FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF GRANCEA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 1659/16 and 7 others)
JUDGMENT
(Revision)
STRASBOURG
16 July 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Grancea and others v. Romania (request for revision of the judgment of 16 May 2019),
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 25 June 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
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”) on the various dates set out in the table appended to the judgment delivered on 16 May 2019.
2. In that judgment the Court held 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 damages in the amounts set out in the table appended to the judgment.
3. On 18 September 2019 the Romanian Government (“the Government”) informed the Court that they had learned that Mr. Costel-Cornel Calinciuc, the applicant in application no. 7791/16, had died in 2017. They accordingly requested the revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.
4. On 24 October 2019 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicant’s representative and the applicant’s potential heir six weeks in which to submit any observations. The letter sent by registered post to the applicant’s representative on 30 October 2019 returned on 15 November 2019 with the mention “recipient dead”. A registered letter was subsequently sent to the applicant’s home address which was received on 11 February 2020. The acknowledgement of receipt returned signed to the Court. However, no observations were submitted.
THE LAWTHE REQUEST FOR REVISION
5. The Government requested revision of the judgment of 16 May 2019, which they had been unable to execute because Mr. Calinciuc had died before the judgment had been 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. No heirs have shown an interest in pursuing the procedure.
7. The Court considers that the judgment of 16 May 2019 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 16 May 2019 and that no observations have been submitted to it by any potential heirs.
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 30 July 2019 (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 18 September 2019, 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 16 May 2019.
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. 7791/16, introduced by Mr Costel‑Cornel Calinciuc, should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention and the judgment of 16 May 2019 in the case of Grancea and Others v. Romania should be revised as far as it concerns the application in question.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to revise the judgment of 16 May 2019 in the case of Grancea and Others v. Romania in respect of application no. 7791/16,Decides to strike application no. 7791/16, lodged by Mr Costel‑Cornel Calinciuc, out of its list of cases.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 July 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtStéphanie Mourou-Vikström
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy