FORMER FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF GUȚĂ TUDOR TEODORESCU v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 33751/05)
24 October 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 Guță Tudor Teodorescu v. Romania, (request for revision of the judgment of 5 April 2016),
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Section Registrar
Having deliberated in private on 3 October 2017,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
1. The case originated in an application (no. 33751/05) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Romanian national, Mr Guță Tudor Teodorescu (“the applicant”), on 15 August 2005.
2. In a judgment delivered on 5 April 2016, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention on account of the applicant’s impossibility to obtain in court an adjustment for inflation of the amount he was entitled to as compensation in accordance with Law no. 9/1998. The Court also decided to award the applicant 900 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and dismissed the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction.
3. On 8 July 2016 the Government informed the Court that they had learned that the applicant had died on 10 March 2016. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.
4. On 29 November 2016 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicant’s representative four weeks in which to submit any observations (Rule 80 § 4). Neither the applicant’s representative nor subsequently the applicant’s heir submitted any observations. The Court’s letters, sent by registered post on 2 December 2016 and 7 February 2017 respectively, returned unclaimed and no replies were received.
THE REQUEST FOR REVISION
5. Rule 80 of the Rules of Court provides in its relevant parts:
“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 5 April 2016, which they had been unable to execute because the applicant had died before the judgment had been adopted. In the Government’s 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.
7. They further submitted that they became aware of this information on 29 June 2016, when the applicant’s heir informed them in a letter that for the purposes of the execution of the judgment, he should be regarded as “its beneficiary”, following the demise of his father on 10 March 2016.
8. The Government considered that in so far as the applicant’s heir has never informed the Court about his father’s death and has not expressed his wish to pursue the proceedings before it on his behalf, the case should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
9. Neither the applicant’s representative nor the applicant’s heir submitted observations on the Government’s request for revision (see paragraph 4 in fine above).
10. The Court considers that the death of the applicant constitutes a fact of “decisive influence” on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 § 1.
11. The Court takes further note of the fact that the applicant’s heir did not inform the Court about his father’s death, nor has he expressed before it his wish to pursue proceedings on his 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 29 June 2016 and filed a request for revision of the judgment on 8 July 2016, that is within the time-limit provided for in Rule 80.
12. In these circumstances, the Court accepts the Government’s request for revision of the judgment of 5 April 2016 (see, for instance, Bolovan v. Romania (revision), no. 64541/01, § 11, 20 September 2011).
13. 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 for instance Gabay v. Turkey (revision), no. 70829/01, § 8, 27 June 2006 and Eremiášová and Pechová v. the Czech Republic (revision), no. 23944/04, § 10, 20 June 2013). 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.
14. Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention (see Cipleu v. Romania (revision), no. 36470/08, § 12, 15 December 2015).
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to revise the judgment as a whole and to strike the case out of the list.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 October 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Tsirli Vincent A.