FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 522/16
Călin-Romeo COȘCODAR
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21 January 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Jolien Schukking,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 February 2016,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Călin-Romeo Coșcodar, was born in 1988.
On 13 December 2018, the Court (Fourth Section) sitting as a Committee, delivered a decision in a group of cases, which included the current application (see Beznea and Others v. Romania, nos. 26156/14 and 3 other applications), and decided to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration submitted by the Romanian Government (“the Government”) acknowledging a violation of Article 3 of the Convention due to the applicant’s inadequate conditions of detention and awarding him 2,700 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
On 18 March 2018, the Government made a request to restore the application to the Court’s list of cases, as in the course of the proceedings to enforce the Court’s decision, they were informed that the applicant had died on 19 January 2018 and no heir had manifested an intention to pursue the proceedings in the applicant’s place.
On 20 June 2019 the Court decided, under Rule 43 § 5 of the Rules of the Court, to disjoin the current application from those to which it had been joined and to restore it to its list of cases on the basis of the applicant’s death.
On two occasions, by letters dated 24 June 2019 and 18 October 2019, sent by registered post, the applicant’s potential heirs were notified that the application had been restored to the Court’s list of cases and they were invited, in particular, to inform the Court whether they wished to pursue the application before the Court. Their attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that they do not intend to pursue the application.
On 13 November 2019, the applicant’s brother, Mr Viorel Coșcodar, replied to the Court’s letter of 18 October 2019 stating that he wanted to pursue the application without joining a copy of a document proving that he was the applicant’s heir.
By letters dated 3 December 2019 and 5 June 2020, the applicant’s brother was invited to send a copy of a document proving his capacity of heir of the deceased applicant no later than 6 January 2020 and 31 October 2020 respectively. No such document has been received to date and no explanation has been provided for this omission.
THE LAW
The Court must address the question whether Mr Viorel Coșcodar has the right to pursue the application originally lodged by the applicant, who died on 19 January 2018.
The Government submitted that Mr Viorel Coșcodar did not have locus standi to continue the current application due to his failure to submit an heir certificate and to show a strong moral interest to pursue the case.
The Court recalls that, where the applicant has died after the application was lodged, it has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see, for example, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014, with further references). The Court has also established that it is for the heir who wishes to pursue the proceedings before the Court to substantiate his or her standing to do so (see, for example, Belskiy v. Russia (dec.), no. 23593/03, 26 November 2009).
In the current case, it must be noted that Mr Viorel Coșcodar failed to inform the Court of the applicant’s death and expressed his wish to pursue the application only after the Court’s repeated enquiry as to the existence of potential heirs. Moreover, having claimed to be the applicant’s heir, Mr Viorel Coșcodar did not provide any document, such as a succession certificate, to confirm acceptance of the late applicant’s succession (see Rista and Others v. Albania [Committee], nos. 5207/10 and 6 others, 17 March 2016) or any statement confirming that he had accepted succession after his deceased brother (contrast Romankevič v. Lithuania, no. 25747/07, § 15, 2 December 2014) or any other documents or detailed information which could be of relevance in his particular case (contrast Andreyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 76737/01, 16 October 2003). He failed to do so even after the Court’s express requests and provided no explanation for this failure.
Against this background, the Court finds that the request to pursue the proceedings was submitted by a person who has provided no evidence of his status as an heir (see, mutatis mutandis, Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 50, 30 March 2009).
In the light of the foregoing, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Furthermore, it does not consider that “respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols” requires the examination of the application despite the applicant’s death.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 February 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Liv TigerstedtArmen Harutyunyan
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy