after January 1, 1885 will be expropriated up to the limit set in the region [30]. This article from law no. 93 of July 30, 1921 is supplemented by another law of November 21, 1921 which specifies that all acts concluded by the Hungarian government on the territory annexed by the Kingdom of Romania after December 1, 1918, acts of any kind that had a legal right, but are null and void. were not registered in the land books or if they were registered this happened after December 1, 1918, without the consent of the royal government or the Governing Council, also all the properties that were entered in the land books, but not by the royal government Romanian, regains possession of it, without paying any compensation. [31]. According to this law, the lands given to the colonists re-enter the possession of the Romanian state, because the Romanian state takes over all the territories and obligations of the Hungarian state, according to the Treaty of Trianon, entering the possession of the Romanian state 1,102,163 arable lands and forest Transylvania [32], but also because these territories were listed in the land register as the property of the Hungarian state [33]. Following the legislation and implementation of this law in early 1922, in Lugoj, Dr. Sulyok István set up a special office for the defense of settlers. The law, again, was applied preferentially, in some cases, the settlers had 4-7 jugs per family, 4-7 jugs per person or were completely expropriated, but following the irrevocable decision of the courts, each the settler had 4 jugs left and those who paid in full the 50 jugs, respectively the 7,940 crowns. Following the consultation and with the support of the Hungarian Party, the lawyer Tornya Gyula from Ciacova, Timiş County, submitted a petition to the Council of the League of Nations on February 18, 1925 on behalf of the colonies: Babşa, Balint, Bodofalva, Cara, Detrehem, Ferihaz, Ludoşul de Mure, Mănăştur, Moşniţa, Târgovişte, Viţa, Zenta-Nouă and 24 other unspecified colonies from Transylvania and Banat [34]. The petition includes three complaints: - Violation of the Treaty on Minorities, by Article 10 of the Agrarian Law, as they are former Hungarian citizens; - The indemnity in exchange for which they were expropriated is too small; - by Law 172 of November 1921, the Romanian state would have taken possession of their lands without paying any compensation. Nicolae Titulescu, in his speech to the Society Council, states that of the 26 established colonies, only 8 are prior to 1900, many colonies were founded in 1904, 1906 or after 1911 and the total price of the colonies is 11,300,000 gold crowns. Making a calculation, he observes that the settlers would have paid for the 41,661 pogoans only 13% of the total amount, ie 1,469,000 gold crowns. The settlers instead lose 60% of the total area, for which they receive the rent offered

= ISSN 2285-0171 ISSN-L=2285-0171 Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica - Volume 10. Issue 1/2021 - http://juridica.ugb.ro/ - Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU by the state, they stay with the houses built by the Hungarian state and for the 16,250 jugs, ie the remaining 40%, they pay nothing. By reducing the possession of the 2,000 settlers, 134,000 peasants became owners in their villages, including Hungarian peasants [35]. After the notification of the Romanian government, the answer to the Hungarian petition is formulated by I. Gh. Duca, Minister of Foreign Affairs, who presents the character and purpose of the colonizations from 1885 onwards, the fact that as long as the Hungarian colonists worked 15- 25 days, in many cases they did not own any jugs and, in order to satisfy their demands, the colonists were expropriated up to the limit of the standard lot in the region. The debate on the petition began on June 11, 1925, with the meeting being chaired by Mello Franco, Brazil's representative to the League of Nations, who read out the letter from Romania's new representative, Nicolae Titulescu. The letter specifies that the Romanian government has stopped the expropriation of settlers since March 1925 and assures that it will not resume it until the Council issues a decision in this regard. Following the talks resumed in September 1925, Nicolae Titulescu assures that the Romanian state will compensate those dispossessed of the land and in addition to this amount will pay another 700,000 Swiss francs, ie 28 million lei, of which 1,000 lei went to each jug, in addition to the 700-1000 lei per jug that belonged to each expropriated [36]. The Hungarians keep screaming and meowing, crying for the territories they lost because of the Trianon. After all, who lost to Trianon? Where is the Romanian ethnic border in the west? Those who militate unconsciously for the "autonomy" or federalization of Romania must be reminded of certain information and for this we will even use statistical data strictly of Hungarian origin. Romanians and other ethnic groups on the current territory of Hungary have suffered an aggressive forced Hungarianization. How has Hungarianization evolved since the liberation of Pannonia from the Turks by the Austrians? In 1715 in present- day Budapest, then Offen, 55.6% of Germans and only 19.4% of Hungarians and Hungarians were registered (about 25% were Slavs and Romanians), so that in 1891 only 23.7% of Germans remained in time. that Hungarians and Hungarians reach almost 46.1%! Between 1880 and 1890 the ethnic structure of Deva evolved as follows: Hungarians and Hungarians increased by 29.9%, Romanians increased by 21.2% and Germans decreased by 67.7%! However, all this and more than that is not the subject of the present study. Let us return, and follow, further, the way of resolving (liquidating) the consequences of the agrarian reforms in the successor states of Hungary, by establishing joint arbitral tribunals.

