{"id":17221,"date":"2021-10-28T08:48:07","date_gmt":"2021-10-28T08:48:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=17221"},"modified":"2021-10-28T08:48:07","modified_gmt":"2021-10-28T08:48:07","slug":"case-of-neghina-and-others-v-romania-european-court-of-human-rights-application-no-37620-15-and-10-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=17221","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF NEGHIN\u0102 AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (European Court of Human Rights) Application no. 37620\/15 and 10 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF NEGHIN\u0102 AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 37620\/15 and 10 others)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\n(Revision)
\nSTRASBOURG
\n28 October 2021<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Neghin\u0103 and Others v. Romania, (request for revision of the judgment of 21\u00a0January 2021),<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n

Armen Harutyunyan, President,
\nJolien Schukking,
\nAna Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 7 October 2021,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. The case originated in eleven applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates set out in the table appended to the judgment delivered on 21\u00a0January 2021.<\/p>\n

2. In that judgment the Court held that there had been a violation of Article\u00a03 of the Convention on account of inadequate conditions of detention. The Court also decided to award the applicants just satisfaction in the amounts set out in the table appended to the judgment.<\/p>\n

3. On 26 February 2021 the Romanian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) informed the Court that they had learned that Mr Dorin Albu, the applicant in application no. 56086\/15, had died on 25 November 2020. They accordingly requested that the judgment be revised in accordance with Rule\u00a080 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

4. On 25 March 2021 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicant\u2019s potential heirs six weeks in which to submit any observations, in accordance with Rule 80 \u00a7 4 of the Rules of Court. Given no reply was submitted the time-limit was extended from 12 May to 25\u00a0June 2021. The applicant\u2019s daughter signed for the receipt of the last Registry\u2019s letter on 11 June 2021. No observations were received to date.<\/p>\n

THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

5. The Government asked for the revision of the judgment of 21\u00a0January 2021, which they had been unable to execute in full because Mr\u00a0Albu had died before the judgment had been adopted. They argued that the heirs should have informed the Court about the death of their close relative and about their intention to pursue the proceedings. As they failed to do so, they should not receive the amount awarded to the deceased applicant.<\/p>\n

6. No heirs have shown interest in pursuing the procedure.<\/p>\n

7. The Court considers that the judgment of 21\u00a0January 2021 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, the relevant parts of which provide:<\/p>\n

\u201cA 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.<\/p>\n

…\u201d<\/p>\n

8. The Court notes that the applicant had died before it adopted the judgment\u00a0of 21 January 2021 and that no observations have been submitted to it by any potential heirs.<\/p>\n

9. The Court considers that the applicant\u2019s death constitutes \u201cthe discovery of a fact … which when [the] judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court\u201d. It also constitutes a fact of \u201cdecisive influence\u201d on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80\u00a0\u00a7 1. The Court is prepared to accept that this decisive fact \u201ccould not reasonably have been expected to be known\u201d to the Government, which became aware of the applicant\u2019s death on 24 February 2021 (see Manushaqe Puto and Others v.\u00a0Albania (revision), nos. 604\/07 and 3 others, \u00a7\u00a7 9-10, 4 November 2014). They filed a request for revision of the judgment on 26 February 2021, that is, within the time-limit provided for by Rule 80.<\/p>\n

10. In these circumstances, the Court accepts the Government\u2019s request for revision of the judgment of 21 January 2021.<\/p>\n

11. The Court\u00a0further notes that Article 37\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention, in its relevant part, reads:<\/p>\n

\u201c1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that …<\/p>\n

(c) … it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.\u201d<\/p>\n

12. In this respect, the Court observes that it has been its practice to strike applications out of the list of cases when the applicant has died during the proceedings and no heirs or close relatives have expressed a wish to pursue them (see Racoltea and Others v. Romania (revision), nos.\u00a070116\/13 and 17 others, \u00a7\u00a7 5-13, 16 January 2020 and Cioat\u0103 and Others v.\u00a0Romania, no.\u00a048095\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 5-17, 11 February 2021). 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 application.<\/p>\n

13. Accordingly, application no. 56086\/15, introduced by Mr\u00a0Dorin Albu, should be struck out of the Court\u2019s list of cases in accordance with Article\u00a037 \u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention and the judgment of 21 January 2021\u00a0in the case of Neghin\u0103 and Others v. Romania should be revised as far as it concerns the application in question.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Decides to revise its judgment of 21 January 2021 in the case of Neghin\u0103 and Others v. Romania in respect of application no. 56086\/15;<\/p>\n

and, accordingly:<\/p>\n

2. Decides to strike application no. 56086\/15, lodged by Mr Dorin Albu, out of its list of cases.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 October 2021, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Armen Harutyunyan
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n

Facebook<\/a>Twitter<\/a>LinkedIn<\/a>Pinterest<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF NEGHIN\u0102 AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 37620\/15 and 10 others) JUDGMENT (Revision) STRASBOURG 28 October 2021 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Neghin\u0103 and Others…<\/p>\n

Read more →<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17221","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-available-in-english"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17221","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=17221"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17221\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17222,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17221\/revisions\/17222"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17221"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17221"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17221"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}