BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FORMER
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BOLOVAN v. ROMANIA
(Application
no. 64541/01)
JUDGMENT
(revision)
STRASBOURG
20
September 2011
FINAL
20/12/2011
This
judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bolovan v. Romania (request for revision of the
judgment of 24 November 2009),
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section),
sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Elisabet
Fura,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Alvina
Gyulumyan,
Egbert
Myjer,
Luis
López Guerra,
judges,
and
Santiago Quesada,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 30 August 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 64541/01) against Romania
lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the
Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Romanian national, Mr Constantin Bolovan
(“the applicant”), on 26 August 1998.
- The
applicant was represented by Law Office Oancea-Răduleţu,
based in Craiova. The Romanian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu, of
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
- In
a judgment delivered on 24 November 2009, the Court held that there
had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of
deficiencies in the criminal investigations into the applicant’s
allegations of ill-treatment at the hands of the police. The Court
also decided to award the applicant 4,000 euros
for non-pecuniary damage.
- On
8 June 2010 the Government informed the Court that they
had learned that the applicant had died on 1
August 2008. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment
within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.
- On
5 April 2011 the Court considered the request for revision and
decided to give the applicant’s
representative and his potential heirs three
weeks in which to submit any observations. The letter sent to the
applicant’s former address returned to the Court, and the
letter sent to his representative reached its destination but
remained unanswered.
THE LAW
THE REQUEST FOR REVISION
- The
Government requested revision of the judgment of 24 November 2009,
which they had been unable to execute because
the applicant had died before the judgment had
been adopted.
- No
heir made observations on the matter.
- The
relevant parts of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court 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.
...”
- The
Court notes that the applicant died on 1 August 2008, that is, before
the initial judgment was delivered. His death constitutes a fact that
“might by its nature have a decisive influence on the judgment
delivered by the Court”.
- It
also notes that neither the applicant’s representative nor his
relatives informed the Court of the death. No potential heir made a
request to pursue the proceedings before the Court. It was thus not
aware of the applicant’s death, nor can this fact be reasonably
assumed to have been known to the Government before they started the
execution of the initial judgment.
- In
these circumstances, the Court considers that the judgment of
24 November 2009 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 of the
Rules of Court.
- Having
regard to the fact that the applicant died during the proceedings and
that no relatives expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings, the
Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the
examination of the application (see Gabay v. Turkey (revision),
no. 70829/01, § 8, 27 June 2006).
- It
accordingly decides that the case should be struck out of its list in
accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the Government’s request for the
revision of the judgment of 24 November 2009 admissible;
accordingly,
- Decides to revise the judgment as a whole and to
strike the case out of the list.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 September 2011,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of
Court.
Santiago Quesada Josep
Casadevall Registrar President
