FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF CACUCI AND S.C. VIRRA & CONT PAD S.R.L. v.\u00a0ROMANIA
\n(Application no. 27153\/07)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\n(Revision[1])
\nSTRASBOURG
\n13 November 2018<\/p>\n
FINAL
\n13\/02\/2019<\/p>\n
This judgment has become final under Article 44 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Cacuci and S.C. Virra&Cont Pad S.R.L. v. Romania, (request for revision of the judgment of 17 January 2017),<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:<\/p>\n
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,President,
\nVincent A. De Gaetano,<\/p>\n
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,<\/p>\n
Iulia Antoanella Motoc,<\/p>\n
Marko Bo\u0161njak,<\/p>\n
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,<\/p>\n
Egidijus K\u016bris, judges,<\/p>\n
andMarialenaTsirli, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated in private on 23 October 2018,<\/p>\n
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n
PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 27153\/07) 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 a Romanian national, Ms FloareCacuci (\u201cthe first applicant\u201d), and byS.C.\u00a0Virra\u00a0&\u00a0Cont\u00a0Pad\u00a0S.R.L. (\u201cthe second applicant\u201d), a single-memberprivate Romanian company owned by the first applicant, on 19 April 2007.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0In a judgment delivered on 17 January 2017, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the search performed on the first applicant\u2019s bag, which included the seizure of an orange notebook; that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the home search and the seizure of other various items on 21 October 2005, and finally, that there had been no violation of Article\u00a013 taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention. The Court also decided to award the applicants4,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses and dismissed the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 June 2017 the Government informed the Court that they had learned that Ms Cacucihad died on 28 December 2016. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 November 2017 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicants\u2019representativefour weeks in which to submit any observations. Those observations were received on 11\u00a0December\u00a02017.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n THE REQUEST FOR REVISION<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The Government requested revision of the judgment of 17\u00a0January\u00a02017, which they had been unable to execute because the first applicant, Ms Cacuci, had died before the judgment had been adopted. They asked that the case be consequently struck out of the Court\u2019s list of cases also in view of the failure of the applicant\u2019s heirs to inform the Court about their mother\u2019s death and to express their wish to pursue the proceedings in her stead. Alternatively, they requested that the just satisfaction part of the judgment be amended so as to introduce the applicant\u2019s heirs in her stead.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0In reply, Ms Cacuci\u2019srepresentativesubmitted that the heirs, Ms\u00a0Carmen\u00a0Florina\u00a0Fodor and Mr Bogdan Florin Fodor, had expressed their wish to pursue the proceedings in their mother\u2019s stead, being thus entitled to receive the sums awarded to their deceased mother. He further argued that the judgment delivered on 17 January 2017 had been adopted on 29\u00a0November\u00a02016 when the applicant was still alive. In his view the provisions of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court were therefore inapplicable in the present case.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant parts of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court provide that:<\/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\u00a0The Court considers that the death of the applicant constitutes a fact of \u201cdecisive influence\u201d on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 \u00a7 1.The Court takes note of the fact that neither Ms\u00a0Cacuci\u2019srepresentative, nor her heirs had informed the Court about the death of the applicant or justified in any way this failure (see, by way of contrast, Nicolae AugustinR\u0103dulescu v. Romania (revision), no.\u00a017295\/10, \u00a7\u00a09, 19\u00a0May\u00a02015). Furthermore, the Court is prepared to accept that this decisive fact \u201ccould not reasonably have been expected to be known to\u201d the Government, who gained knowledge of the death of the applicant on 30\u00a0May\u00a02017 and filed a request for revision of the judgment on 14\u00a0June\u00a02017, that is within the time-limit provided for in Rule 80.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0In these circumstances, the Court accepts the Government\u2019s request for revision of the judgment of 17 January 2017 (see, for instance, Bolovan v.\u00a0Romania (revision), no.64541\/01, \u00a7 11, 20 September 2011).<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further recalls that it has been its practice to strike applications out of the list of cases in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed in a timely manner a wish to pursue the application, without providing any explanation for such failure (see Association of Victims of Romanian Judges and Others v.\u00a0Romania (revision), no. 47732\/06,\u00a7\u00a7 9-11,22 March 2016 and, mutatis mutandis, ManushaqePutoand Others v. Albania (revision), nos. 604\/07 and 3\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a09, 4 November 2014). 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 11.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the Court\u2019s list of cases in accordance with Article 37 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n Decides to revise the judgment as a whole and to strike the case out of the list.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 November 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n MarialenaTsirli\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 Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque ____________________
\nSection 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 17 January 2017<\/p>\n