CASE OF PĂILĂ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF PĂILĂ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Applications nos. 26096/16 and 9 others)

JUDGMENT
(Revision)

STRASBOURG

22 February 2024

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

In the case of Păilă and Others v. Romania (request for revision of the judgment of 15 December 2022),

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

 Anja Seibert-Fohr, President,
 Anne Louise Bormann,
 Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 1 February 2024,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case Păilă and Others v. Romania originated in ten 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 indicated in the table appended to the judgment delivered on 15 December 2022.

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 just satisfaction in the amounts set out in the table appended to that judgment.

3.  On 7 March 2023 the Romanian Government (“the Government”) informed the Court that on 2 March 2023 they had learned that Mr Gheorghe Moșoi Zarafim, the applicant in application no. 71424/16, had died on 27 August 2022. They accordingly asked for the judgment to be revised within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.

4.  On 15 June 2023 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicant’s potential heirs six weeks in which to submit any observations, in accordance with Rule 80 § 4 of the Rules of Court.

5.  By letter dated 27 June 2023, sent to the applicant’s last known address of correspondence, as indicated by the applicant in the application form, the applicant’s potential heirs were invited to inform the Court whether they wished to pursue the application before the Court. On 10 October 2023 another letter was sent by registered post to the same address, requesting for information to be submitted by 7 November 2023. This letter was delivered on 24 October 2023. No heir contacted the Court to date.

THE LAW

THE REQUEST FOR REVISION

6.  The Government asked for the revision of the judgment of 15 December 2022, which they had been unable to execute in full because Mr Zarafim had died before the judgment was adopted. They argued that the heirs should have informed the Court about the death of their close relative and about their intention to pursue the proceedings. As they failed to do so, they should not receive the amount awarded to the deceased applicant.

7.  No heirs have shown interest in pursuing the procedure.

8.  The Court considers that the judgment of 15 December 2022 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.

...”

9.  The Court notes that the applicant had died before it adopted the judgment of 15 December 2022 and that no observations have been submitted to it by any potential heirs.

10.  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 2 March 2023 (see Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania (revision), nos. 604/07 and 3 others, §§ 9-10, 4 November 2014). They filed a request for revision of the judgment on 7 March 2023, that is, within the time-limit provided for by Rule 80.

11.  In these circumstances, the Court accepts the Government’s request for revision of the judgment of 15 December 2022.

12.  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.”

13.  In this respect, the Court observes that it has been its practice to strike applications out of the list of cases when the applicant has died during the proceedings and no heirs or close relatives have expressed a wish to pursue them (see Cioată and Others v. Romania, no. 48095/07, §§ 5-17, 11 February 2021 and Neghină and Others v. Romania (revision), nos. 37620/15 and 10 others, §§ 5-13, 28 October 2021). 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, application no. 71424/16, introduced by Mr Gheorghe Moșoi Zarafim, should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention and the judgment of 15 December 2022 in the case of Păilă and Others v. Romania should be revised as far as it concerns the application in question.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

And, accordingly:

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 February 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Anja Seibert-Fohr
Acting Deputy Section Registrar President