4. Establishment of joint arbitral tribunals to resolve (liquidate) the consequences of agrarian reforms in the successor states of Hungary

Understanding and explaining the role given to the Romanian-Hungarian joint arbitral tribunals that were established and functioned in this context in the 1930s and the consequences of the sentences thus pronounced and implemented require consideration of the politico-diplomatic approach and international documents that have them. constituted the legal basis. Thus, the Final Act of the Hague Conference of 1930 stated that its purpose was to "hasten the settlement of matters arising from the war" in the face of debt, including those incumbent on Hungary under the Treaty of Trianon. For its part, the preamble to the four agreements on the obligations arising from the Treaty of Trianon stated that they were intended to "completely and definitively settle the question of the financial obligations incumbent on Hungary under the Treaty of Trianon, the Armistice of 3 November 1918, of all the complementary conventions that have arisen between Hungary or the Hungarian subjects, on the one hand, and certain Powers or their subjects, on the other hand” [37]. Consistent with such general positions, the Preamble to the Second Agreement on matters relating to agrarian reform and joint arbitral tribunals contains some important clarifications on the legal solution to the compromise reached diplomatically, expressed in the 1930 agreements on the issue of "complaints by Hungarian subjects against Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, following the implementation of agrarian reforms in these countries and based on Article 250 of the Treaty of Trianon”. The contentious case concerned "pending proceedings before the Joint Arbitral Tribunal provided for in the Treaty" and others of the same kind that could arise. As a preliminary point, it was mentioned that the three Governments concerned (Romanian, Czechoslovak and Yugoslav) "if they are willing to conclude this Agreement in a spirit of conciliation in order to eliminate the ongoing discussions with the Hungarian Government, formally declare that from this in fact, it could not turn out that they recognize the legitimate claims, no matter how small, ”. On the contrary, they understood to reserve "formally" their point of view, by law "and could not be taken into account in any new action or complaint"; also, it could not be interpreted "as a waiver (abandonment) of the rights that Romanian, Czechoslovak and Yugoslav subjects directly possess under the Treaty of Trianon for any deeds whose settlement is not covered by the agreements concluded today." As a conclusion on the nature

= ISSN 2285-0171 ISSN-L=2285-0171 Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica - Volume 10. Issue 1/2021 - http://juridica.ugb.ro/ - Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU of the act of settling the disputes thus generated, it was stated that „Responding to the call of the friendly Powers not interested in these discussions, the three governments wanted to show their good will to reconcile and their desire for peace.” For its part, the Hungarian Government states that it "maintains, from a legal point of view, the position it has previously taken on these matters" and understands that it agrees to this Agreement with the same "desire for conciliation and peace". It was further stated that "This Arrangement could not be construed as a waiver of the rights which the Hungarian subjects possess, after the Hungarian Government, directly under the Treaty of Trianon for any acts the rules of which do not it is covered by the Agreements concluded today ". From the point of view of international law, the whole political-diplomatic operation of "complete and definitive" settlement of debt issues arising from the Treaty of Trianon in general and those related to the consequences of agrarian reform in particular appears as a transaction which, in the name of resolving the issue of debts arising from the war meant a simultaneous and reciprocal waiver, in whole or in part, of the claims made by the parties involved. Therefore, the law thus recognized Romania's sovereign right to legislate and implement agrarian reform, reaffirming the legal validity of the Chamberlain Report. In fact, and in the spirit of conciliation, it yielded in the sense of setting up the "agrarian fund" fed by expropriation rents, annuities of reparations due by Hungary between 1931 and 1936, as well as certain contributions from England, France and Italy, forming a total amount of 219,500,000 gold crowns, from which the sentences in the agrarian trials, handed down by the arbitral tribunals, were reorganized and reorganized and with a new legal status, having in its composition five members, of which two in The Hague (not three as provided for in Article 239 of the Treaty of Trianon). Through all these conventions, protocols and arrangements, "In the spirit of international solidarity, of maintaining good relations with neighboring Hungary and of consolidating the prestige of the League of Nations, Romania, which had every right to its side, gave in to this transaction" [38]. According to Agreement II, as a general rule "the defendant's responsibilities in all proceedings brought before January 20, 1930 by Hungarian subjects before joint tribunals against Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia over agrarian reforms" fell exclusively to a Fund, said „Agrarian Fund" (art. 1); it was endowed with legal personality, had financial autonomy and completely replaced the three states in the respective processes (art. 2). The same was done with the trials that the Hungarian subjects could still bring against Romania, regarding the agrarian reform, before the joint arbitral tribunals, based on an act of seizure or disposition prior to January 20, 1930, specifying that all these trials they could only be filed against the Agrarian Fund, „Romania being out of the case” [art. 1 para. (1)]. Actions brought before January 20, 1930, were considered ex officio to be directed against the Agrarian Fund. The sentences