CASE OF PASCOI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 8675/06, 60826/10, 27616/11, 67634/11, 74155/13, 1152/14, 10538/14 and 41786/14)
31 October 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision
In the case of Pascoi and Others v. Romania, (request for revision of the judgment of 7 January 2016),
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 10 October 2017,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
1. The case originated in eight applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”). The applicants’ details and the dates of lodging of the applications are set out in the table enclosed as an annex to this judgment.
2. In a judgment delivered on 7 January 2016, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the non-enforcement or of the delayed enforcement of domestic judgments given in the applicants’ favour. The Court also decided that the respondent State shall ensure the enforcement of the domestic decisions concerned and award the applicants amounts varying between 1,200 and 3,600 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 15,000 for costs and expenses.
3. On 10 and 26 February and 21 March 2016 the Government informed the Court that they had learned that the applicants Ileana Pascoi, Ionel Stănescu, Gheorghe Podaru, Victor Soltuz-Mocanu, Dobre Ivan and Manole Grosu had died on 11 August 2011, 31 October 2010, 5 and 18 January 2015, 13 August 2015 and 6 May 2011 respectively. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.
4. On 28 April 2016 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicants’ representatives three weeks in which to submit any observations. No reply had been received by the Court within the above-mentioned time-limit. In a letter of 13 July 2016 the Government informed the Court that they maintained their request for the revision of the judgment.
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 7 January 2016, which they had been unable to execute because six of the applicants had died before the judgment had been adopted. They submitted that they became aware of this information only in February 2016. 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, neither the applicants’ representatives nor their legal heirs ever informed the Court about the applicants’ death or of their wish to pursue the proceedings on the applicants’ behalf before the delivery of the judgment. Therefore, the Government asked the Court to strike out the case from its list in respect of the deceased applicants and to amend accordingly the award given under Article 41 of the Convention.
7. The Court considers that the deaths of the above-mentioned applicants constitute indeed facts of “decisive influence” on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 § 1.
8. The Court further takes note that the applicants in question had died before the Court adopted its judgment in the current case. However, their representatives did not inform the Court about the applicants’ death, nor have they indicated whether the legal heirs expressed their wish to pursue the proceedings on the applicants’ behalf. Furthermore, the Court is prepared to accept that these decisive facts could not reasonably have been expected to be known to the Government, who gained knowledge of the deaths of the applicants in February 2016 and filed the requests for revision of the judgment in February and March 2016, within the time-limit provided for in Rule 80.
9. In view of the above, the Court accepts the Government’s requests for revision of the judgment of 7 January 2016 (see, for instance and mutatis mutandis, Ciorcan and Others v. Romania, nos. 29414/09 and 44841/09, § 9, 17 January 2017).
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 (ibid., § 10). 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 applicants Ileana Pascoi, Ionel Stănescu, Gheorghe Podaru, Victor Soltuz-Mocanu, Dobre Ivan and Manole Grosu.
11. Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases in so far as they relate to these applicants.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to revise the judgment in so far as it relates to the applicants Ileana Pascoi, Ionel Stănescu, Gheorghe Podaru, Victor Soltuz-Mocanu, Dobre Ivan and Manole Grosu;
2. Decides to strike the applications out of the list of cases in so far as they concern the complaints of the applicants Ileana Pascoi, Ionel Stănescu, Gheorghe Podaru, Victor Soltuz-Mocanu, Dobre Ivan and Manole Grosu.
Andrea Tamietti Vincent A. De Gaetano
Deputy Section Registrar President
Date of introduction
Date of birth
Ioana Georgia Alexandra Mândra
VECHEA ASOCIAȚIUNE FUNEBRALĂ ROMÂNĂ
(Old Romanian Funeral Association)
Marian Costel AVRAM
Lilica Marinela CANCIU
Stănel Doru CRĂCIUN
Maria Ecaterina DUDĂU
Valentin Adrian DUMITRU
Carmen Gina MIHAI
Lucia Daniela NEGRIȘAN (MOCANU)
Valeriu Cezar ROBITU
Victor SOLTUZ MOCANU
Ionica STANCIU (VASILE)
. Revision of the judgment of 7 January 2016.