CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 8 janvier 2026

.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 } .s63658818 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .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 } .s459D9084 { width:131.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION CASE OF PETEJOVÁ AND PJONTEKOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA (Applications nos. 18062/22 and 18069/22)             JUDGMENT (Revision)   STRASBOURG 8 January 2026     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Petejová and Pjonteková v. Slovakia (request for revision of the judgment of 5 September 2024), The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Frédéric Krenc , President ,   Davor Derenčinović,   Alain Chablais , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 4 December 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case of Petejová and Pjonteková v. Slovakia originated in two applications against Slovakia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 4 April 2022. 2.     In the respective judgment delivered on 5 September 2024, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the civil proceedings. The Court also decided to award the applicants the amounts indicated in the table appended to that judgment. 3.     On 2 December 2024 the Government informed the Court that they had learned that the applicant in application no. 18069/22, namely Ms   G.   Pjonteková, had died on 20   August 2023. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. 4.     On 9 January 2025 the Court received submissions from Mr   M.   Lipčei, asserting that he is an heir of the deceased applicant. 5 .     On 23 January 2025 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to invite the Government and the deceased applicant’s sister, Ms   A.   Petejová, to submit any comments they wished to make. Mr M.   Lipčei was invited to provide an inheritance certificate. 6 .     The Government’s comments were received on 24 April 2025. Mr   M.   Lipčei submitted his comments on 26 March 2025 but did not provide the Court with an inheritance certificate. Ms A.   Petejová did not reply to the Court’s letter of 31 January 2025, nor to the subsequent letter of 3 April 2025, sent by registered post, which was returned to the Court as unclaimed on 2   June 2025. 7.     On 2 June 2025 the Court received submissions from Ms I. Petejová, who also asserted that she was an heir of the deceased applicant. On   19   June   2025 she submitted an inheritance certificate indicating, inter   alia , that she had inherited the just satisfaction awarded to the late applicant by the Court’s judgment of 5 September 2024. 8.     The Government submitted their reply to Ms. I. Petejová’s submissions on 19 June and 18 July 2025. 9.     On 14 August 2025 the Court received further submissions of Ms   I.   Petejová and sent them to the Government for information. THE LAW The request for revision 10.     The Government requested revision of the judgment of 5   September   2024, because the applicant, Ms G. Pjonteková, had died before the judgment had been adopted. In this regard they submitted that on 5   September 2024, i.e. the very day the Court’s judgment was published, they had received a   request from Mr M. Lipčei for the payment of the just satisfaction awarded to the late applicant. The latter claimed to be an authorised representative of the late applicant and submitted an authority form allegedly signed by her, prior to lodging the application with the Court. Since the application had been lodged directly by Ms   G.   Pjonteková, the Government sent a letter to her seeking confirmation that she had indeed authorised Mr M. Lipčei to receive the just satisfaction. As delivery of the letter had failed, the Government contacted the Registry of Citizens. 11.     On 20 November 2024 the Government were informed that Ms   G.   Pjonteková had died on 20 August 2023. The Government then asked the Court to revise the judgment and to strike the application, insofar as it had been brought by Ms G. Pjonteková, out of its list of cases, as no relatives had informed the Court of her death or had expressed a wish to pursue the   application in her stead. 12.     In her submissions, Ms I. Petejová argued that the Government’s request for revision was inadmissible as they had been aware of Ms   G.   Pjonteková’ death since 25 August 2023, based on the information from the Registry of Citizens. She further stated that she had inherited the   claim for the payment of just satisfaction awarded to the late applicant by the Court, and therefore its judgment could be executed without being revised. In   her final submission of 8 August 2025 (received by the Court on 14   August   2025), Ms I. Petejová added that should the Court find the   Government’s request for revision well-founded, she wished to continue the proceedings in the late applicant’s stead. 13 .     The Government replied that although Ms I. Petejová claimed to be a relative of the late applicant, she did not specify the nature of the family relationship in any of her numerous submissions. They referred to a document issued by a public notary listing Ms I. Petejová and Mr M. Lipčei among the   individuals who “merely” shared a household with the late applicant. They   further pointed out that Ms I. Petejová had contacted the Government on 9   September and 7 November 2024 but solely in her capacity as a representative of the applicant Ms A. Petejová, seeking payment of the just satisfaction on her behalf. On neither occasion did she inform the   Government of Ms G. Pjonteková’s death or indicate that, as an heir, she wished to continue the proceedings in her stead. The Government also submitted documents showing that Ms I. Petejová is a lawyer who represented the applicants in the domestic proceedings, and Mr M. Lipčei is her legal associate. 14 .     