were to be given and executed, in case of conviction, exclusively against this Fund, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia being exempted from any present and future liability for the said trials (art. 3). The sentences were submitted, as they were given, to the Agrarian Fund Management Commission. The organization and functioning of the Agrarian Fund were provided for in Agreement III. It should be noted that in these cases the joint arbitral tribunals did not have jurisdiction to rule on differences of principle between the parties concerned, in particular to interpret Article 250 of the Trianon Treaty, being required to rule and justify their judgments exclusively. under Agreement II and to allocate to the applicants, where appropriate, an indemnity against the Fund (Article 7). Finally, the payments allocated by virtue of the various allocations regulated in art. 6 extinguished the "total right of the beneficiaries". This was the general legal framework in which the Romanian-Hungarian joint arbitral tribunal acted, having as object the claim of the Hungarian optator Ludovic (Louis) Kendeffy. In order to resolve the issue of entitling the Kendeffy heirs to request and obtain the restitution of the areas related to the Retezat National Park, the fundamental question was raised and the answer was given by Nicolae Titulescu [39]. This is, in particular, the question of what were, after the peace treaties of 1919-1920, headed by the Treaty of Trianon (June 4, 1920), the rights of Hungarian optants and subjects in matters of land ownership and, consequently, which could possibly benefit their legitimate descendants [40]. From the beginning, as the great Romanian jurist and diplomat remarked in the indicated source, the agrarian dispute could be resolved only within the “general liquidation of the mutual obligations of the Treaty of Trianon”. Hungary's attempts to resort to the arbitration of the Council of the League of Nations under the Covenant were doomed to failure, and the personal efforts of all landowners in Transylvania opting for Hungarian citizenship suffered the same fate. Regarding the first perspective, it is noteworthy, as N. Titulescu did in 1931, regarding the litigation caused by Hungary on March 15, 1923, that the League Pact enshrined the principle of voluntary arbitration, stating that the parties could bring to arbitration the differences that, in the opinion were subject to arbitral settlement and this in view of the provisions of the Treaty of Trianon and the generally accepted rules of international law then in force. Therefore, as parties to the above-mentioned treaty, there is only one compromise between Romania and Hungary, that of creating joint arbitral tribunals, competent for war settlements.

= ISSN 2285-0171 ISSN-L=2285-0171 Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica - Volume 10. Issue 1/2021 - http://juridica.ugb.ro/ - Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU By accepting the Council's arbitration at Budapest's request, Bucharest had agreed to grant as its sole and exclusive competence the settlement of the dispute as to whether the Hungarian subjects were entitled only to equality with the Romanians or a right, as they claimed, to preferential treatment. Therefore, Romania rightly considered that it had fulfilled its obligations, presenting to the court the reasons why it considered it incompetent. In her opinion, rejecting this exception, she committed an excess of power and did not limit herself to asserting it, but immediately notified the Council of the League of Nations by virtue of art. II par. 2 of the Covenant, not to ask him to ascertain, as N. Titulescu himself remarked, what was in law useless, but to explain to the international opinion her gesture “what, in morality, was necessary”. Therefore, our country was not legally obliged to accept a new court to find excess of power and proved this, all the more so as “the privilege was removed by the very declaration of Hungary in 1920 and it could not be argued that Romania has failed to fulfill its obligations to international arbitration when, free from any contractual agreement, it refused, 10 years after the agrarian reform, to disrupt its social order to ask the Hague Court whether peace treaties were granted to its subjects. Hungarians more than Hungary itself asked for at the peace conference? ” Last but not least, it was emphasized that, when the Report of Sir Austen Chamberlain of September 1927, wanted the joint tribunal to resume its activity, but based on the principle of equality between foreigners and nationals, Romania accepted such arbitration. At the same time, in 1924, the opting Hungarian subjects brought before the arbitral tribunals their claims in the agrarian matter, after they had been judged before the Romanian courts, thus recognizing their competence! Romania's resistance to referring the issue of its agrarian reform to the Hungarian options, fully justified by a foreign court, was "exploited by those concerned as evidence of our lack of international spirit and hostility to arbitration" and In the end, as some Hungarian officials would admit, the whole cause of the optants was used by Hungary to maintain a problem in international attention [41]. But, as N. Titulescu would conclude, “the numerous arbitration agreements entered into by Romania, especially with Hungary in The Hague and Paris in 1930, and Romania's accession to the mandatory jurisdiction of art. 36 of the Statute of the Hague Court, destroyed the legend of our hostility to arbitration, if it had somehow come into being”. In conclusion, the entire legal issue of Hungarian optants and their claims in agricultural matters was resolved and settled according to the transaction made under and under the conditions established by the 1930 agreements. Analysis of the situation of Hungarian optants' claims from the perspective of applicable international and domestic law imposes the following conclusions: - the correct solution of the problem to the assessment presupposes, as a preliminary point, a necessary delimitation and an appropriate correlation of the relevant notions and rules of domestic and international law that are (apparently) in competition and in the given context; - the regulation of expropriation for reasons of public and social utility and peasant ownership - related to the agrarian reform in Romania at the end of the First World War - presented major socio-historical features and was an exclusively internal problem, without any external involvement, competence sovereignty of national law; - in the absence of an arbitration compromise, the issue of legal regulation and the concrete application of agrarian reform vis-à-vis Hungarian options could not be brought before a foreign court; by the Treaty of Trianon the only compromise stipulated concerned the creation of joint arbitral tribunals competent to settle war settlements. He therefore legitimately and legally opposed fully justified resistance to Hungary's attempts to refer the matter to the Council of the League of Nations (under Article II, para. 2 of the Covenant) or to those of the Hungarian electors to invest. joint arbitral tribunals with such cases; - the Hague Agreements of 20 January 1930, finalized in Paris on 28 April 1930, resulted in a political-diplomatic settlement of the financial consequences of the peace treaties, including those of the Treaty of Trianon, at 10 years since their conclusion. Thus, an original formula was used - the creation of the agrarian fund, an entity with international legal personality - which subrogated Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia or Romania to the agreed obligations to meet the demands of the agrarian reforms raised by the opting Hungarian subjects. In this way, as N. Titulescu appreciated in 1931, the "question of the optants" became "definitively closed by the Hague and Paris agreements", "a page of history, destined to be researched without passion, in the simple desire to understand more good past and to draw, if possible, an education for the future”. It is worth noting that the results of the 1921 agrarian reform in Transylvania, including the Hungarian optants, as they were legislated internally and enshrined in the 1930 Hague and Paris agreements, are fully, definitively and forever won over to law and order. remaining in history and can no longer be questioned by anyone and in any form. Any attempt, however punctual and/or partial, would amount to an inadmissible and unfounded review; it would resort to artifices foreign to good faith and the science of law, putting norms and interpretations in temporal conflict and of legal order, judging and rewriting history, disturbing legal relations entered long and definitively in the juridical- practical circuit in consensus with the evolution of time. The international transaction through the international agreements of 1931 only extinguished the claims generated by the application of the Treaty of Trianon and liquidated the debts resulting from the peace

= ISSN 2285-0171 ISSN-L=2285-0171 Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica - Volume 10. Issue 1/2021 - http://juridica.ugb.ro/ - Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU treaties of Paris of 1919–1920. The legal basis of the agrarian reform in Transylvania, Banat, Crișana and Maramureș, regulated by the law of July 30, 1921, was a pre-constitutional one, related to the right to self- determination and an inseparable part of the union of this province with the Kingdom of Romania. As it results from Chapter I, art. 1 of the respective normative act, “Justification and expropriation measure” is declared “the right of the expropriation state for a cause of public utility” and its measure “in accordance with point 5 of art. 3 of the resolution of the National Assembly of all Romanians from Transylvania, Banat, Crișana and Maramureș, gathered by their representatives entitled to Alba-Iulia, on November 18 - December 1, 1918 and having as starting point the decree-law no. 3,911 1919, voted by the Grand National Council”. The text of the act of self-determination spoke of "radical agrarian reform", the confiscation of all properties, especially large properties and, based on it, the abolition of trusts, against rural lands having as „guiding principle”, „on the one hand promoting social leveling , on the other hand, the potentiation of production”. As remarked by Prof. Victor Onișor, the first head of the department of Romanian law history at the Romanian University of Cluj, unlike the other two self-determination decisions of 1918 of the Romanians - from Chisinau and Chernivtsi, respectively - the Alba Iulia Resolution „clearly emphasizes the inalienable right of the Romanian people over this land” [42]. As a principle, „expropriation affects (a) property without regard to the quality of the owner, his legal capacity or the character of the expropriated property" (point 2). The valuation was carried out according to the provisions of the law and the Regulation for its application of November 4, 1921, and for the financing of all operations deriving from the application of the law for agrarian reform, Banca Agrară S.A. was established on behalf of the state. privileged from Cluj. In the interwar Romanian doctrine it was considered and argued that “the people of Transylvania, after the declaration of union with the Kingdom of Romania on December 1, 1918, by the decision of the Grand National Assembly of Alba-Iulia, became the owner of Transylvania and therefore the National Assembly of Alba-Iulia in point 5 of art. III of the resolution declared the right of the state of expropriation for the cause of public utility”. Based on the decision of December 21, 1918, the Board of Directors, “under no. 3632 issued a decree, according to which the Decree-law no. 3911 of September 10, 1919, regarding the agrarian reform”. And also such an agrarian reform had been made several times, in the nineteenth century by the Hungarian and Austrian authorities, who were succeeded by the Governing Council as a representative of the people. At the same time, “according to the common law of Transylvania, the holy Crown was the root of all rights. The domination