FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF CIOATÄ‚ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Application no. 48095/07)

JUDGMENT

( Revision [1] )

STRASBOURG

11 February 2021

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

In the case of Cioată and Others v. Romania (request for revision of the judgment of 6 June 2019),

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

Armen Harutyunyan, President, Jolien Schukking, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 21 January 2021,

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

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application submitted by ten applicants against Romania, lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 9 October 2007.

2. In its judgment of 6 June 2019, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of the civil proceedings. The Court also decided to award the applicants just satisfaction in the amounts set out in the table appended to the judgment.

3. On 6 September 2019 the Romanian Government (“the Government”) informed the Court that they had learned that the applicants Mrs Florica Cioată, and Mrs Ana Popa as well as Mr Dan Tache (the heir of the applicant Mrs Elena Tache) had died before the Court adopted its judgment. They therefore requested that the judgment be revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.

4. On 8 October 2019 the Court considered the revision requests and decided to give the applicants’ potential heirs six weeks in which to submit any observations, in accordance with Rule 80 § 4 of the Rules of Court. The observations of Mrs Florica Cioată’s heirs were received on 11 December 2019.

THE LAW

THE REQUEST FOR REVISION

6. The Government requested the revision of the judgment of 6 June 2019, which they had been unable to execute in full because three of the applicants had died before the judgment was adopted, namely, Mrs Florica Cioată on 16 May 2019, Mrs Ana Popa on 3 February 2018, and Mr Dan Tache (heir of Mrs Elena Tache) on 19 August 2018. They argued that the heirs should have informed the Court about the death of their close relatives and about their intention to pursue the proceedings. As they had failed to so, they should not receive the sums awarded to the deceased applicants.

7. The Court accepts the Government’s argument that the applicants’ death had a decisive influence on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, namely the allocation of the amounts awarded under Article 41 of the Convention.

8. The Court considers that the judgment of 6 June 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.

...”

10. The Court has previously decided to allow a request for revision lodged during the execution of a judgment, when heirs expressed their wish to continue the proceedings (see Dyller v. Poland (revision), no. 39842/05, § 8, 15 February 2011, and Dzhabrailovy v. Russia (revision), no. 68860/10, §§ 9-10, 4 February 2016).

11. In the present case, the Court notes that, even if the heirs of Mrs Florica Cioată did not inform the Court about the death of their close relative, her husband had expressed his intention to pursue the application by intervening in the procedure for the execution of the judgment, a fact undisputed by the Government.

12. The Court further notes from the documents submitted to it that Mr Mircea Cioată (born on 27/05/1933) is the late applicant’s husband and Mr Mircea Cioată (born on 11/10/1964), Ms Gabriela Oprescu (born on 01/11/1958) and Ms Nausica Oprescu (born on 10/04/1961) are the late applicant’s children. They are her only heirs and they have submitted an inheritance certificate as proof of their quality as heirs.

13. The Court accordingly decides to award to the four heirs, jointly, the amount it had previously awarded to Mrs Florica Cioată, namely 9,000 euros (EUR), as just satisfaction.

15. The Court notes that no information was provided concerning any heirs wishing to pursue the application lodged or continued by Mrs Ana Popa and Mr Dan Tache.

16. In other similar cases, the Court, considering that respect for human rights does not require it to continue their examination, has decided to strike out of its list cases where the applicant has died during the proceedings and no relatives have expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings (see Racoltea and Others v. Romania (revision), nos. 70116/13 and 17 others, §§ 5-13, 16 January 2020).

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

and, accordingly:

(a) that the respondent State is to pay jointly to the heirs of Mrs Florica Cioată, within three months, EUR 9,000, as just satisfaction, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, 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 11 February 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

{signature_p_2}

Liv Tigerstedt Armen Harutyunyan

Acting Deputy Registrar President

[1] Revision of the judgment of 6 June 2019