58349/09

FOURTH SECTION                 CASE OF FRANČIŠKA ŠTEFANČIČ v. SLOVENIA   (Application no. 58349/09)       JUDGMENT (Revision)           STRASBOURG   9 October 2018     FINAL   09/01/2019   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Frančiška Štefančič v. Slovenia, (request for revision of the judgment of 24 October 2017), The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:  Ganna Yudkivska, President,  Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,  Egidijus Kūris,  Iulia Antoanella Motoc,  Carlo Ranzoni,  Marko Bošnjak,  Péter Paczolay, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 18 September 2018, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in an application (no. 58349/09) against the Republic of Slovenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Slovenian national, Ms Frančiška Štefančič (“the applicant”), on 23 October 2009. 2.  In a judgment delivered on 24 October 2017, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. The Court also decided to award the applicant 36,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and dismissed the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction. 3.  On 2 November 2017 the Government informed the Court that they had learned that the applicant had died on 4 November 2016. They accordingly requested a revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. 4.  On 6 February 2018 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicant’s representative three weeks in which to submit any observations. Those observations were received on 8 March 2018 and a copy of them was transmitted to the Government who commented in reply on 16 April 2018. A further set of observations from the deceased applicant’s daughters, confirming their intention to continue the proceedings in the applicant’s stead, was received on 16 July 2018. A copy was transmitted to the Government who sent their reply on 14 August 2018. THE LAW  THE REQUEST FOR REVISION 5.  The Government requested a revision of the judgment of 24 October 2017, which they had been unable to execute because the applicant had died before the judgment had been adopted. 6.  The observations of 8 March 2018 included statements by the applicant’s daughters, Ms Ivanka Božič and Ms Sonja Mikuž, describing the impact the circumstances leading to the violation of Article 2 of the Convention had had on their mother and a note that the applicant’s representative’s power of attorney had been terminated. In their comments, the Government noted that the observations submitted on behalf of the applicant’s daughters contained no explanation as to why the applicant’s representative had not informed the Court of the applicant’s death and no clear indication of the applicant’s heirs’ wish to pursue the present application. They asked the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases. 7.  On 16 July 2018 Ms Ivanka Božič and Ms Sonja Mikuž submitted their statements in which they declared their wish to continue the proceedings in the applicant’s stead. They also submitted birth certificates confirming that they were the daughters of the deceased applicant. Subsequently, the Government sent a reply acknowledging that Ms Ivanka Božič and Ms Sonja Mikuž were the heirs of the applicant and submitting a certificate of inheritance of 14 December 2016 naming them as the applicant’s only statutory heirs. 8.  The Court considers that the judgment of 24 October 2017 should be revised (see, for example, Wypukoł-Piętka v. Poland (revision), no. 3441/02, 8 June 2010, and Dzhabrailovy v. Russia (revision), no. 68860/10 and 4 others, 4 February 2016), 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 accordingly decides to award the heirs jointly the amount it previously awarded to the deceased applicant, namely EUR 36,000 for non‑pecuniary damage. 10.  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, 1.  Decides to revise its judgment of 24 October 2017 as regards the application of Article 41 of the Convention;     and accordingly,   2.  Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay jointly to the heirs of Ms Frančiška Štefančič, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 36,000 (thirty six thousand 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 amount 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 9 October 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Marialena Tsirli Ganna Yudkivska Section Registrar President