of the Holy Crown over Transylvania following the free will of the people ceased, all rights returned to the people, ie all lands are at the disposal of the people, ie the state, made up of the people living on that territory [43]. The reasoning was simple and logical: the land is the exclusive property of the people that make up the state, so the expropriation by the state, ie by the people for the sake of public, national utility is always justified, legitimate. In addition, the author remarks, with value and significance valid until today, the Transylvanian agrarian law of July 30, 1921, taking over the constitutional principle according to which "only Romanians and naturalized Romanians can acquire for any reason and owns rural real estate in Romania". "Rural buildings to remain in the hands of the people of Transylvania, and if an owner would like to sell they can sell it only to the people of Transylvania and not to foreigners” [44]. So, unlike the agrarian reform in the Old Kingdom, adopted by virtue of a simple law as an expression of an act of sovereign political will, for exclusively socio-economic reasons, Transylvania was an inseparable part of the act of self-determination of Transylvanian Romanians, it presupposed a transfer of sovereignty of the territory as a constitutive element of the unitary national state, and the expropriation of the Hungarian optants meant the application of the unanimously admitted principle according to which only Romanians or naturalized ones can acquire rural real estate in Romania. Understood in this way, the agrarian reform of 1921 regarding the expropriation of agricultural and forestry lands owned by Hungarian electors appeared as a true transfer of sovereignty to Romania, as a state successor by law and fact that can not be "reconstituted" today in any way - both legislative, all the less by court decision -, which would be equivalent to a denial of sovereignty, contravening the constitutive act of the Romanian unitary state and its fundamental law. Several conclusions can be drawn with the force of peremptory findings. The validity of the agrarian reform law of 1921 cannot be questioned; it was considered in conformity with the Treaty of Trianon and democratic principles of law by the judgment of the League of Nations in the proceedings initiated by Hungary (1923- 1930) in the form of the so-called trial of the Hungarian electors and, as such, compensation awarded in a non- discriminatory manner. respectively normative - for Romanian optants and citizens - as representing a fair and sufficient compensation [45]. Allowances recalculated and subsequently granted to Hungarian electors, under the Agreements concluded at the Hague Conference and concluded here on 20 January 1940 and in Paris on 28 April 1930 (on the settlement of war debts), including the Agreements on obligations under the Treaty of Trianon (ratified by Romania by the law of June 7, 1930) by the establishment of the Agrarian Fund were the result of an international transaction and looked exclusively at the capitalization of claims, as an act of

= ISSN 2285-0171 ISSN-L=2285-0171 Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica - Volume 10. Issue 1/2021 - http://juridica.ugb.ro/ - Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU international law. The pertinent analysis of the legal meanings of these complex operations, which combines institutions and perspectives of domestic and international law that should be capitalized in the evaluation of today's Romanian legislation and the settlement of related lawsuits, especially those pending, was masterfully made by Nicolae Titulescu in the Preface quoted above. From this point of view, as a matter of principle, as regards the reconstitution of property rights in favor of the descendants of Hungarian optants in Transylvania in general and those of Count L. Kendeffy in particular, it is legally impossible in nature, given that obviously a such a solution blatantly contradicts the preconstitutional principle associated with the right to self- determination and the conditioning of the annexation of Transylvania to the Kingdom of Romania, expressed in art. III point 5 of the Resolution of Alba-Iulia of December 1, 1918; they, like their authors, can enjoy, at most in theory, a right of claim (expressed in due compensation), if and only if and to the extent that the conditions of the 1921 Agrarian Reform Act and the The Hague and Paris since 1930, according to the decisions of the Romanian-Hungarian joint tribunals and there is a rule in force in this regard. Under the 1930 agreements and in the Paris joint tribunals - the issue of obligations under the Trianon Treaty - the claims of Hungarian candidates from the former Czechoslovakia and the former Yugoslavia were also resolved, with the two successor states refusing arbitration by the League of Nations, but accepting the formula mixed courts. In the Czech Republic, Slovakia and the successor states of the former Yugoslavia after 1989, no restitutions in kind or equivalent to expropriated rural property in the context of the effects of the First World War were not made by law or admitted by court. Such conclusions reveal the real legal challenges and shed light on the stakes of all post-1989 property rights reconstitution policies and legislation, which have taken on specific expressions and implications for Transylvania. Indeed, by what law and by virtue of which legal basis a judge of today could contravene art. III point 5 of the Resolution of the Grand Assembly of Alba Iulia? This would not mean, de facto and de jure, not so much a restitution of an area of land in Transylvania, not so much (to the descendants) of Count Ludovic Kendeffy, but, implicitly and especially, to Austria-Hungary before 1918 and Hungary of today? Is a political, administrative or judicial authority, of whatever rank, competent to order the retrocession, in reality the transfer, of a party to a foreign state, no matter how small, and invoking any legal imagination? We try to give the answer in the concluding formulations that will conclude the second part of our paper.

