{"id":20252,"date":"2022-12-01T14:26:23","date_gmt":"2022-12-01T14:26:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20252"},"modified":"2022-12-01T14:26:23","modified_gmt":"2022-12-01T14:26:23","slug":"case-of-padurariu-and-others-v-romania-european-court-of-human-rights-37813-15","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=20252","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF P\u0102DURARIU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (European Court of Human Rights) 37813\/15"},"content":{"rendered":"

FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF P\u0102DURARIU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 37813\/15)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\n(Revision)
\nSTRASBOURG
\n1 December 2022<\/p>\n

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

In the case of P\u0103durariuand Others v. Romania (request for revision of the judgment of 13 January 2022),<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

Armen Harutyunyan, President,
\nAnja Seibert-Fohr,
\nAna Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
\nand Victoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 10 November 2022,<\/p>\n

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

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

1. The case originated in thirteen applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 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 13 January 2022.<\/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 that judgment.<\/p>\n

3. On 14 March 2022 the Romanian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) informed the Court that on 22 February 2022 they had learned that Mr\u00a0Emilian P\u0103durariu, the applicant in application no. 37813\/15, had died on 6 July 2018. They accordingly asked for the judgment to be revised within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

4. On 7 April 2022 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. In the absence of any response, the time-limit was extended until 26 September 2022. According to the official website of the Romanian Postal Service, the Registry\u2019s letter was handed over at the applicant\u2019s home address on 8\u00a0September 2022. No response was received to date.<\/p>\n

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

THE REQUEST FOR REVISION<\/strong><\/p>\n

5. The Government asked for the revision of the judgment of 13 January 2022, which they had been unable to execute in full because Mr P\u0103durariu 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 13\u00a0January 2022 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 of 13 January 2022 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 \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 22\u00a0February 2022 (see ManushaqePuto 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 14 March 2022, 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 13 January 2022.<\/p>\n

11. The Court further notes that Article 37 \u00a7 1 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 Cioat\u0103 and Others v. Romania, no. 48095\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 5-17, 11 February 2021, and Neghin\u0103 and Others v. Romania (revision), nos. 37620\/15 and 10\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7 5-13, 28 October 2021). It further finds no specialcircumstances relating to respect for human rights as defined in theConvention and its Protocols which require it to continue the examination ofthe application.<\/p>\n

13. Accordingly, application no. 37813\/15, introduced by Mr Emilian P\u0103durariu, should be struck out of the Court\u2019s list of cases in accordance with Article 37 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and the judgment of 13 January 2022 in the case of P\u0103durariu 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 13 January 2022 in the case of P\u0103durariu and Others v. Romania in respect of application no. 37813\/15;<\/p>\n

and, accordingly:<\/p>\n

2. Decides to strike application no. 37813\/15, lodged by Mr Emilian P\u0103durariu, out of its list of cases.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 December 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Victoriya Maradudina \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 \u00a0President<\/p>\n

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

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF P\u0102DURARIU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 37813\/15) JUDGMENT (Revision) STRASBOURG 1 December 2022 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of P\u0103durariuand Others v. Romania (request for…<\/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-20252","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\/20252","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=20252"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20252\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20253,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20252\/revisions\/20253"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=20252"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=20252"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=20252"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}