The case originated in applications against Slovakia 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 indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n
FIRST SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Balogh and Others v. Slovakia (request for revision of the judgment of 16\u00a0December 2021),<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a\u00a0Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President, Having deliberated in private on 25 August 2022,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in applications against Slovakia 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 indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 2. In a judgment delivered on 16\u00a0December 2021, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the administrative proceedings. The Court also decided to award the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 3. On 17 February 2022 the Government informed the Court that they had learned that Mrs Margita T\u00f3thov\u00e1 (application no. 7918\/19) and Mr Franti\u0161ek Horv\u00e1th (application no. 43062\/20) had died on 25\u00a0July 2021 and 21 June 2021 respectively. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court asking the Court to strike the applications, in so far as brought by the above-mentioned applicants, out of its list of cases.<\/p>\n 4. On 24 March 2022 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicants\u2019 representative six weeks in which to submit any observations. They were received on 2 May 2022.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n THE REQUEST FOR REVISION<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. The Government requested revision of the judgment of 16\u00a0December 2021. In the course of the execution of the judgment they had been informed by the applicants\u2019 representative that Mrs Margita T\u00f3thov\u00e1 and Mr\u00a0Franti\u0161ek Horv\u00e1th had died before the judgment had been adopted and that Ms Renata Fekete (born 1965), Mr Jozef T\u00f3th (born 1969) and Mr Oto T\u00f3th (born 1966) are heirs after Mrs Margita T\u00f3thov\u00e1, while Mr R\u00f3bert Horv\u00e1th (born 1966) and Mr Tibor Horv\u00e1th (born 1960) are heirs after Mr Franti\u0161ek Horv\u00e1th. The applicants\u2019 representative asked that the heirs should therefore receive the sums awarded to the deceased.<\/p>\n 6. The Government argued that the heirs should have informed the Court earlier about the death of their close relatives and about their intention to pursue the proceedings. As they had failed to do so, they should not receive the sums awarded to the deceased applicants.<\/p>\n 7. The Court accepts the Government\u2019s argument that the applicants\u2019 death had a decisive influence on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule\u00a080 of the Rules of Court, namely the allocation of the amounts awarded under Article\u00a041 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 8. It therefore considers that the judgment of 16\u00a0December 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 9. The applicants\u2019 representative stated that both applicants had died shortly before the Court\u2019s judgment was issued and the heirs had had no time to intervene in the proceedings before the Court. Moreover, as regards Mrs\u00a0Margita T\u00f3thov\u00e1, the decision of the Nov\u00e9 Z\u00e1mky District Court (case no. 12D\/891\/2021) confirming the heirs became final only on 17 March 2022. As regards Mr Franti\u0161ek Horv\u00e1th, the decision of the Kom\u00e1rno District Court (case no. 10D\/52\/2021) confirming his heirs became final on 15 November 2021. The heirs expressed their wish to continue the proceedings on their legal predecessors\u2019 behalf.<\/p>\n 10. The Court has previously decided to allow a request for revision lodged during the execution of a judgment, when heirs expressed their wish to continue the proceedings (see Cioat\u0103 and Others v. Romania (revision), no. 48095\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 9-14, 11 February 2021 with further references).<\/p>\n 11. In the present case the Court notes that the heirs are the applicants\u2019 children and that they intervened in the procedure for the execution of the judgment arguing that they should be granted the just satisfaction awarded to the late applicants. The heirs reiterated their wish to continue the proceedings also in their submission before the Court (a contrario, Borovsk\u00e1 v. Slovakia (revision), no. 48554\/10, \u00a7 6, 16 February 2016, where no heir expressed a wish to continue the proceedings).<\/p>\n 12. Moreover, as follows from the documents submitted to the Court, the decision confirming Mr Horv\u00e1th\u2019s heirs became final only several days before the adoption of the Court\u2019s judgment (25 November 2021), while the decision in respect of Mrs T\u00f3thov\u00e1 became final several months after that date.<\/p>\n 13. The Court further notes that Ms Renata Fekete, Mr Jozef T\u00f3th, Mr Oto T\u00f3th, Mr R\u00f3bert Horv\u00e1th and Mr Tibor Horv\u00e1th are the late applicants\u2019 only heirs and that they submitted inheritance certificates as proof of their quality as heirs. Lastly, the Court cannot but observe that the present case concerns restitution proceedings that have been pending for more than 17 years at the domestic level and that at the time of its judgement the case was still pending before the Land Office acting as a first instance administrative organ.<\/p>\n 14. Given the above mentioned, the Court decides to award to the heirs, jointly, the amount it had previously awarded to Mrs Margita T\u00f3thov\u00e1 and Mr Franti\u0161ek Horv\u00e1th, namely 7,500\u00a0euros (EUR), as just satisfaction.<\/p>\n 15. 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to revise the judgment of 16 December 2021;<\/p>\n and, accordingly:<\/p>\n 2. Decides that the heirs of Mrs Margita T\u00f3thov\u00e1, namely Ms Renata Fekete, Mr Jozef T\u00f3th and Mr Oto T\u00f3th, may pursue the application in her stead;<\/p>\n 3. Decides that the heirs of Mr Franti\u0161ek Horv\u00e1th, namely Mr R\u00f3bert Horv\u00e1th and Mr Tibor Horv\u00e1th, may pursue the application in his stead;<\/p>\n 4. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay jointly to the heirs of Mrs Margita T\u00f3thov\u00e1 and of Mr Franti\u0161ek Horv\u00e1th, within three months, EUR\u00a07,500, as just satisfaction, plus any tax that may be chargeable;<\/p>\n (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.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 September 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Krzysztof Wojtyczek __________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF BALOGH AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 7918\/19 and 43062\/20 \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\n(Revision)
\nSTRASBOURG
\n15 September 2022<\/p>\n
\nErik Wennerstr\u00f6m,
\nLorraine Schembri Orland, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention
\n(excessive length of administrative proceedings)<\/p>\n