Conclusions

Such themes, no matter how clear we are, always remain open to our deepest meditation. This has been the case in the world since the beginning of time. Inequality, injustice, chances for some, chances for others. If the Hungarians found it appropriate and the imbecile, corrupt and Romanian mafia state agreed to "return" property or real estate based on documents from the 16th century, why shouldn't we ask what is ours in Hungary? Romanians have the right and to demand back the churches and other properties stolen and denationalized by the Hungarian state! Do you want a Hungarian enclave in Romania? Then we want Romania to extend as it should to the Tisza! Through our nationalism, we Romanians respect all nations, all peoples , because we are all called to salvation, and the right to language, access to one's own culture, to education, to development, to association, to free conscience is respected by all. We consider that, at the moment, we enjoy these rights abundantly. all Romanian citizens, regardless of nationality, all we ask for in return is mutual respect, fidelity and respect for the laws of the Romanian State, the state that offers all these rights. listed above. And we will be able to build our prosperity in a memorable way, changing mentalities and changing, at some point, even the people in charge of the Country with others more competent and raised in the spirit of the common good and the national interest far above personal interest. It is not the organizational systems that are always the solution, but the quality of the people who put them into practice. This is our main belief. In this process of changing mindsets, the positive example of the forerunners is important. Unfortunately, the desire for domination of the Hungarian elite prevented this agreement of the Hungarians with the Romanians, and the Romanians had to defend their right to existence with a gun in hand, triggering a real war of national liberation. We hope that our Hungarian brothers today will understand even now that this current political "elite" of theirs, this time with the so-called "Romanian political elite", pursues the same goal of division between us and the satisfaction of our own interests. This research is proof that I have continued to give time for reflection to all readers, lawyers will be disrespectful, even if disproportionately (in favor of the former), believing that he would be the first in a long chain of professions practicing in -an honest way to honor it by contributing, in its own way, to finding out the truth about Hungarian electors and establishing justice. Being aware of this, respectively that the profession does not have to identify with the passions, in order to avoid the risk that all my energy is taken over by the field of law, I approached the subject in a multi or even transdisciplinary way. Especially now, when the

= ISSN 2285-0171 ISSN-L=2285-0171 Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica - Volume 10. Issue 1/2021 - http://juridica.ugb.ro/ - Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU COVID-19 epidemic has called into question the viability of the democratic and representative government that we Romanians have been exercising for about 30 years. It seems that too easily we give up our rights for fear of a virus that, without a doubt, kills some of those infected. Up to a point, I can understand this fear. I also began to feel it, but without being very sure if it is one related to the fact that I could get sick or that my rights and freedoms could be reduced to ashes under the fire of law reform in the direction of diminishing my status as a citizen. . This situation reminds me of the ideas of the American historian Timothy Snyder, who, in an essay on tyranny, observed the following: “Much of the power that authoritarianism comes to possess is given to it voluntarily. In times like the present, people anticipate the future desires of a more repressive government, after which they meet them on their own initiative. A citizen who adapts to the situation thus shows the state power how far it can go. "Writing about tyranny, Snyder introduces a frightening category for anyone who sincerely loves his rights and freedoms: that of anticipatory obedience. Willing or not let's face it, we've all tasted this product at some point, either in a relationship with a despotic boss or in a relationship with a state authority, and the most common symptom of this type of obedience is the defeatist attitude. which we embrace, if only so as not to complicate our daily lives, to remain in comfort or simply so as not to risk our lives being extraordinarily explored. our rights are mocked because we simply want to be left alone, and at least most of the political regimes that have degenerated have relied on such an attitude. from a democratic government to an authoritarian one and then to a totalitarian one. And once this last point is reached, it becomes commonplace to terrorize a blasé population, which has become accustomed to repeated violations of individual rights and freedoms. Cultural and legislative brutality, cumulated with political terrorism, social terrorism and cultural terrorism endanger the biological fund of the Romanian nation is in great danger, or as Gheorghe Dinică said, „few people, many people! Therefore, the history of Romanians must be learned - today even more than in any other period of human history - because, as ignorance increases, the obstacles to the progress of humanity increase. The degradation of society as a whole and the depths of depravity that have become a standard of morality in the present age have turned the present into a dangerous age. Spirituality practiced by oneself, without guides, will expose us to deceptions and mystifications. We need experienced teachers; only with their help will we escape the traps of history, such as the cursed and unfinished contentious of the Hungarian optants. This soul project was initiated out of the need to put in front of the Romanian public aspects of our history that conditioned even its appearance and development as a nation, in its majority composition, but also together with the over 20 ethnic minorities established in time. in this geographical and spiritual space. Especially since this horizon, this belonging to the huge landscape of human civilizations has been forbidden to us so far, or has not been explicitly brought to our attention. The origins, the branches, the changes that have taken place over time, in a word, the course that has allowed us, all of us, to define ourselves as a nation and to be what we are today, must finally reach us. Because members of other cultures know about us things that we do not know, just as we do not know important things about other human civilizations that we are in contact with, in an increasingly global world. What does "far in time" actually mean, if this "far" has produced even us, today, with our way of thinking? And what does it mean to be neighbors, globalization, identity, borders, resistance, surrender if you don't know who you are, and your own reactions as an entity are in a nebula? The projection that this dictionary can offer on each one has the role, first of all, to open barriers of the mind that we did not even know existed. At least that's what the author thinks, who herself went through the incredible adventure of knowing the most distant past and understood, over time, that there, in its untouchable seeds, hide all the fruits from which the orchards, forests, thickets will have sprung. , but also the midday lights of today's human civilization. So, to you all, this work about who we are, what we are, what and who we can become and even become continuously, whether we want to or not, whether we know or not. The study therefore gives you the right option to know, because this defines even our condition as people, as a nation and our ability to react to any kind of stimuli. It remains for you to judge for yourself, each one, reading about the ways of the past, whether civilization is an option of defense, of crossing the flows of Time, that is, in fact, a way of existence and permanence of us, of all, an image that we can give to other nations, civilizations, worlds, but especially to our descendants of tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. Otherwise, the work was a great challenge, an extraordinary intellectual exercise, at least for me, and the process of Hungarian electors deserves to be very clear, very clear, resumed from scratch, if necessary, even by amending the Constitution and reintroducing the death penalty for the economic genocide caused to the Romanian people. This is because nothing man does is perfect. Everything that is perfect is of another source, of divine origin. Everything that is human is perfectible, and this is what we must do: improve things, if it is in our power. If not, we will disappear from history.

