FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF TIMARAND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
\n(Applications nos. 26856\/06 and 7 others)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\n(Revision[1])
\nSTRASBOURG
\n16 April 2019<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Timarand Others v. Romania, (request for revision of the judgment of 28\u00a0February 2017),<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President,
\nIulia Motoc,
\nMarkoBo\u0161njak, judges,<\/p>\n
and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated in private on 26 March 2019,<\/p>\n
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n
PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The 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 (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) 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\u00a0February\u00a02017.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0In that judgment the Court held that there had been a violation of Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention on account of the applicants\u2019 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., (\u201cthe applicant company\u201d), 3,600 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR700 for costs and expenses and dismissed the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 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\u00a0February\u00a02014. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule80 of the Rules of Court, in respect of the above mentioned application.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 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\u2019s lawyer and to the last known address of the applicant company\u2019s sole shareholder. On 7 February 2018 the lawyer received the letter. No answer was received from either the shareholder or the lawyer.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n THE REQUEST FOR REVISION<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The Government requested revision of the judgment of 28\u00a0February\u00a02017, 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 \u00a7 1 of the Rules of Court. This \u201cnew fact\u201d could not reasonably have been known to them (they filed the observations on 7\u00a0November\u00a02012, before the bankruptcy of the applicant company had been recorded in the Trade Register).<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant company did not comment on the request for revision.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The 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:<\/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.\u00a0\u00a0In 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.\u00a0Romania (revision), no. 28529\/04, \u00a7\u00a7 17, 19 and 21, 21 June 2011). The Court finds no reason to depart from the above findings in the present case.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0It further notes that that neither the applicant company\u2019s 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 R\u0103dulescu v.\u00a0Romania (revision), no. 17295\/10, \u00a7 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.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0In these circumstances, the Court accepts the Government\u2019s request for revision of the judgment of 28 February 2017.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The 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, \u00a7 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.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, application no. 58287\/10, introduced by S.C. Magdadia Trans S.R.L., 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 28\u00a0February\u00a02017 in the case of Timar 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.\u00a0\u00a0Decides 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.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 April 2019, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Andrea Tamietti\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque _______________
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\n[1].\u00a0\u00a0Revision of the judgment of 28 February 2017<\/p>\n