Last Updated on April 30, 2019 by LawEuro
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF TIMARAND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 26856/06 and 7 others)
JUDGMENT
(Revision[1])
STRASBOURG
16 April 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Timarand Others v. Romania, (request for revision of the judgment of 28 February 2017),
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a committee composed of:
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President,
Iulia Motoc,
MarkoBošnjak, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 26 March 2019,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in eight applications (nos. 26856/06, 26449/08, 61815/09, 30395/10, 50999/10, 58287/10, 63120/10 and 36942/11) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by five Romanian nationals, two Romanian companies and a Romanian Calvinist parish on the various dates indicated in the table appended to the judgment delivered on 28 February 2017.
2. In that judgment the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ lack of access to court. The Court also decided to award the applicant company in application no. 58287/10, S.C. Magdadia Trans S.R.L., (“the applicant company”), 3,600 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR700 for costs and expenses and dismissed the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction.
3. On 27 June 2017 the Government informed the Court that they had learned that the applicant company in application no. 58287/10 had been declared bankrupt and had been removed from the Trade Register on 5 February 2014. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule80 of the Rules of Court, in respect of the above mentioned application.
4. On 14 November 2017 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicant company three weeks in which to submit any observations. A letter to this effect was sent to the applicant company’s lawyer and to the last known address of the applicant company’s sole shareholder. On 7 February 2018 the lawyer received the letter. No answer was received from either the shareholder or the lawyer.
THE LAW
THE REQUEST FOR REVISION
5. The Government requested revision of the judgment of 28 February 2017, which they had been unable to execute because the applicant company had ceased to exist before the judgment had been adopted. They argued that the event in question constituted a new fact within the meaning of Rule 80 § 1 of the Rules of Court. This “new fact” could not reasonably have been known to them (they filed the observations on 7 November 2012, before the bankruptcy of the applicant company had been recorded in the Trade Register).
6. The applicant company did not comment on the request for revision.
7. The Court considers that the judgment of 28 February 2017 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.
…”
8. In a similar situation, the Court decided that the removal of an applicant company from the Trade Registry prior to the adoption of the Court judgment represented a new fact of decisive influence for the course of the proceedings and that the Government could not be held responsible for not having found it out earlier (see SC Placebo Consult SRL v. Romania (revision), no. 28529/04, §§ 17, 19 and 21, 21 June 2011). The Court finds no reason to depart from the above findings in the present case.
9. It further notes that that neither the applicant company’s representative, nor its shareholder had informed the Court about the fate of the applicant company. They did not justify this failure in any way (see, by way of contrast and mutatis mutandis, Nicolae Augustin Rădulescu v. Romania (revision), no. 17295/10, § 9, 19 May 2015). Moreover, after the applicant company had ceased to exist, nobody asked the Court to continue the examination of the case in its stead.
10. In these circumstances, the Court accepts the Government’s request for revision of the judgment of 28 February 2017.
11. The Court further recalls that it has been its practice to strike applications out of the list of cases if no heir or close relative of a deceased applicant or no legal successor of a company having ceased to exist has expressed in a timely manner a wish to pursue the application, or provided an explanation for such failure (see, mutatis mutandis, SC Placebo Consult SRL, cited above, § 23). It further finds no special circumstances relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require it to continue the examination of the present application.
12. Accordingly, application no. 58287/10, introduced by S.C. Magdadia Trans S.R.L., should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention and the judgment of 28 February 2017 in the case of Timar and Others v.Romania should be revised as far as it concerns the application in question.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to revise the judgment of 28 February 2017 in the case of Timar and Others v. Romania in part and to strike application no. 58287/10 out of the list.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 April 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Andrea Tamietti Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque
Deputy Registrar President
_______________
[1]. Revision of the judgment of 28 February 2017
Leave a Reply