CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 4 novembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sB1AFDE2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:14pt } .s2348ECBC { width:232.5pt; display:inline-block } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEB819C5B { width:17.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC8702D41 { width:154.61pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }       FOURTH SECTION                 CASE OF MANUSHAQE PUTO AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA   (Applications nos. 604/07, 43628/07, 46684/07 and 34770/09)               JUDGMENT (Revision)     STRASBOURG   4 November 2014     FINAL   23/03/2015   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania, (request for revision of the judgment of 31 July 2012), The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ineta Ziemele, President,   Päivi Hirvelä,   George Nicolaou,   Ledi Bianku,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva,   Paul Mahoney, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 21 October 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in four applications (nos. 604/07, 43628/07, 46684/07 and 34770/09) against the Republic of Albania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by twenty Albanian nationals, M. Puto, S. Puto, K. Puto, S. Puto and A. Puto (no. 604/07), B.   Dani, F. Dani, Fi. Dani, B. Dani, Gj. Dani, V. Dani, A. Dani and Ad.   Dani, (no. 43628/07), N. Ahmatas, M. Kreka, T. Kadiu, D. Kadiu, R.   Kadiu and I. Kadiu (no. 46684/07) and Sh. Muka (no. 34770/09) on 16   November 2006, 4 October 2007, 9 October 2007 and 18 June 2009, respectively. 2.     In a judgment delivered on 31 July 2012, the Court held that there had been a violation of Articles 13 and 6 § 1 as well as of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the lack of an effective remedy with which to enforce a final decision that had awarded the applicants compensation in lieu of the restitution of their property. The Court made just satisfaction awards in respect of each application. 3.     On 21 March 2013 the Government informed the Court that they had learned that the applicant’s brother in application no. 34770/09 had died on 12   July 2009. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in so far as the award of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in the sum of EUR 1,360,000 was concerned. 4.     On 4 June 2013 the applicant’s representative submitted observations in response to the Government’s request for revision. THE LAW   THE REQUEST FOR REVISION 5.     Article 80 of the Rules of Court states, in so far as relevant, as follows: “1.     A 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 revise that judgment. (...). 6.     The Government requested revision of the judgment of 31 July 2012 as regards the award of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in respect of application no. 34770/09. They argued that the applicant’s brother had died on 12 July 2009 and the applicant had not submitted an updated power of attorney authorising her to continue the representation of her brother or his heirs before this Court. The Government submitted that they had learned of the death of the applicant’s brother on 12   March 2013 during a meeting with the applicant’s husband. In their view, this ought to be considered a fact of decisive influence which was unknown when the judgment was delivered within the meaning of Rule 80. 7.     The applicant, Ms Muka, submitted that the revision request was without merit and should be considered a means of delaying payment of the award made by the Court. The applicant maintained that at the time of lodging her application with the Court, she had acted on the strength of a 2008 power of attorney granted by her brother, who had died subsequent to the introduction of the application. In her view, the Government had been informed of the applicant and her brother’s complaints when the case was communicated. The applicant further questioned the “decisive influence” of the death of her brother on the Court’s judgment. 8.     On 9 October 2013 the applicant further submitted that the Government had already paid EUR 324,285, the remaining award to be paid before January 2014. In her view, this was to be interpreted as an implicit endorsement by the Government of the Court’s award to all heirs. She reiterated that the Government’s request for revision was a tool to “delay the payment of the money due.” 9.     The Court considers that the death of the applicant’s brother constitutes “the discovery of a fact...which when [the] judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court.” In fact, the death of the applicant’s brother occurred on 12 July 2009, less than a month from the introduction of the application and the applicant failed to inform the Court of the death. She did not provide any explanation concerning her failure to inform the Court of her brother’s death or that she was the only heir. Neither did she submit an updated power of attorney authorising her to continue the case on behalf of her deceased brother’s heirs. 10.     The Court further considers that the death of the applicant’s brother constitutes a fact of “decisive influence” on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule   80   §   1, namely on the award of just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention.The Court is prepared to accept that this decisive fact “could not reasonably have been expected to be known to” the Government, who gained knowledge of the death of the applicant’s brother on 12 March 2013. They filed a request for revision of the award of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage on 21 March 2013, that is within the time-limit provided for in Rule 80. 11.     In these circumstances, the Court accepts the Government’s request for revision of the judgment of 31 July 2012 (see, also, Bortesi and Others v. Italy (revision), no. 71399/01, §§ 11 and 13, 8 December 2009). Consequently, the Court considers that, in the interest of the good administration of justice, the initial award of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage made to the applicant in application no. 34770/09, Ms   Shqipe   Muka, should be halved. It accordingly decides to award the applicant, Ms   Muka, only the amount of EUR 680,000 (six hundred and eighty thousand euros) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 12.     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. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Decides to accept the Government’s request for revision of the judgment of 31 July 2012 and, consequently, to revise its judgment of 31   July   2012 as regards the application of Article 41 of the Convention in respect of application no. 34770/09;   2.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicant in application no.   34770/09, Ms Shqipe Muka, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article   44   §   2 of the Convention, EUR 680,000 (six hundred and eighty thousand euros) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 November 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Françoise Elens-Passos   Ineta Ziemele   Registrar   President