European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF RACOLTEA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Application nos. 70116/13 and 17 others)

JUDGMENT
(Revision)

STRASBOURG

16 January 2020

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Racoltea and Others v. Romania,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
          Georges Ravarani,
          Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 12 December 2019,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in eighteen applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates set out in the table appended to the judgment delivered on 8 February 2018.

2.  The Court held in that judgment that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of inadequate conditions of detention. The Court also decided to award the applicants non-pecuniary damage in the amounts set out in the table appended to that judgment.

3.  On 29 August 2019 the Government informed the Court that they had learned that Mr George Dima, the applicant in application no. 6674/16, had died on 23 January 2017. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, in respect of the above mentioned application.

4.  On 11 October 2018 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicant’s representative six weeks in which to submit any observations. On 20 December 2018 the applicant’s representative sent observations, informing the Court that she had not been able to find any heirs who had accepted the inheritance. Therefore she considered that the Government’s request for revision was well-founded. By letter of 27 February 2019 the Government were requested to submit comments within one month. No comments were received.

THE LAW

THE REQUEST FOR REVISION

5.  The Government requested revision of the judgment of 8 February 2018, which they had been unable to execute because Mr Dima had died before the judgment was adopted. They argued that this circumstance constituted a new fact within the meaning of Rule 80 § 1 of the Rules of Court, which could not reasonably have been known to them.

6.  The applicant’s representative stated that she had been unable to find any heirs who had accepted the inheritance.

7.  The Court considers that the judgment of 8 February 2018 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, the relevant parts of which provide:

“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.

...”

8.  The Court notes that the applicant died before it adopted the judgment of 8 February 2018 and that the applicant’s representative has been unable to find any heirs who have accepted the inheritance.

9.  The Court considers that the applicant’s death constitutes “the discovery of a fact ... which when [the] judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court”. It also constitutes a fact of “decisive influence” on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 § 1. The Court is prepared to accept that this decisive fact “could not reasonably have been expected to be known” to the Government, which became aware of the applicant’s death on 20 April 2018 (see Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania (revision), nos. 604/07 and 3 others, §§ 9-10, 4 November 2014). They filed a request for a revision of the judgment on 29 August 2018, that is, within the time-limit provided for in Rule 80.

10.  In these circumstances, the Court accepts the Government’s request for revision of the judgment of 8 February 2018.

11. The Court further notes that Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, in its relevant part, reads:

“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that ...

(c) ... it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.”

12.  In this respect, the Court observes that it has been its practice to strike applications out of the list of cases when no heirs or close relatives have expressed a wish to pursue them (see 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.

13.  Accordingly, application no. 6674/16, introduced by Mr George Dima, should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention and the judgment of 8 February 2018 in the case of Racoltea and Others v. Romania should be revised as far as it concerns the application in question.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to revise the judgment of 8 February 2018 in the case of Racoltea and Others v. Romania in respect of application no. 6674/16,

2.      Decides to strike application no. 6674/16, lodged by Mr George Dima, out of its list of cases.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 January 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt                                            Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström
Acting Deputy Registrar                                                  President