7219/14;17121/14;32843/14;48916/14;54119/14;60427/14;71181/14;78237/14;11696/15;15551/15;19789/15;25003/15;30271/15;39844/15;43775/15;48443/15;49062/15;52291/15;52882/15;53007/15;55564/15;55581/15;56698/15;59198/15;61143/15;9517/16;17945/16

WyrokETPCz2019-03-07ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0307JUD000721914

Analiza orzeczenia

Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.

Zagadnienie prawne

Czy śmierć skarżącego przed wydaniem wyroku, nieznana Trybunałowi w momencie jego ogłoszenia, stanowi podstawę do rewizji wyroku na podstawie Reguły 80 Regulaminu Trybunału i wykreślenia skargi z listy spraw na podstawie art. 37 ust. 1 Konwencji?

Ratio decidendi

Trybunał uznał, że śmierć skarżącego przed wydaniem wyroku stanowiła "odkrycie faktu", który miał "decydujący wpływ" na wynik sprawy i nie mógł być rozsądnie znany rządowi w momencie wydania wyroku, co uzasadniało rewizję na podstawie Reguły 80 Regulaminu Trybunału. Ponadto, Trybunał stwierdził, że w sytuacji, gdy nie zgłosili się żadni spadkobiercy ani bliscy krewni zainteresowani kontynuowaniem postępowania, a brak jest szczególnych okoliczności dotyczących poszanowania praw człowieka wymagających dalszego badania, uzasadnione jest wykreślenie skargi z listy spraw na podstawie art. 37 ust. 1 lit. c Konwencji.

Stan faktyczny

W pierwotnym wyroku z 8 marca 2018 r. Trybunał stwierdził naruszenie art. 3 Konwencji w związku z nieodpowiednimi warunkami detencji i zasądził zadośćuczynienie na rzecz skarżących, w tym Mr Cătălina Vasile Brumy. 15 maja 2018 r. rząd Rumunii poinformował Trybunał, że Mr Brumă zmarł 28 czerwca 2016 r., czyli przed wydaniem wyroku, i w związku z tym zażądał rewizji wyroku. Trybunał dał potencjalnym spadkobiercom sześć tygodni na zgłoszenie się, ale żadne obserwacje nie zostały otrzymane.

Rozstrzygnięcie

Trybunał jednogłośnie: 1. Postanawia zrewidować swój wyrok z 8 marca 2018 r. w odniesieniu do skargi nr 32843/14. 2. Postanawia wykreślić skargę nr 32843/14, złożoną przez Mr Cătălina Vasile Brumę, z listy spraw.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF ILIAȘ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 7219/14 and 26 other applications) JUDGMENT (Revision) STRASBOURG 7 March 2019 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Iliaș v. Romania, (request for revision of the judgment of 8 March 2018), The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Georges Ravarani, President, Marko Bošnjak, Péter Paczolay, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 14 February 2019, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in twenty-seven 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 which was delivered on 8 March 2018. 2. The Court held in that judgment 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 non-pecuniary damage in the amounts set out in the table appended to the judgment. 3. On 15 May 2018 the Government informed the Court that they had learned that Mr Cătălin Vasile Brumă, the applicant in application no. 32843/14, had died on 28 June 2016. They accordingly requested that the judgment be revised within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. 4. On 12 June 2018 the Court considered the revision request and decided to give Mr Brumă’s potential heirs six weeks to submit any observations. No observations were received. THE LAW THE REQUEST FOR REVISION 5. The Government requested that the Court revise its judgment of 8 March 2018 which they had been unable to execute because Mr Brumă had died before the judgment was adopted. 6. No heirs have shown an interest in pursuing the procedure. 7. The Court considers that the judgment of 8 March 2018 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. ...” 8. The Court notes that the applicant died before it adopted the judgment of 8 March 2018 and that no information has been provided to it concerning any heirs. 9. 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 only on 8 May 2018 (see Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania (revision), nos. 604/07 and 3 others, §§ 9-10, 4 November 2014). They filed a request for a revision of the judgment on 15 May 2018, that is, within the time-limit provided for in Rule 80. 10. 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.” 11. The Court notes that it has been its practice to strike applications out of the list of cases when no heirs or close relatives have expressed a wish to pursue them (see Eremiášová and Pechová v. the Czech Republic (revision), no. 23944/04, § 10, 20 June 2013). 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. 12. In these circumstances, the Court accepts the Government’s request to revise the judgment of 8 March 2018. 13. Moreover, it decides to strike application no. 32843/14, lodged by Mr Cătălin Vasile Brumă, out of its list. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1. Decides to revise its judgment of 8 March 2018 in respect of application no. 32843/14; 2. Decides to strike application no. 32843/14, lodged by Mr Cătălin Vasile Brumă, out of its list of cases. Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 March 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv Tigerstedt Georges Ravarani Acting Deputy Registrar President