European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

FORMER THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF CIORCAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

 

(Applications nos. 29414/09 and 44841/09)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

(Revision)

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

17 January 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.




In the case of Ciorcan and Others v. Romania (request for revision of the judgment of 27 January 2015),

The European Court of Human Rights (Former Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

          Luis López Guerra, President,
          Helena Jäderblom,
          Kristina Pardalos,
          Helen Keller,
          Valeriu Griţco,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Iulia Motoc, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 13 December 2016,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in two applications (nos. 29414/09 and 44841/09) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by thirty-seven Romanian nationals (“the applicants”), on 18 May 2009 and 11 August 2009 respectively. The applicants’ details are set out in the table enclosed as an annex to this judgment. The applicants were represented by Mr O.L. Podaru, a lawyer practising in Cluj-Napoca.

2.  In a judgment delivered on 27 January 2015, the Court held that there had been a violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ ill-treatment by State agents and the subsequent failure to conduct an effective investigation into the events. The Court also found a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention on account of the authorities’ failure to take all possible steps to investigate whether or not discrimination may have played a role in the events. The Court decided to award the applicants amounts varying between 6,000 and 7,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and dismissed the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction.

3.  On 27 October 2015 the Government informed the Court that they had learned that Ms Susana Kalanyos had died on 5 March 2012. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.

4.  On 12 January 2016 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicants’ representative six weeks in which to submit any observations. The applicants’ representative did not send those observations within the time-limit set by the Court.

THE LAW

THE REQUEST FOR REVISION

5.  Rule 80 of the Rules of Court states, in so far as relevant, as follows:

“A party may, in the event of the discovery of a fact which might by its nature have a decisive influence and which, when a judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court and could not reasonably have been known to that party, request the Court ... to revise that judgment.

...”

6.  The Government requested revision of the judgment of 27 January 2015, because Ms Susana Kalanyos had died before the judgment had been adopted. They submitted that they became aware of this information on 10 July 2015. In their view, this ought to be considered a fact of decisive influence which was unknown when the judgment was delivered, within the meaning of Rule 80. Furthermore, the applicants’ representative has never informed the Court about Ms Kalanyos’ death or that her heirs expressed their wish to pursue the proceedings on her behalf. Therefore, they asked the Court to strike out the case from its list in respect of the deceased applicant and to amend accordingly the award given under Article 41 of the Convention.

7. The Court considers that the death of the applicant Susana Kalanyos constitutes a fact of “decisive influence” on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 § 1.

8.  The Court further takes note that Ms Susana Kalanyos has died on 5 March 2012, almost three years before the Court adopted its judgment in the current case. However, the applicants’ representative did not inform the Court about this applicant’s death, nor has he indicated whether her legal heirs expressed their wish to pursue the proceedings on her behalf. Furthermore, the Court is prepared to accept that this decisive fact “could not reasonably have been expected to be known to” the Government, who gained knowledge of the death of the applicant on 10 July 2015 and filed a request for revision of the judgment on 27 October 2015, within the time-limit provided for in Rule 80.

9.  In these circumstances, the Court accepts the Government’s request for revision of the judgment of 27 January 2015 (see, for instance, Bolovan v. Romania (revision), no. 64541/01, § 11, 20 September 2011).

10.  The Court further recalls that it has been its practice to strike applications out of the list of cases in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed a wish to pursue the application (see Thevenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-...). It further finds no special circumstances relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require it to continue the examination of the application in respect of the applicant Susana Kalanyos.

11.  Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases in so far as it relates to this applicant.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.  Decides to revise the judgment in so far as it relates to the applicant Susana Kalanyos;

 

2.  Decides to strike out the application in so far as it concerns the complaints of the applicant Susana Kalanyos;

Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 January 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

  Stephen Phillips                                                                 Luis López Guerra
Section Registrar                                                                       President

 




 

ANNEX

 

No.	Applicant’s name, date of birth and place of residence	Application No.
1.	Costel CIORCAN 2/02/1978, Reghin	29414/09 44841/09
2.	Sorin CIORCAN 21/09/1979, Reghin	29414/09
3.	Carol CIORCAN 2/07/1981, Reghin	29414/09 44841/09
4.	Sonia BIGA 22/12/1974, Reghin	29414/09
5.	Augustin BIGA 14/03/1973, Reghin	29414/09
6.	Ildiko KALANYOS (BIGA) 16/05/1971, Reghin	29414/09 44841/09
7.	Edith CSIKI (BIGA) 16/05/1971, Reghin	29414/09 44841/09
8.	Ana Maria-Paula BIDI (BEICA) 26/05/1987, Reghin	44841/09
9.	Ştefan BIDI 19/05/1981, Reghin	44841/09
10.	Deneş BIGA 15/06/1956, Reghin	44841/09
11.	Erika BIGA 25/02/1975, Reghin	44841/09
12.	Iosif BIGA (Jr) 16/11/1973, Reghin	44841/09
13.	Iosif BIGA (Snr) 10/04/1950, Reghin	44841/09
14.	Ladislau BIGA 30/01/1989, Reghin	44841/09
15.	Margareta BIGA 30/09/1951, Reghin	44841/09
16.	Liviu BUCUNEA (Jr) 8/06/1985, Reghin	44841/09
17.	Rozalia BUCUNEA 28/12/1964, Reghin	44841/09
18.	Etelka CAPO 25/07/1980, Reghin	44841/09
19.	Agneta CSIKI 29/11/1972, Reghin	44841/09
20.	Lia GABOR 14/01/1974, Reghin	44841/09
21.	Ana-Narcisa GORCS 15/09/1978, Orăştie	44841/09
22.	Ladislau HORVATH 25/03/1960, Reghin	44841/09
23.	Petru KALANYOS (Snr) 16/11/1965, Reghin	44841/09
24.	Petru KALANYOS (Jr) 19/02/1990, Reghin	44841/09
25.	Susana KALANYOS 28/04/1937, Reghin	44841/09
26.	Traian KOVACI 20/02/1974, Reghin	44841/09
27.	Ana LINGURAR 18/03/1957, Reghin	44841/09
28.	Ancuţa Maria MOLDOVAN 1/06/1984, Reghin	44841/09
29.	Mihai-Alexandru MOLDOVAN 28/09/1988, Reghin	44841/09
30.	Lajos PANTA 24/04/1976, Reghin	44841/09
31.	Lela POTRA 24/12/1975, Reghin	44841/09
32.	Violeta PUSUC 17/02/1967, Reghin	44841/09
33.	Edith RACZ (BIGA) 24/10/1984, Reghin	44841/09
34.	Cornelia SIMION (BIGA) 4/01/1981, Reghin	44841/09
35.	Janos STEFAN 30/12/1961, Reghin	44841/09
36.	Ana ȚINA (Snr) 21/11/1944, Reghin	44841/09
37.	Ana ȚINA 10/08/1970, Reghin	44841/09