FORMER THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF ROMANIAN JUDGES AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 47732/06)
JUDGMENT
(Revision)
STRASBOURG
22 March 2016
FINAL
22/06/2016
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Association of Victims of Romanian Judges and Others v. Romania (request for revision of the judgment of 14 January 2014),
The European Court of Human Rights (former Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Helena Jäderblom,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Kristina Pardalos,
Johannes Silvis,
Valeriu Griţco
Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 1 March 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 47732/06) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by nine Romanian nationals, Ms Rodica Neagu, Mr Virgil Radu, Mr Valentin Turigioiu, Mr C. Gheorghe Lupan, Ms Viorica Alda, Mr Eugen Neagu, Ms Maria Nicolau, Ms Domnica Turigioiu and Ms Valerica Şugubete, and an association, the Association of Victims of Romanian Judges (“the applicants”), on 14 August 2006.
2. The applicants were represented by Ms R. Neagu, President of the Association. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Cambrea, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. In a judgment delivered on 14 January 2014, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention on account of the failure by the domestic authorities to register the applicant association in the Register of Associations and Foundations due to its statutory provisions allegedly contrary to public order. The Court also decided to award the applicants, jointly, 2,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and dismissed the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction.
4. On 12 June 2014 the Government informed the Court that on 30 May 2014 they had become aware of the fact that one of the applicants, Ms Maria Nicolau, had died on 14 October 2007. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.
5. On 9 September 2014 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicants’ representative three weeks in which to submit any observations. Those observations were received on 18 September 2014.
THE LAW
THE REQUEST FOR REVISION
6. Article 80 of the Rules of Court states, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“1. 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, within a period of six months after that party acquired knowledge of the fact, to revise that judgment.
(...).”
7. The Government requested revision of the judgment of 14 January 2014, which they have been unable to execute because Ms Maria Nicolau, one of the applicants, had died on 14 October 2007, thus before the judgment had been adopted. They submitted that they became aware of this information on 30 May 2014. 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, in so far as Ms Nicolau’s heirs, namely the applicants Eugen Neagu and Rodica Neagu, have never informed the Court about their mother’s death and have not expressed their wish to pursue proceedings on her behalf, the case should be struck out in respect of the deceased applicant, and the award given under Article 41 of the Convention should be amended accordingly.
8. The applicants’ representative stated that the heirs of Ms Nicolau were entitled to obtain compensation both in their own name, as applicants, as well as on account of the breach of their mother’s rights protected by Article 11 of the Convention. The revision request was therefore inadmissible in their view.
9. The Court considers that the death of the applicant Maria Nicolau constitutes a fact of “decisive influence” on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 § 1.
The Court takes note of the fact that Ms Nicolau’s heirs, Mr Eugen Neagu and Ms Rodica Neagu, applicants in their own name, did not inform the Court about their mother’s death, nor have they expressed their wish to pursue 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 30 May 2014 and filed a request for revision of the judgment on 12 June 2014, 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 14 January 2014 (see, for instance, Bolovan v. Romania (revision), no. 64541/01, § 11, 20 September 2011).
11. 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 Maria Nicolau.
Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases in so far as it relates to this applicant.
12. However, concerning its award under Article 41, the Court notes that the non-pecuniary damage in an amount of EUR 2,000 was granted to all applicants, jointly. In this respect, the Court confirms the award to the remaining applicants, jointly, of the amount it previously awarded under this head, namely EUR 2,000 (see, among many other authorities, Eremiášová and Pechová v. the Czech Republic (revision), no. 23944/04, § 11, 20 June 2013).
13. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to revise the judgment in so far as it relates to the applicant Maria Nicolau;
2. Decides to strike out the application in so far it concerns the complaints of the applicant Maria Nicolau;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay jointly to the remaining applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 March 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen PhillipsLuis López Guerra
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy