CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 9 février 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sD0A217A5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s6F7FC1B9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s376CDD9C { width:117.08pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block }       FOURTH SECTION CASE OF DUMITRACHE AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 58771/16 and 9 others)         JUDGMENT (Revision) STRASBOURG 9 February 2023       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Dumitrache and Others v. Romania (request for revision of the judgment of 2 December 2021), The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan , President ,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 19 January 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in ten applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates set out in the table appended to the judgment delivered on 2 December 2021. 2.     In that judgment the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   3 of the Convention on account of inadequate conditions of detention. The Court also decided to award the applicants just satisfaction in the amounts set out in the table appended to that judgment. 3.     On 11 April 2022 the Romanian Government (“the Government”) informed the Court that on 8 February 2022 they had learned that Mr Engin Geambec, the applicant in application no. 39037/17 had died on 27 April 2018. They accordingly asked for the judgment to be revised within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. 4.     On 19 May 2022 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicant’s potential heirs six weeks in which to submit any observations, in accordance with Rule 80 § 4 of the Rules of Court. By letter of 30 May 2022, sent to the applicant’s representative (a lawyer), they were invited to inform the Court whether they wished to pursue the application before the Court. In the absence of any response, the time-limit was extended until 26 September 2022. The applicant’s potential heirs were also directly invited to submit comments by a letter dated 10 October 2022, sent by registered post. According to the official website of the Romanian Postal Service, the Registry’s letters, respectively, was handed over to the applicant’s representative on 8 September 2022 and delivered to the applicant’s home address on 19 October 2022. No response was received to date. THE LAW THE REQUEST FOR REVISION 5.     The Government asked for the revision of the judgment of 2 December 2021, which they had been unable to execute in full because Mr Geambec had died before the judgment had been adopted. They argued that his lawyer or the heirs should have informed the Court about the death of their close relative and about their intention to pursue the proceedings. As they failed to do so, they should not receive the amount awarded to the deceased applicant. 6.     No heirs have shown interest in pursuing the procedure. 7.     The Court considers that the judgment of 2 December 2021 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 had died before it adopted the judgment of 2 December 2021 and that no observations have been submitted to it by any potential heirs. 9.     The Court considers that the applicant’s death constitutes “the discovery of a fact ... which when [the] judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court”. It also constitutes a fact of “decisive influence” on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 § 1. The Court is prepared to accept that this decisive fact “could not reasonably have been expected to be known” to the Government, which became aware of the applicant’s death on 8 February 2022 (see Manushaqe Puto and Others v.   Albania (revision), nos. 604/07 and 3 others, §§ 9-10, 4 November 2014). They filed a request for revision of the judgment on 11 April 2022, that is, within the time-limit provided for by Rule 80. 10.     In these circumstances, the Court accepts the Government’s request for revision of the judgment of 2 December 2021. 11.     The Court further notes that Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, in its relevant part, reads: “1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that ... (c) ... it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.” 12.     In this respect, the Court observes that it has been its practice to strike applications out of the list of cases when the applicant has died during the proceedings and no heirs or close relatives have expressed a wish to pursue them (see Cioată and Others v. Romania, no. 48095/07, §§ 5-17, 11 February 2021 and Neghină and Others v. Romania (revision), nos. 37620/15 and 10   others, §§ 5-13, 28 October 2021). It further 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. 13.     Accordingly, application no. 39037/17, introduced by Mr Engin Geambec, should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention and the judgment of 2 December 2021 in the case of Dumitrache and Others v. Romania should be revised as far as it concerns the application in question. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to revise its judgment of 2 December 2021 in the case of Dumitrache and Others v. Romania in respect of application no.   39037/17; and, accordingly: Decides to strike application no. 39037/17, lodged by Mr Engin Geambec, out of its list of cases Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 February 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Armen Harutyunyan   Acting Deputy Registrar   President