CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 28 octobre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2757F5B8 { width:154.27pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION CASE OF PAVEL AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 11950/16 and 10 others)         JUDGMENT (Revision) STRASBOURG 28 October 2021   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Pavel and Others v. Romania (request for revision of the judgment of 10 December 2020), The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan, President,   Jolien Schukking,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 7 October 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 18397/16) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Romanian national, Mr Florentin Zaharia, on 26 April 2016. 2.     In the judgment Pavel and Others v. Romania delivered on 10   December 2020, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   3 of the Convention on account of inadequate conditions of detention. As regards application no. 18397/16, the Court also decided to award the applicant 3,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. 3.     On 3 February 2021 the Romanian Government (“the Government”) informed the Court that they had learned that Mr Florentin Zaharia, the applicant in application no. 18397/16, had died on 2 August 2020. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule   80 of the Rules of Court. 4.     On 11 March 2021 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicant’s potential heirs six weeks in which to submit any observations. Those observations were received by the Court on 14   June 2021 and sent to the Government on 27 August 2021 for information. THE LAW 5.     The Government requested revision of the judgment of 10   December 2020 as regards the case of Zaharia v. Romania (no.   18397/16). They explained that during the execution phase the applicant’s lawyer informed them about the death of the applicant. Given that the applicant’s heirs had neither informed the Court about the death of the applicant nor had expressed their wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court delivered its judgment, the Government asked the Court to allow the request for revision and strike the application out of the list. 6 .     In reply, the applicant’s mother, Ms Marinela Zaharia, stated that she obtained the inheritance certificate on 25 January 2021 and that she was not aware of the application lodged with the Court by the applicant until the applicant’s lawyer reached her at home in order to inform the applicant about the Court’s judgment of 10 December 2020. She had expressed her wish to pursue the proceedings in her son’s stead, which would entitle her to receive the sums awarded to her deceased son. 7.     The Court considers that the judgment of 10 December 2020 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 finds that the death of the applicant constitutes a fact of “decisive influence” on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule   80 § 1 (see Association of Victims of Romanian Judges and Others v.   Romania (revision), no. 47732/06, § 9, 22 March 2016). In particular, it reiterates that where the applicant has died after the application was lodged, the Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Nicolae Augustin Rădulescu v. Romania (revision), no. 17295/10, §   8, 19   May 2015). However, it has been the Courts 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 Cacuci and S.C. Virra & Cont Pad S.R.L. v. Romania (revision), no.   27153/07, §   10, 13   November 2018). 9 .     The Court takes note of the fact that the applicant’s representative had not informed the Court about the death of the applicant before it delivered the judgment in the case at hand on 10 December 2020. However, the Court notes that there are valid reasons for the applicant’s representative not being able to inform the Court sooner about the applicant’s death. The lawyer’s contact with the applicant only concerned the present case in which, once the exchange of observations was finished on 21 August 2019, she had little to do in the procedure until the delivery of the judgment; moreover, the applicant’s representative was not informed by the applicant’s mother of his death, since the latter was not aware of the application until the former reached the applicant’s home in order to inform him about the Court’s judgment (paragraph 6 above; see Nicolae Augustin Rădulescu , § 9, cited above, and Meryem Çelik et autres c. Turquie (révision), n o 3598/03, §§   8 and   10, 16 septembre 2014). 10.     Furthermore, the Court observes that the applicant’s mother only obtained her inheritance certificates on 25 January 2021 and that she informed the Court about her intention to pursue the application without delay after she had been invited to do so (see paragraph 6 above). 11.     Given these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant’s representative and his mother presented valid reasons for not informing the Court sooner about the applicant’s death and that the applicant’s mother expressed timely her wish to pursue the application. 12.     It accordingly decides to award Ms Marinela Zaharia the amount it had previously awarded to the deceased applicant, namely EUR 3,000 for non ‑ pecuniary damage. 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, Decides to revise the judgment Pavel and Others v. Romania of 10   December 2020 as regards the application Zaharia v.   Romania (no.   18397/16); Holds, accordingly, (a)   that the respondent State is to pay to the heir of Mr   Florentin Zaharia, Ms Marinela Zaharia, within three months, EUR   3,000 (three thousand euros) for non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the 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 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 28 October 2021, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina   Armen Harutyunyan Acting Deputy Registrar   President