FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF RESTANȚIA v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 10875/19)
JUDGMENT
(Revision)
STRASBOURG
24 October 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Restanția v. Romania (request for revision of the judgment of 31 January 2023),
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Faris Vehabović, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,
and Crina Kaufman, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 31 January 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The application concerns the applicant’s extended medical detention in a psychiatric hospital (since 2011) and the consequences this measure had for the conduct of civil proceedings concerning the property title to his family house.
2. In a judgment delivered on 31 January 2023, the Court held that there had been a violation of Articles 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention on account of his extended medical detention and of Article 6 § 1 on account of inadequate service of court notifications and assistance for the applicant to argue his civil claims. The Court also awarded the applicant 16,300 euros (EUR) for non‑pecuniary damage and dismissed the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction.
3. On 11 April 2023 Government informed the Court that they had learned from the applicant’s representative that the applicant had died on 21 March 2022 in an elderly care facility. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.
4. On 30 May 2023 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicant’s representative seven weeks in which to submit any observations. Those observations were received on 19 June 2023.
THE LAW
THE REQUEST FOR REVISION
5. The Government requested revision of the judgment of 31 January 2023, which they had been unable to execute because the applicant had died before the judgment had been adopted. Both the Government and the applicant’s representative informed the Court that they had been unable to locate any heirs or close relatives of the applicant.
6. The Court considers that the judgment of 31 January 2023 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.
...”
7. In the present case, the Court had not been informed of the applicant’s death nor can this fact be reasonably assumed to have been known by the Government before they started the execution of the original judgment. 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, amongst many other authorities, Eremiášová and Pechová v. the Czech Republic (revision), no. 23944/04, § 10, 20 June 2013). It moreover 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.
8. Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases (see, amongst many other authorities, Bolovan v. Romania (revision), no. 64541/01, § 13, 20 September 2011).
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Declares, the Government’s request for revision of the judgment of 31 January 2023 admissible;accordingly,
Decides to revise the judgment as a whole and to strike the case out of the list.Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 October 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Crina Kaufman Faris Vehabović
Acting Deputy Registrar President