= ISSN 2285-0171 ISSN-L=2285-0171 Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica - Volume 10. Issue 1/2021 - http://juridica.ugb.ro/ - Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU References

[1] Valentin-Stelian Bădescu, The Island of Snakes in the Heart of Romania: The Trial of the Magyar Electors and Other Injustices of the Rogue System, Affected by Serious Generalized Corruption, Part I, Acta Universitatis George Bacovia.Juridica Magazine, Volume 9, Issue 2 / 2020. [2] A forgotten martyrdom: The murder of the Orthodox monasteries in Transylvania, in Formula As, no. 869/2009, taken from the site: ahiva.formula-as.ro/2009/861/spiritualitate-39/un-martiriu-uitat-uciderea-manastirilor- ortodoxe-din-transilvania-10909. [3] Ibidem. [4] As regards Romania, while the USSR showed a direct interest in Bessarabia, the German side declared its total disinterest in this territory and stated that it had no objections to the modification of the USSR's borders on behalf of Romania, by annexing Bessarabia. The additional protocol governing the issue of Bessarabia was classified as top secret by both states. [5] At the end of World War II, arbitration was declared null and void and was de facto annulled by the 1947 Paris Treaties. [6] It covers an area of 43,492 km2 and a total population of 2,609,000, of which, according to the 1930 census, 1,176,900 Romanians, 912,500 Hungarians, 68,300 Germans, 138,800 Jews and 96,800 other ethnic groups. [7] Eduard Robert Rösler (also spelled Roesler; 1836-1874) was a German Bohemian historian. The occupation of Transylvania and then the Union of 1859 determined the Austrian Empire to seek justifications for the occupation and to begin a "scientific struggle against Romanian law", with Rösler among its exponents. His best known work on the history of the Romanians (hence the so-called "Roesler's theory") is Romänische Studien. Untersuchungen zur älteren Geschichte Rumäniens ("Romanian Studies. Research on the Ancient History of the Romanians"), published in 1871 in Leipzig. Rösler continues and develops in this paper the theories of other authors regarding the formation of the Romanian people in regions located in the south of the Danube, without having in support of their arguments any archaeological or historical source. This theory was opposed with scientific arguments by Alexandru D. Xenopol, Dimitrie Onciul, Vasile Pârvan, Nicolae Iorga and other Romanian and foreign historians. [8] Codrin Dumitru Munteanu, A Question of History and International Law in a Current Context of National Security - The Trial of Hungarian Electors in Transylvania, in “Perspectives, Journal of the European Titulescu Foundation, no. 1/2020, pp. 210-254. [9] Ibidem. [10] According to point 8 of the Armistice Convention, the Romanian Government and High Command undertakes not to allow the export or expropriation of any form of property belonging to Germany, Hungary or their nationalities, or to persons residing in their territories, or in the occupied territories. of them, - without the authorization of the Allied (Soviet) High Command. The Government and the Romanian High Command will keep these assets under the conditions to be established by the Allied High Command. [11] The House of Administration and Surveillance of Enemy Goods, had according to art. 2 of the law the following attributions: a) administers the movable and immovable goods, belonging to the persons provided by art. 8 of the Armistice Convention of 12 September 1944, namely the German and Hungarian States, natural and legal persons of German or Hungarian nationality, or persons with residence or headquarters in the territory of Germany or Hungary or in the territories occupied by them; b) Supervises and controls the management of commercial or industrial enterprises, whose capital belongs in a proportion of at least 20% to the persons indicated in point a); c) It will also be able to supervise and control, appointing for this purpose an administrator, also the commercial enterprises that have operated under the undeniable financial control of the persons provided in point a). [12] According to art. 5, 6, these assets had the following regime: Art. 5: German assets of any kind, currently under the control of C.A.S.B.I., as well as those that will be classified as such, come under the control and supervision of the Liquidation Commission of C.A.S.B.I. until the moment of their surrender to the U.R.S.S., according to law no. 182 of 1946. Until their effective handover, in accordance with the provisions of the above-mentioned law, these goods will be administered and preserved by the ministries, to whom they will be handed over by the Liquidation Commission of the C.A.S.B.I. Art. 6 The goods belonging to the Austrian citizens, will remain under the control and supervision of the Liquidation Commission of the C.A.S.B.I., until the regulation of their final situation. These assets will be administered by the ministries to which they will be handed over by the Liquidation Commission of the C.A.S.B.I. or they will be placed in custody. Art. 7 The assets belonging to the Hungarian citizens will be administered by the ministries to which they will be handed over by the Liquidation Commission of the C.A.S.B.I. or they will be placed in custody. The clarification of the legal situation of these goods will be made on the basis of Law no. 333 of 1947. [13] Republished in the Official Gazette, Part I no. 798 of September 2, 2005. [14] Published in the Official Gazette of Romania, part I, no. 78 of April 4, 1945. [15] Published in the Official Gazette of Romania, part I, no. 68 of March 23, 1945. [16] The term refers to real estate belonging to legal persons, so named because they cannot pass from hand to hand like those belonging to natural persons. [17] C. D. Munteanu, op. cit. pp. 240. [18] The excerpts referring to Petru Groza were published in an interview book, “Corneliu Coposu. Dialogues with Vartan Arachelian ”, published by Anastasia Publishing House in Bucharest, in 1991.