The Government further noted that they had no reason to contact the   Registry of Citizens or the applicant prior to the adoption of the judgment. They also pointed out that Ms I. Petejová had failed to express a wish to continue the proceedings before the Court in the late applicant’s stead, and merely asserted that the Court’s judgment can be executed within the   inheritance proceedings. In this regard the Government stated that, under domestic law, this was not possible, as the estate of the deceased passes to the   heirs at the moment of death. However, the just satisfaction did not exist at the time of the late applicant’s death, as the Court had not yet rendered its judgment. 15.     The Court accepts the Government’s argument that the death of Ms   G.   Pjonteková had a decisive influence on the outcome of the case within the meaning of Rule   80 of the Rules of Court, namely the allocation of the amount awarded under Article   41 of the Convention. 16.     The Court considers that the judgment of 5 September 2024 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. 17.     The Court reiterates that, where the applicant has died after lodging an application, it 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 Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.   Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014). The Court has also established that it is for the heir who wishes to pursue the proceedings before the Court to substantiate his or her standing to do so (see, for example, Belskiy   v. Russia   (dec.), no. 23593/03, 26 November 2009). 18.     Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that Ms   G.   Pjonteková died on 20   August 2023, i.e. more than one year prior to the adoption of the Court’s judgment, and Ms I. Petejová and Mr M. Lipčei submitted that they had shared household with her. Accordingly, they should have been aware of Ms   G. Pjonteková’s death and of their own status as potential heirs. Nevertheless, they did not inform either the Government or the Court of this event and neither expressed a wish to continue the   proceedings while the case was still pending before the Court. Furthermore, they failed to notify the Government of Ms G. Pjonteková’s death during the procedure for the execution of the judgment, despite having contacted them on several occasions (contrast Balogh and Others v.   Slovakia   [Committee] (revision), nos. 7918/19 and 43062/20, § 5, 15   September 2022). Their submissions also contain no explanation as to why they withheld that information (contrast ibid., § 9). 19.     The Court is mindful of the Government’s argument that, rather than expressing a wish to continue the proceedings in the late applicant’s stead, initially Mr M. Lipčei, and later Ms I. Petejová, argued that the request for revision was inadmissible, as they had inherited the just satisfaction awarded by the Court to the late applicant. As regards Mr M. Lipčei, the Court notes that he did not provide any document, such as an inheritance certificate, to   confirm his status as an heir of the late applicant (see paragraph 6 above). 20.     As to Ms I. Petejová, she only expressed her intention to pursue the application in her submission of 8 August 2025, after the Government had challenged the validity of the inheritance certificate (see paragraph 14 above). The Court reiterates that according to Rule 44C § 1 of the Rules of Court, where a party fails to adduce evidence or provide information requested by the Court or to divulge relevant information of its own motion or otherwise fails to participate effectively in the proceedings, the Court may draw such inferences as it deems appropriate. In this context, the Court cannot but observe that Ms I. Petejová is a legal professional and as such should show a high level of professional prudence and meaningful cooperation with the   Court. Nevertheless, although Ms I. Petejová represented the applicants in the domestic proceedings, requested the payment of just satisfaction on behalf of Ms A. Petejová who had not replied to the Court’s letters (see   paragraphs 6 and 13 above), and claimed to be the heir of the late applicant, she did not inform the Court of the applicant’s death and therefore failed to disclose relevant information of her own motion. 21.     Given these circumstances, in particular Mr M. Lipčei’s failure to submit an inheritance certificate, as well as Ms I. Petejová’s conduct and the contested nature of her status as an heir, the Court finds that they have failed to substantiate their standing in the proceedings before the Court (compare Piloyan v. Armenia [Committee] (dec), no. 112/11, 19 November 2020, and, mutatis mutandis , Špehar and Gojkovič v. Croatia (dec.), nos.   7535/21   and   58894/21 , § 27, 8 July 2025, where the Court decided to strike out the applications based on the lack of effective participation of the late applicants’ lawyer). 22.     In the light of the foregoing, in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (c)   of the Convention, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application lodged by the late applicant. Furthermore, it does not consider that “respect for human rights as defined in the   Convention and the Protocols” requires the examination of the application. 23.     Accordingly, application no. 18069/22 introduced by Ms   G.   Pjonteková, should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention and the judgment of 5   September 2024 in the case of   Petejová and Pjonteková v. Slovakia should be revised as far as it concerns the application in question. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to revise the judgment of 5 September 2024 in respect of application no. 18069/22; and, accordingly: Decides to strike application no.18069/22 lodged by Ms G. Pjonteková out of its list of cases. Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 January 2026, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Frédéric Krenc   Acting Deputy Registrar   President