FORMER TH IRD SECTION

CASE OF ALECU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

( Application no. 56838/08 and 80 other applications )

JUDGMENT

(Revision)

STRASBOURG

15 November 2016

FINAL

15/02/2017

This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Alecu and Others v. Romania (request for revision of the judgment of 27 January 2015 ),

The European Court of Human Rights ( Former Third Section) , sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Kristina Pardalos , President, Luis López Guerra , Valeriu Griţco , Branko Lubarda , Carlo Ranzoni, Mârtiŋŝ Mits , Armen Harutyunyan , judges , and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 18 October 2016 ,

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

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in eighty-one applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Romanian nationals. Their names and other details, as well as the date of lodging of each application , are specified in the Appendix of the judgment delivered on 27 January 2015 .

2 . In that judgment, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article s 2 and 3 of the Convention under their procedural head, on account of the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation into the December 1989 armed crackdown on anti ‑ communist demonstrations in Bucharest and other cities, when either the applicants had been injured or their close relatives had been killed by gunfire . The Court also decided to award the applicants either 7,500 euros (EUR) or EUR 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage , and dismissed the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction.

3 . On 4 August 2015 the Government informed the Court that on 1 st July 2015 they had learned that Mr Mihai Uivary , Mrs Lidia Kelemen , Mr Gheorghe Daniluc and Mr Niculae Dinu had died . Their personal details, representatives, heirs and the dates their respective applications were lodged are set out in the appended table. The Government accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.

4 . On 14 October 2015 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicants ’ representative s three weeks in which to submit any observations. Those observations were received on 8 January 2016 .

5 . In so far as Ms Iulia Antoanella Motoc, the judge elected in respect of Romania, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28 § 3 of the Rules of the Court), the President decided to appoint Mr Luis López Guerra to sit as an ad hoc judge (Rule 29).

THE LAW

THE REQUEST FOR REVISION

7 . The applicants ’ representative s stated that the applicants ’ heirs had submitted requests for the execution of the Court ’ s judgment , and therefore they had expressed their intention to continue with the proce edings .

8 . The Court considers that the judgment of 27 January 2015 should be revised under Rule 80, the relevant part of which provide s :

“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 . T h e Court notes that, according to the documents submitted by the Government, the applicants died before the adoption of the judgment , and the heirs of the first three applicants expressed their intention to receive the amounts awarded as just satisfaction at the execution stage of the judgment . The Court further notes that no information was provided concerning any heirs wishing to pursue the application lodged by t he fourth applicant .

10 . In some cases , the Court has decided to allow an applicant ’ s request for revision lodged during the execution of a judgment (see Dzhabrailovy v. Russia (revision), no. 68860/10, §§ 9-10, 4 February 2016, and Dyller v. Poland (revision), no. 39842/05, § 8, 15 February 2011). In other cases , the Court has decided to strike out of its list cases where the applicant ha s died during the proceedings and no relatives ha ve expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings (see Gabay v. Turkey (revision), no. 70829/01, §§ 8 ‑ 9, 27 June 2006 ).

11 . In the present case , the Court notes that, even if the heirs of the first three applicants did not inform the Court about the demise of their close relatives, they expressed their intention to pursue the application s in the appli cant s ’ stead by intervening in the procedure for the execution of the judgment, a fact undisputed by the Government. These circumstances justify the revision of the judgment and the award s of compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of EUR 7,500 to Mrs Georgeta Uivary , as the heir of Mr Mihai Uivary , and EUR 15,000 to Mrs Ileana Iakab , as the heir of Mrs Lidia Kelemen .

12 . As regards Mr Gheorghe Daniluc , the Court notes that the award of compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage in the amount of EUR 15,000 was granted to the applicant and his heir, Mrs Maria Daniluc , applicant in her own name, jointly. In this respect, the Court confirms the award in favour of the remaining applicant, in the amount previously awarded under this head, namely EUR 15,000 (see Association of Victims of Romanian Judges and Others v. Romania (revision), no. 47732/06, § 12, 22 March 2016).

13 . With regard to Mr Niculae Dinu , the Court decides to strike the application out of its list .

14 . The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT , UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to revise its judgment of 27 January 2015 in respect of applications nos. 481/09, 707/09, 10458/09 and 10472/09;

2. Decides to strike application no. 707/09 lodged by Mr Niculae Dinu out of its list ;

3. Holds ,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay to each of the heirs of Mr Mihai Uivary , Mrs Lidia Kelemen and Mr Gheorghe Daniluc , within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention , the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 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 amounts 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 15 November 2016 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

             Stephen Phillips Kristina Pardalos Registrar President

APPENDIX

No.

Application no and date of lodging

Applicant name

Date of birth

Place of residence

Date of death

Applicant ’ s heirs

Represented by

Amount to be paid by the respondent State under Article 41 of the Convention

1.

481/09

22/12/2008

Mihai UIVARY

28/06/1956

Albota ( ArgeÈ™ )

13/11/2012

Georgeta UIVARY

IonuÈ› MATEI

EUR 7,500

(seven thousand five hundred euros)

2.

707/09

22/12/2008

Niculae DINU

6/07/1944

Ploiești

12/12/2014

Antonie POPESCU

3.

10458/09

28/01/2009

Gheorghe DANILUC

20/01/1940

Cărpiniș , Timiș

6/03/2009

Maria DANILUC

Antonie POPESCU

EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)

4.

10472/09

28/01/2009

Lidia KELEMEN

2/09/1942

Timișoara

7/06/2012

Ileana IAKAB

IonuÈ› MATEI

EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros)