CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 30 janvier 2018

.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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .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 } .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 } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; 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 } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s9A72FAFE { width:198.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s1C2B10C2 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s23CD0580 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF SILÁŠOVÁ AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA   (Application no. 36140/10)           JUDGMENT ( Revision )         STRASBOURG   30 January 2018     FINAL   30/04/2018   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Silášová and Others v. Slovakia, (request for revision of the judgment of 28 June 2016), The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a   Chamber composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Branko Lubarda,   Luis López Guerra,   Helen Keller,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Alena Poláčková,   Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 9 January 2018, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 36140/10) against the Slovak Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Ms Jolana Dorčíková, who was born in 1942, and nineteen other Slovak nationals, whose particulars are set out in the appendix (“the applicants”), on 3   June 2010. 2.     In a judgment delivered on 28 June 2016, the Court: (1) declared the application admissible; and (2) held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of the conditions of the compulsory letting of the applicants’ land on the basis of the Allotments Act, as in force until 31   March 2011. The Court also (3) decided to award (i) the applicants in total 67,030 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage; (ii) to each of the applicants EUR 200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; and (iii) to the applicants jointly EUR 2,000 in respect of costs and expenses and (4)   dismissed the remainder of their claims for just satisfaction. 3.     On 3 April 2017 the Government informed the Court that they had learned from a submission by the applicants’ lawyer of 7 November 2016 that one of the applicants, Ms Jolana Dorčíková, had died in 2013. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule   80 of the Rules of Court. 4.     On 23 May 2017 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicants’ representative a period of time, to be fixed at six weeks, in order to submit any observations. Those observations were received on 5 July 2017 and a copy of them was subsequently transmitted to the Government for information. THE LAW THE REQUEST FOR REVISION 5.     The Government requested revision of the judgment of 28 June 2016, which they had been unable to execute because Ms Jolana Dorčíková had died before the judgment had been adopted. 6.     The applicants’ representative stated that he had learned of the death of Ms Jolana Dorčíková only after delivery of the Court’s judgment; that prior to the delivery of the Court’s judgment her heirs had presumably had no knowledge of her involvement in the proceedings before the Court; that after that judgment Ms Dorčíková’s heirs had initiated inheritance proceedings in respect of the real property affected by that judgment; that one of the heirs, Ms Anna Brnová ‒ who was herself an applicant before the Court in the context of the present application ‒ had informed him about the inheritance proceedings, and that those proceedings had been completed by a decision of 6 April 2017. From the information submitted, it transpires that the heirs of Ms Dorčíková agreed that her claims from the case before the Court would be assumed by Ms Brnová. Nevertheless, at the same time, the applicants’ representative submitted that none of the heirs had granted him power of attorney to act in their name in the matter of the revision of the Court’s judgment. 7.     The Court considers that the judgment of 28 June 2016 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 applicant Ms Jolana Dorčíková had died and that, through the intermediary of her lawyer and one of her heirs, Ms Anna Brnová, the heirs had been informed of the proceedings before the Court in so far as she was concerned. Nevertheless, none of her heirs has demonstrated a wish to pursue the application in her stead. 9.     The Court reiterates 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 a wish to pursue the application (see, for example, Eremiášová and Pechová v. the Czech Republic (revision), no. 23944/04, §   10, 20   June   2013, with further references, and Borovská v. Slovakia (revision), no.   48554/10, § 10, 16 February 2016). Moreover, it 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 application in respect of Ms Dorčíková. The application should therefore be struck out of the Court’s list of cases in so far as it relates to this applicant. This finding is without prejudice to the possibility of having the respective part of the application restored to the Court’s list of cases under Article   37 § 2 of the Convention. This finding results in a   new first ruling in the operative part of the judgment and the original rulings should accordingly be renumbered. 10.     The conclusion in the preceding paragraph has an impact on the ruling concerning the admissibility of the present application in that it is admissible only in so far as it concerns the remaining applicants. 11.     The findings and rulings on just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage should be modified so as to omit the applicant Ms   Jolana Dorčíková. The award in respect of pecuniary damage is accordingly EUR 66,450, as set out in column D of the appendix. The award in respect of non-pecuniary damage is EUR 200, plus any tax that may be chargeable, for each of the remaining applicants. 12.     Given that the applicants were all represented by the same representative, the amount in respect of costs and expenses, which was originally awarded to all of them jointly, is now to be awarded to the remaining applicants, jointly, along with any tax that may be chargeable to them. 13.     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 the judgment;   2.     Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as brought by the applicant Ms Jolana Dorčíková;   3.     Declares the remainder of the application admissible;   4.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article   44 §   2 of the Convention, the following amounts: (i)     EUR 66,450 (sixty-six thousand four hundred and fifty euros) in respect of pecuniary damage (paragraph 11 and column D of the appendix); (ii)     EUR 200 (two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, to each of the remaining applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (iii)     EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, to the remaining applicants jointly in respect of costs and expenses; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts 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 30 January 2018, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Fatoş Aracı   Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX         A. Applicant’s name B. Born C. Property / m 2 D. Award / EUR 1. Ms Anna BRNOVÁ 1940 118 580 2. Mr Anton DORČÍK 1945 118 580 3. Mr Tomáš DORČÍK 1990 118 580 4. Mr Jaroslav DORČÍK 1956 878 4,300 5. Ms Daniela FTORKOVÁ 1948 836 4,100 6. Mr Rudolf HARZEK 1962 263 1,290 7. Ms Anna HUBOČANOVÁ 1964 1,647 8,070 8. Ms Lýdia KOTHAJOVÁ 1944 856 4,190 9. Ms Eva KUBOVÁ 1938 878 4,300 10. Mr Peter KYŠKA 1946 236 1,160 11. Ms Berta LALINSKÁ 1938 804 3,940 12. Mr Peter LALINSKÝ 1946 201 980 13. Mr Imrich LEŠČINSKÝ 1946 1,535 7,520 14. Ms Marta SEDLÁČKOVÁ 1945 1,026 5,030 15. Ms Jozefa SILÁŠOVÁ 1947 13 60 16. Mr Peter ŠKULEC 1979 162 790 17. Ms Kornélia ŠOŠKOVÁ 1947 236 1,160 18. Ms Darina ŠTEFANATNÁ 1946 3,400 16,660 19. Ms Jarmila VESTFÁLOVÁ 1936 236 1,160