= ISSN 2285-0171 ISSN-L=2285-0171 Acta Universitatis George Bacovia. Juridica - Volume 10. Issue 1/2021 - http://juridica.ugb.ro/ - Valentin-Stelian BĂDESCU [19] Petre Pandrea, The Sun of Melancholy - Memoirs, Vremea Publishing House, Bucharest, 2005. [20] For example, buildings returned by the National Agency for the Restitution of Property (ANRP) to the Democratic Forum of Germans in Romania (FDGR) as the successor of the German Ethnic Group (GEG) must return to the Romanian State, because only the Democratic Forum of Germilor din Sibiu (FDGS) was declared in court, by Civil Sentence no. 2790 / 28.05.2007, the heir of the Hitlerites from the German Ethnic Group! The two organizations created after the "revolution" are different and distinct legal entities! The same must happen with the more numerous abusive and illegal restitutions to the Evangelical Church C. A., which also claimed by virtue of the transfer of its entire real estate assets to the German Ethnic Group on August 11, 1942! Then was signed the General Convention on the Regulation of the Relationship between the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession and the German Ethnic Group in Romania, which decided to transfer, voluntarily and on its own initiative, its real estate to the German Ethnic Group. The convention was signed by the bishop of the Evangelical Church C.A., Wilhelm Stäedel and Andreas Schmidt - the leader of the German Ethnic Group in Brasov. [21] Bogdan Antoniu, Mihai-Rudolf Dinu, History of international relations in the 19th - 20th centuries, taken from the website: https://docplayer.es/amp/20834919-Istoria-relatiilor-internationale-in-secolele-xix -xx.html [22] Marian Constantin, Romanian-Hungarian crisis, a diplomatic war of over 10 years, taken from the website: https: //www.historia.ro/sectiune/actualitate/articol/criza-romano-maghiara-un- diplomatic-war-over-10-years [23] The opt-in process took place between 1921 and 1930, when the dispute ended with the Hague and Paris Agreements. The trial has been at the forefront of European diplomacy since the 1920s, before European courts, the League of Nations, the Joint Arbitration Tribunal or the Commission of Three for more than nine years. [24] Joint Arbitral Tribunals are creations of peace treaties conceived as structures that guarantee the defeat of defeated states to the arbitrariness of victorious states in the application of reparations for damage to the civilian population of allied or associated states during war and the liquidation of enemy property and rights in territories ceded by defeated states. The mixed arbitral tribunals, including the Romanian-Hungarian one, consisted of 3 judges, one from each state to which is added the third member, having the function of president, elected by mutual agreement of the governments of the two states. [25] The Paris Peace Conference began its work on 18 January 1919 with the aim of resolving the economic and financial problems of the aftermath of the First World War, discussing in the same context the new political-territorial configurations and a new European order accordingly. as well as the elaboration and signing of peace treaties. [26] Emil Păunescu, George Potra, Nicolae Titulescu-Nicolae Raicoviceanu, The Testimonies of a Friend, Titulescu European Foundation, Bucharest, 2003. See also N. Daşcovici, International Law Course, Goldner Printing House, Iaşi, 1934. [27] Ioana Sărac, Roland Olah, The Agrarian Reform of 1921 and the process of the colonists, taken from the website: http://hiperboreeajournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Nr-12.pdf [28] Idem, pp. 36. [29] Milton G. Lehrer, Transylvania Romanian land, Vatra Românească Publishing House, Cluj Napoca, 1991, p.315-317. [30] Published in the Official Gazette, no. 4.2871921. [31] Published in the Official Gazette, no. 93/1921. [32] D. Şandru, op. cit., p.98. [33] Constatin Argetoianu, Memoirs for tomorrow. Memories from yesterday's time, vol. VII, Machiavelli Publishing House, Bucharest, 1997, pp. 207-211. [34] Aurel Gociman, Romania and Hungarian revisionism, Printing House of the newspaper "Universul", Bucharest, 1934, p. 395. [35] George Macovescu, Nicolae Titulescu - Diplomatic Documents, Politică Publishing House, Bucharest, 1967, p. 185. [36] Ioana Sărac, Roland Olah, op. cit., p. 38. [37] See, for details, Mircea Duțu, Reviewing the “Hungarian Opportunity Trial” against the law and defying history. The case of the Retezat National Park, in the Journal of LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH, year 9 (65), no. 1/2020, pp. 97-123. [38] Ibidem, pp. 116. [39] See, Nicolae Titulescu in the preface to the work of Constantin D. Cutcutache, A great international conflict: The Hungarian Eighties of Transylvania and the agrarian reform in Romania, Semne Publishing House, Bucharest, 2018. [40] M. Duțu, op. cit., pp. 117. [41] Ibidem. [42] Victor Onișor, History of Romanian law, Cluj, 1921, p. 9. [43] N. Kovacs, Transylvanian Agrarian Reform and the Option Process, in “Legal Bulletin”, part II, year III, no. 27–28 / 1936. [44] M. Duțu, op. cit., pp. 121. [45] Idem, pp. 122.

= ISSN 2285-0171 ISSN-L=2285-0171