Last Updated on August 30, 2022 by LawEuro
The case originated in twenty-five applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”).
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF KONYA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 37087/03 and 24 others)
JUDGMENT
(Revision)
STRASBOURG
30 August 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Konya and Others v. Romania (revision of the judgment of 17 November 2020),
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Carlo Ranzoni,
Péter Paczolay, judges,
and Crina Kaufman, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 5 July 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in twenty-five applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”).
2. In a judgment delivered on 17 November 2020, the Court held mainly that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the applicants’ inability to recover possession or to be compensated for the loss of their properties, in full or in part, despite the existence of final domestic court decisions retroactively acknowledging their property rights.
3. As regards application no. 3104/07 lodged by Ms Nadège Ştefănescu (Ştefănescu v. Romania), the Court held that its above-mentioned finding had concerned apartments nos. 1 to 5 in the apartment building located on Paleologu street no. 15, District no. 3, Bucharest. In addition, the Court held that the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the remaining part of the immovable property located at the aforementioned address had been inadmissible and that there had been no need to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 of the Convention concerning an alleged breach of her right of access to court because of her inability to enforce a final court judgment.
4. The Court decided to award the applicant 600,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage in the event of failure by the respondent State to return to the applicant her properties. In addition, the Court decided to award the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,773 for costs and expenses. It further dismissed the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction.
5. On 3 May 2021 Ms Ştefănescu’s representative, Mr Arnaud Friederich, informed the Court that in January 2021 he had learned that the applicant had died on 1 November 2020. He accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, to the effect of reallocating the compensations awarded to Ms Ştefănescu under Article 41 of the Convention.
6. On 1 June 2021 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the Government six weeks in which to submit any observations. No observations having been received from the Government and no extension of time having been requested by them, on 6 September 2021 they were informed that the Court was going to consider the applicant’s representative’s request for revision on the basis of the existing case file.
THE LAW
THE REQUEST FOR REVISION
7. The applicant’s representative requested revision of the judgment of 17 November 2020, which he had been unable to have executed because the applicant had died before the judgment had been delivered. According to an inheritance certificate delivered by a notary public on 22 February 2021, the applicant’s daughter, Ms Diana Rotaru, born on 7 November 1973 and residing in Menucourt and who had been placed in the custody of Ms Joëlle Françoise Thérèse Robin since 30 May 2017 by the Pontoise District Court because of her health, was the applicant’s only heir. Relying on the judgment D’Ammassa and Frezza v. Italy ((revision), no. 44513/98, §§ 5-8, 9 January 2003), the applicant’s representative requested that Ms Rotaru receive the compensations awarded to the deceased.
8. The Government have not submitted comments on the request for revision.
9. The Court considers that the judgment of 17 November 2020 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 considers that the applicant’s death constitutes a fact of “decisive influence” on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. It notes that the applicant’s demise is a fact that was not known to the Court and could not reasonably have been known to the applicant’s representative when the judgment was delivered, given the short time which had lapsed between the date of the applicant’s death and the date of the delivery of the judgment.
11. The Court accordingly decides to award Ms Rotaru, presently in the custody of Ms Joëlle Françoise Thérèse Robin, the amounts it previously awarded to the deceased applicant, namely EUR 600,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage, in the event of failure by the respondent State to return the disputed properties; EUR 5,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; and EUR 4,773, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of costs and expenses.
12. 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 the judgment Konya and Others of 17 November 2020 as regards the application Ştefănescu v. Romania (no. 3104/07) in so far as it concerns the claims made by the deceased applicant under Article 41 of the Convention,
accordingly,
1. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay Ms Diana Rotaru, presently in the custody of Ms Joëlle Françoise Thérèse Robin, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 600,000 (six hundred thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage, in the event of failure by the respondent State to return the disputed properties;
(ii) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR 4,773 (four thousand seven hundred and seventy-three euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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 30 August 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Crina Kaufman Branko Lubarda
Acting Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply