CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 23 juin 2016

.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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .sD6E1DABD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4F597665 { width:33.22pt; display:inline-block } .sEC15FD6E { width:113.55pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s12001E73 { width:142.23pt; display:inline-block } .s8934192D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s5E9AE8E6 { margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse; } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDA55D628 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:0.85pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s299B0C57 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       FOURTH SECTION           CASE OF CĂPITAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA   (Applications nos. 16497/06, 43943/06, 5579/07, 35907/07, 30448/08, 32241/08, 43154/08, 1411/09, 3044/09, 16199/09, 29686/09, 23802/10, 43022/10, 1799/11 and 65420/11)               JUDGMENT (Revision)       STRASBOURG   23 June 2016     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Căpitan and Others v. Romania, (request for revision of the judgment of 19 May 2015), The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a committee composed of:   Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,   Egidijus Kûris,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 2 June 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in fifteen applications (nos. 16497/06, 43943/06, 5579/07, 35907/07, 30448/08, 32241/08, 43154/08, 1411/09, 3044/09, 16199/09, 29686/09, 23802/10, 43022/10, 1799/11 and 65420/11) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Romanian companies and fourteen Romanian nationals. Their names and other details, as well as the date of lodging of each application are specified in the Appendix of the judgment delivered on 19 May 2015. 2.     In that judgment the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments in respect of all applications. The Court also decided to award the applicant in application no. 29686/09 2,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses and dismissed the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction. 3.     On 26 November 2015, the Government informed the Court that they discovered a new fact relevant for application no. 29686/09 which might by its nature have a decisive influence and which, when the judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court and could not reasonably have been known to the Government. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in respect of the above mentioned application. 4.     On 3 March 2016 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicant four weeks in which to submit any observations. Those observations were received on 18 March 2016. THE LAW THE REQUEST FOR REVISION 5.     The Government requested revision of the judgment of 19   May 2015, as they were informed by the relevant authorities, by letters of 30 July and 19   October 2015, that the domestic judgment rendered in favour of the applicant on 22 May 2008, final on 3 December 2008, had been enforced on 24   September 2013. 6.     The applicant argued that the delay in enforcement was excessive. 7.     The Court considers that the judgment of 19 May 2015 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, the relevant parts of which provide: “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 ... to revise that judgment. ...” 8.     The Court notes that the outstanding judgment was enforced on 24   September 2013, with a delay of four years and ten months. It therefore decides to award to the applicant the revised amount indicated in the Appendix. 9.     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 revise its judgment with respect to application no.   29686/09 and accordingly,   2.     Holds a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicant in application no.   29686/09, within three months, the revised amount indicated in the Appendix, to be converted into national currency at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; 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 23 June 2016, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Hasan Bakırcı   Vincent A. De Gaetano   Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX     Application no. and date of introduction     Applicant name date of birth   Relevant domestic decision   Length of enforcement proceedings   Article 41 (EUR) 29686/09 24/05/2009 Ioan HANDREA 03/07/1961 Decision of 22 May 2008, the Cluj Court of Appeal, final on 3 December 2008 4 years and 10 months [1] Non-pecuniary damage: 2,300 [2] Costs and expenses: 500   [1]     The length of non-enforcement initially considered was of 6 years and 1 month. [2]     The amount initially awarded was EUR 2,500.