FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF EREMIÁŠOVÁ AND PECHOVÁ
v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

(Application no. 23944/04)

JUDGMENT
(Revision)

STRASBOURG

20 June 2013

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 Eremiášová and Pechová v. the Czech Republic, (request for revision of the judgment of 16 February 2012),
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
	Mark Villiger, President,
	Angelika Nußberger,
	Boštjan M. Zupančič,
	Ann Power-Forde,
	Ganna Yudkivska,
	André Potocki,
	Aleš Pejchal, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 28 May 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 23944/04) against the Czech Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Mrs Petra Eremiášová and Ms Katarína Pechová (“the applicants”), on 22 June 2004.
2.  In a judgment delivered on 16 February 2012, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention both under its substantive and procedural limb, on account of the death of the partner of the first applicant and son of the second. The Court also decided to award to each of the applicants 10,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 to the applicants jointly for costs and expenses and dismissed the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction.
3.  On 16 July and 17 October 2012 respectively, the Government informed the Court that they had learned that Ms Katarína Pechová had died on 30 November 2010. They requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.
4.  On 8 August and 19 October 2012 notice was given to the applicants’ representative who were invited to submit within three weeks any observations in respect of the Government’s request. No response has been forthcoming.
THE LAW
	THE REQUEST FOR REVISION
5.  The Government requested revision of the judgment of 16 February 2012, which they had been unable to execute because Ms Katarína Pechová had died before the judgment had been adopted (see paragraph 3 above).
6.  The applicants’ representative submitted no observations on the Government’s request for revision.
7.  The Court considers that the judgment of 16 February 2012 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 second applicant died before the judgment of 16 February 2012 was adopted but that neither the representative nor the first applicant informed the Court of the death. No information was provided concerning any heirs or whether the first applicant wished to pursue the application.
9.  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.”
10.  The Court recalls that it has been its practice to strike applications out of the list of cases in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed a wish to pursue the application (see Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, § 31, Series A no. 287; Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 23, ECHR 2003-IX; and Thevenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-...). 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 in respect of the second applicant. Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases in so far as it relates to this applicant.
11.  In respect of the first applicant, the Court confirms to award Ms Petra Eremiášová the amounts it previously awarded to her, namely EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and, having regard to the fact that the two applicants were represented by the same representative, the amount originally awarded to both of them jointly for costs and expenses has to be paid to the first applicant, namely EUR 2,000.
12.  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 the judgment;

2.  Decides to strike out the application in so far it concerns the complaints of the second applicant (Ms Katarína Pechová);

3.  Holds
(a)  that the respondent State is to pay to the first applicant (Ms Petra Eremiášová), within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State, at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(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 20 June 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Claudia Westerdiek	Mark Villiger
	Registrar	President