CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 24 octobre 2023

.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 } .s21C2865D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; 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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s42FEB1BD { width:30.88pt; display:inline-block } .s4FFAA56C { width:144.08pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION CASE OF KONYA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 37087/03 and 24 others)         JUDGMENT (Revision) STRASBOURG 24 October 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Konya and others v. Romania (revision of the judgment of 17 November 2020), The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda , President ,   Carlo Ranzoni,   Péter Paczolay , judges , and Crina Kaufman, Acting Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 3 October 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in twenty-five applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”). 2.     In a judgment delivered on 17 November 2020, the Court held, inter   alia , that there was a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the applicants’ inability to recover possession or obtain compensation for the loss of their properties, in full or in part, despite final domestic court decisions retroactively acknowledging their property rights. 3.     As regards application no. 32269/07 lodged by Ms Steliana-Aurora Ionescu and Ms Maria Piticescu, the Court held that its above-mentioned finding had concerned apartment no. 1 situated on the ground floor of a building located on Av. Sănătescu street no. 31, District no. 1, Bucharest. In addition, the Court held that the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 of the Convention was inadmissible. 4.     The Court decided to award the applicants 70,000 euros (EUR), jointly, for pecuniary damage in the event of failure by the respondent State to return to the applicants their property. It further dismissed the remainder of their claim for just satisfaction. 5.     On 16 February 2021 the Government informed the Court that in February 2021 they learned that Ms Ionescu and Ms Piticescu had died, respectively, on 9 September 2020 and 26 January 2010. The Government accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule   80 of the Rules of Court. 6.     On 23 March 2021 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicants’ representative six weeks in which to submit any observations. Those observations were received on 15 April 2021. THE LAW THE REQUEST FOR REVISION 7.     The Government requested revision of the judgment of 17 November 2020, which they could not enforce because the applicants had died before the judgment was adopted. They argued that the application had to be struck out of the Court’s list of cases because the applicants’ lawyer had lost contact with the applicants and both him and the heirs had failed to inform the Court of the applicants’ deaths. The lawyer learned about the applicants’ demises and about the absence of any known heir for Ms Piticescu only in early 2021 from Ms Ionescu’s son, Mr Traian Ionescu. The lawyer had not submitted an authority form attesting that he was representing Mr. Ionescu. 8.     The applicants’ representative acknowledged that Ms Piticescu’s heirs remain unknown. He submitted an inheritance certificate of 6 November 2020 attesting that Mr Ionescu was Ms Ionescu’s only heir. He submitted also documents and a notarised statement by Mr Ionescu attesting that he was entitled and wished to receive two-thirds of the Article 41 award made by the Court to the applicants, which represented Ms Ionescu’s share, amounting to EUR 46,667. 9.     The Court considers that the judgment of 17 November 2020 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.     According to the available evidence, the applicants died before the adoption of the judgment. At the enforcement stage of the judgment Ms   Ionescu’s only heir expressed his intention to receive her share of the compensation awarded to the applicants as just satisfaction. Ms Piticescu’s heirs remain unknown. 11.     The Court has allowed requests for revision lodged during the enforcement stage of a judgment and awarded the heir the compensation previously awarded to the deceased applicant in circumstances where the deceased applicant’s lawyer had not submitted an authority form attesting that he was representing the only heir (see D’Ammassa and Frezza v. Italy ((revision), no. 44513/98, §§ 5-8, 9 January 2003; Alecu and Others v.   Romania (revision), nos. 56838/08 and 80 others, §§   3-14, 15   November 2016). Nevertheless, the Court has struck out of its list cases a case where the applicant had died during the proceedings and in which no relatives had expressed a wish to pursue the proceedings (see Alecu and Others , cited above). 12.     In the present case, the Court notes that at the enforcement stage of the judgment Ms Ionescu’s heir expressed his intention to pursue the application lodged by his mother in her stead. These circumstances justify the revision of the judgment and the award to Mr Ionescu of Ms Ionescu’s share of the amount it previously awarded to the deceased applicants, which amounts to EUR 46,667, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage, in the event of failure by the respondent State to return the disputed property. 13.     As to Ms Piticescu, the Court decides to strike her part of the application out of its list. 14.     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 its judgment of 17 November 2020 as regards the application Ionescu and Piticescu v. Romania (no. 32269/07); Decides to strike out of its list the part of the application no. 32269/07 lodged by Ms Maria Piticescu; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay Mr Traian Ionescu, within three   months, EUR 46,667 (forty-six thousand six hundred and sixty ‑ seven euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, in respect of pecuniary damage, in the event of failure by the respondent State to return the disputed property; (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 24 October 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Crina Kaufman   Branko Lubarda   Acting Deputy Registrar   President