[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> HAGIESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA - 7901/02 (Judgment (Revision) : Court (Third Section)) [2016] ECHR 988 (15 November 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2016/988.html Cite as: [2016] ECHR 988

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 

 

 

FORMER THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF HAGIESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

 

(Application no. 7901/02)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

(Revision)

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

15 November 2016

 

 

 

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.




In the case of Hagiescu and Others v. Romania (request for revision of the judgment of 18 March 2014),

The European Court of Human Rights (Former Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

          Luis López Guerra, President,
          Kristina Pardalos,
          Helen Keller,
          Helena Jäderblom,
          Valeriu Griţco,
          Iulia Motoc,
          Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 18 October 2016,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 7901/02) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Romanian nationals, Mr Mircea Dumitru Grigore Hagiescu, Mr Andrei-Grigore Alexandrescu and Ms Domnica-Suzana Manicatide (“the applicants”), on 29 January 2002.

2.  In a judgment delivered on 13 November 2008 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of the infringement of their right of access to a court and the failure by the authorities to strike a fair balance between the public interest on the one hand and the applicants’ property right on the other (see Hagiescu and Others v. Romania, no. 7901/02, 13 November 2008). The Court reserved the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention as it was not ready for decision.

3.  In a judgment delivered on 18 March 2014, on the matter of just satisfaction, the Court found that the applicants have recovered the possession of their real estate and awarded the applicants jointly 4,700 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage.

4.  On 26 August 2014 the Government informed the Court that they had learned that one of the applicants, Mr Andrei-Grigore Alexandrescu (“the second applicant”) had died on 16 November 2013 before the judgment of 18 March 2014 had been delivered by the Court. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.

5.  On 23 September 2014 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicants’ representative three weeks in which to submit any observations. As no reply had been received, the Court sent a new letter directly to the second applicant’s heir, Ms Domnica-Suzana Manicatide. Her observations were received on 29 February 2016 and forwarded to the Government for comments.

THE LAW

      THE REQUEST FOR REVISION

6.  The Government requested revision of the judgment of 18 March 2014, which they had been unable to have executed because the second applicant had died before the judgment had been adopted. Ms Domnica-Suzana Manicatide, one of the applicants, was the sole heir of the deceased. They asked the Court to review the judgment of 18 March 2014 in respect of the distribution of the non-pecuniary damage to the applicants by taking into account the fact that one of the applicants had died and another one was his sole heir.

7.  The applicants’ representative stated that the death of the second applicant, which had taken place only three months prior to the judgment of 18 March 2014, had not exerted a decisive influence on the case as his sole heir, Ms Domnica-Suzana Manicatide, was also an applicant in the case. The latter had assumed that it was not necessary to inform the Court about her brother’s death as according to the national law pertaining to the issue of inheritance she was his sole heir and would inherit his estate.

8.  The Court notes that according to the inheritance certificate submitted by the Government, Ms Domnica-Suzana Manicatide is the sole heir of the second applicant. Moreover, she expressed her wish to pursue the proceedings in the observations submitted in response to the revision request.

9.  In these circumstances, the Court notes that the death of the second applicant is a new fact, unknown to the Court when the judgment was delivered, that could be regarded as capable of having a “decisive influence” within the meaning of Rule 80 § 1 of the Rules of Court. It considers therefore that the judgment of 18 March 2014 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.

...”

10.  Whereas it makes no difference to the order to pay EUR 4,700 that one of the applicants has died and whereas the applicants’ failure to inform the Court prior to its judgment of the death of the second applicant did not have any effect on its examination of the case, the Court decides to award Ms Domnica-Suzana Manicatide the amount it previously awarded to Mr Andrei-Grigore Alexandrescu, namely EUR 1,560 for non-pecuniary damage and Article 41 of the Court’s judgment of 18 March 2014 be revised accordingly pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court (see, Gülbahar Özer and Others v. Turkey (revision), no. 44125/06, § 8, 10 June 2014; and Dzhabrailovy v. Russia (revision), no. 68860/10, § 10, 4 February 2016).

11.  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 of 18 March 2014 in so far as it concerns the claims made by the deceased applicant’s heir under Article 41 of the Convention;

 

      accordingly,

 

      Holds,

a)  that the respondent State is to pay, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i)  to Ms Domnica-Suzana Manicatide EUR 3,120 (three thousand one hundred and twenty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii)  to Mr Mircea Dumitru Grigore Hagiescu EUR 1,580 (one thousand five hundred and eighty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;




 

(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 15 November 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

     Fatoş Aracı                                                                    Luis López Guerra
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President