CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 3 avril 2025

.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 } .s7CD087BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; 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 } .s56A455C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .sE9B63EAF { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7FB0030E { width:111.07pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION CASE OF ILIE AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 23993/16)             JUDGMENT (Revision) STRASBOURG 3 April 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ilie and Others v. Romania (request for revision of the judgment of 9 February 2023), The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Anne Louise Bormann , President ,   Sebastian Răduleţu,   András Jakab , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 13 March 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case Ilie and Others v. Romania originated in fourteen 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 9 February 2023. 2.     In the respective 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 10 March 2023 the Romanian Government (“the Government”) informed the Court that on 24 February 2023 they had learned that Mr   Nicolae-Marian Vasile, the applicant in application no. 65050/16, had died on 6 January 2023. They accordingly asked for the judgment to be revised within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. 4.     On 29 June 2023 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 dated 6 July 2023, sent by registered post to Mr Vasile’s last known address of correspondence, his potential heirs were invited to inform the Court whether they wished to pursue the application before the Court, and to submit a copy of an authentic document issued by the domestic authorities proving their quality as legal heirs (“certificat de moștenitor”). 5.     On 11 December 2023 the applicant’s mother informed the Court that she intends to pursue her son’s application. 6.     On 31 July 2024 the Registry sent a strike-out warning letter to the applicant’s mother by registered post, asking again for a copy of an authentic document issued by the domestic authorities proving her quality as legal heir (“certificat de moștenitor”). The deadline for reply was set for 5   September 2024. The notice of receipt of the letter was signed by the applicant’s mother on 6 August 2024. To this date, she neither submitted a copy of a document proving her quality as legal heir, nor has she provided an explanation for the failure to comply with the Registry’s instructions. THE LAW THE REQUEST FOR REVISION 7.     The Government requested revision of the judgment of 9   February 2023, which they had been unable to execute because Mr Vasile had died before the judgment had been adopted. They argued that 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. 8.     The Court considers that the judgment of 9   February 2023 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. ...” 9.     The Court notes that the applicant had died before it adopted the judgment of 9 February 2023 and that no observations have been submitted to it by any potential heirs. 10.     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 24 February 2023 (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 10 March 2023, that is, within the time-limit provided for by Rule 80. 11.     In these circumstances, the Court accepts the Government’s request for revision of the judgment of 9 February 2023. 12.     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.” 13.     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, in a timely manner, 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. 14.     Accordingly, application no. 65050/16, introduced by Mr   Nicolae ‑ Marian   Vasile, should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention and the judgment of 9   February 2023 in the case of Ilie 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 9 February 2023 in the case of Ilie   and   Others v. Romania in respect of application no. 65050/16; and accordingly: Decides to strike application no. 65050/16, lodged by Mr   Nicolae ‑ Marian   Vasile, out of its list of cases. Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 April 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Anne Louise Bormann   Acting Deputy Registrar   President