THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF BALAN AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
\n(Applications nos. 51414\/11 and 46098\/12)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\n(Revision)<\/p>\n
STRASBOURG
\n17 July 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Balan and Others v. Slovakia (request for revision of the judgment of 27 June 2017),<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a\u00a0Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Helen Keller,President, Having deliberated in private on 26 June 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 two applications (nos. 51414\/11 and 46098\/12) against the Slovak Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by Mr BranislavG\u00e1lus(\u201cthe applicant\u201d) and sixty-four other applicants, on 8 August 2011 and 23 July 2012, respectively.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0In a judgment delivered on 27 June 2017, the Court decided to join the applications and held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1to the Convention as a result of the implementation of rent\u2011control scheme. The Court made awards under Article 41 of the Convention, out of which to the late applicant was awarded 21,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non\u2011pecuniary damage and a portion of a\u00a0joint award in respect of costs and expenses.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 September 2017 the Government informed the Court that they had learned from a submission by the applicant\u2019s lawyer of 15 August 2017 that the applicant had died on 15 February 2016. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule\u00a080 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 November 2017 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicant\u2019srepresentative until 22 December 2017 to submit any observations. Those observations were received on that date and a copy of them was transmitted to the Government who commentedin reply on 12 January 2018. Their comments have been transmitted to the applicant\u2019s representative for information.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n THE REQUEST FOR REVISION<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The Government requested revision of the judgment of 27 June 2017, which they had been unable to execute because the\u00a0applicant had died before the judgment had been adopted. They noted that the applicant\u2019s representative and his relatives had not informed the Court about his death or theirwish to pursue the application in his stead. They asked the Court to strike the relevant part of the application out of the list of cases with reference to the cases ofBorovsk\u00e1 v. Slovakia ((revision), no. 48554\/10, 16\u00a0February 2016) and Eremi\u00e1\u0161ov\u00e1 and Pechov\u00e1v. the Czech Republic ((revision), no. 23944\/04, 20\u00a0June 2013).<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019srepresentative stated that he had learned about the applicant\u2019s death only after the delivery of the judgment. He informed the Court that the applicant had three heirs \u2011 a spouse, Ms \u013dubicaG\u00e1lusov\u00e1, and two daughters, Ms \u013dubicaMacekov\u00e1 and Ms Andrea G\u00e1lusov\u00e1, and that theyask the Court to allow them to pursue the application in the applicant\u2019s stead. They submitted a certificate of inheritance of 13 June 2016 and the powers of attorney authorising the applicant\u2019s lawyer to represent them before the Court. They further stated that they had had no knowledge of the application pending before the Court and could therefore not have informed the Court about the applicant\u2019s death before the adoption of the judgment.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0In their comments in reply the Government did not contest that the applicant had heirs who wished to pursue the proceedings, but noted, without making any specific suggestion, that the heirshad not owned or inherited the property subjected to rent control.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant parts of Rule\u00a080 of the Rules of Court 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, within a period of six months after that party acquired knowledge of the fact, to\u00a0revise that judgment.<\/p>\n …\u201d<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0TheCourt considers that the Government\u2019s request complies with these requirements and the relevant parts of the judgment of 27\u00a0June 2017 should accordingly be revised.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The Court is satisfied from the submitted documents that the late applicant had three heirs \u2013 a spouse and two daughters, and that they expressed a wish to pursue the application in his stead. The present case is therefore different from the cases referred to by the Government where no relatives expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings and the Court revised the judgments in that it decided to strike those cases out of the list pursuant to Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) of the Convention.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further observes that in a\u00a0number of case similar to the present one, the original judgments have been revised in a way that the amounts previously awarded to the deceased applicants were awarded to the heirs (see, among many others, Wypuko\u0142-Pi\u0119tka v. Poland (revision), no.\u00a03441\/02, 8 June 2010; Nosov and Others v. Russia (revision), nos.\u00a09117\/04 and 10441\/04, 15\u00a0January 2015; Kylyuk and Others v. Russia (revision), nos. 47032\/06 and 3\u00a0others, 17\u00a0January 2017 and Zherdev v.\u00a0Ukraine (revision), no. 34015\/07, 25 January 2018).<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0As to the failure to provide information about the applicant\u2019s death before the adoption of the judgment, the Court remindsthat the parties have a\u00a0duty to fully cooperate in the conduct of the proceedings and shall keep it\u00a0informed of all circumstances relevant to the application (Rules 44A and 47\u00a0\u00a7\u00a07 of the Rules of Court), and that these duties apply also to their representatives. Where a\u00a0party fails to participate effectively in the proceedings, the Court may draw such inferences as it deems appropriate (Rule\u00a044C). Having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court deemsunnecessary to draw any such inferences.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0In so far as the Government\u2019s commentin paragraph\u00a07was substantiated and considering the case-law on the matter, the Court does not discern any issue in the present case.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0Having considered the above, the Courtawardsthe heirs Ms \u013dubicaG\u00e1lusov\u00e1, Ms\u00a0\u013dubicaMacekov\u00e1 and Ms\u00a0Andrea G\u00e1lusov\u00e1jointly the amounts it previously awarded to the applicant,namely:<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0EUR 21,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage,<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0EUR\u00a01,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, in respect of legal costs,<\/p>\n (iii)\u00a025\u00a0% of the sum claimed by the applicant in respect of the expert opinion on the rental value of the flats, and<\/p>\n (iv)\u00a0EUR 930 in respect of translation costs to the extent the applicant participated in these costs.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0The conclusions in the preceding paragraph do not affect the remaining parts of the original judgment.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.\u00a0\u00a0Decides to revise the judgment of 27\u00a0June 2017 in so far as it concerns the claims made by the deceased applicant Mr BranislavG\u00e1lus under Article 41 of the Convention;<\/p>\n and accordingly,<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Holds unanimously,<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay Ms \u013dubicaG\u00e1lusov\u00e1, Ms\u00a0\u013dubicaMacekov\u00e1 and Ms Andrea G\u00e1lusov\u00e1jointly, within three months,<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0EUR 21,000 (twenty-one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary and non\u2011pecuniary damage,<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0EUR\u00a01,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, in respect of legal costs,<\/p>\n (iii)\u00a025\u00a0% of the sum claimed by Mr BranislavG\u00e1lusin respect of the expert opinion on the rental value of the individual flats, and<\/p>\n (iv)\u00a0EUR 930 (nine hundred and thirty euros) in respect of translation costs to the extentMr BranislavG\u00e1lusparticipated in these costs;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a\u00a0rate 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 17 July 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Fato\u015fArac\u0131\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Helen Keller
\nPere Pastor Vilanova,
\nAlena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, judges,
\nand Fato\u015f Arac\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\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