FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 71569/14 V.B. against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 December 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President, Iulia Antoanella Motoc, Pere Pastor Vilanova, judges,

and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 October 2014,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr V.B., a Romanian national, was born in 1937 and lived in Orșova. He was represented before the Court by Mr I. Matei, a lawyer practising in Bucharest.

The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently Ms O.-F. Ezer, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the failures of the domestic courts, first, to lawfully summon him at his home address throughout the proceedings brought against him by the National Council for the Study of the Archives of Securitate (the totalitarian secret police in place before 1989) seeking a court order acknowledging that the applicant was a Securitate informant and, second, to allow his extraordinary appeal for annulment seeking to re-open the aforementioned proceedings once he became aware of the final judgment granting the National Council’s request, as well as under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the impact of the above ‑ mentioned court order on his pension rights, were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).

On 5 March 2019, Ms I.D.B. and Ms A.D.D., daughters of the applicant, informed the Registry that he had died, and they expressed the wish to pursue the application before the Court.

THE LAW

The Government argued that the applicant’s two daughters, despite their direct family link which gave them a potential status as heirs, had failed to substantiate their standing in the proceedings before the Court in so far as they had failed to submit an inheritance certificate or any other document, such as a final domestic judgement, confirming that they had accepted the applicant’s inheritance or that they are his heirs, as requested under domestic law as proof of their heir status. In addition, the Government argued that the two potential heirs of the applicants did not demonstrate a moral interest to continue the application.

The Court reiterates that, where the applicant has died after lodging an application, 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 Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014).

The Court has accepted in various contexts that the applicant’s heirs or close family members may have legitimate interest in pursuing the application (see, for example, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI; Novinskiy v. Russia , no. 11982/02, § 92, 10 February 2009; and Larionovs and Tess v. Lativia (dec.), nos. 45520/04 and 19363/05, §§ 133 and 172-73, 25 November 2014). Cases before the Court generally also have a moral or principled dimension, and persons close to an applicant may thus have a legitimate interest in obtaining a ruling even after that applicant’s death (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000‑XII).

Furthermore, the Court has 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).

The Court observes that the applicant died on 16 December 2018. The Court was informed thereof on 5 March 2019.

Having claimed to be the applicant’s heirs, Ms I.D.B. and Ms A.D.D. did not provide any document, such as a succession certificate, to confirm their ability to inherit from the late applicant or the acceptance of the late applicant’s succession or any statement confirming that they had accepted the succession after their deceased father (contrast Romankevič v. Lithuania , no. 25747/07, § 15, 2 December 2014) or detailed information on the applicant’s and their family situation which could be of relevance in their particular case (contrast Andreyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 76737/01, 16 October 2003). They failed to do so even after the Government expressly raised this in their submissions after having learnt of the applicant’s death (contrast the decision in Larionovs and Tess , cited above, § 170). Moreover, Ms I.D.B. and Ms A.D.D. who have expressed their interest to pursue the application did not state explicitly the reasons why they consider that they have such a legitimate interest, as for example the intention of defending their late father’s memory (contrast Horhat v. Romania (revision) no. 53173/10, § 10, 20 April 2021).

Against this background, the Court finds that the request to pursue the proceedings was submitted by persons who have failed to provide evidence of their status as heirs of the late applicant and of their legitimate interest to pursue the application (see, mutatis mutandis , Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 50, 30 March 2009, Moisă v. Romania (dec.), no. 30608/02, 16 November 2010).

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.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

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 20 January 2022.

Ilse Freiwirth Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer Deputy Registrar President