GARDEAN AND S.C. GRUP 95 S.A. v. ROMANIA - 25787/04 - Chamber Judgment (French Text) [2013] ECHR 390 (30 April 2013)

GARDEAN AND S.C. GRUP 95 S.A. v. ROMANIA - 25787/04 - Chamber Judgment (French Text) [2013] ECHR 390 (30 April 2013)

The applicant company lost its legal personality before the principal judgment, and this fact, not disclosed to the Court, was decisive for the outcome. The omission constituted an abuse of process, justifying revision of the judgment and a declaration of inadmissibility.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] ECHR 390
Parties
Applicant: Adrian Gardean; Applicant: S.C. Grup 95 S.A.; Respondent: Romania; Third Party: Terra Finance SARL
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
30 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Revision of ECHR Judgment / Post Judgment Revision
Outcome
Application for revision allowed; original judgment revised; application declared inadmissible as abusive.
Legal Topics
Revision of Judgment, Abuse of Process, Loss of Legal Personality, Standing Before ECHR
Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Revision of Judgment Abuse of Process Loss of Legal Personality Standing Before ECHR

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adrian Gardean

Applicant

S.C. Grup 95 S.A.

Applicant

Romania

Respondent

Terra Finance SARL

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Revision of ECHR Judgment / Post Judgment Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the loss of legal personality of the applicant company before judgment warranted revision of the original judgment
  2. 2 Whether failure to inform the Court of relevant changes constitutes abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant company lost its legal personality before the principal judgment, and this fact, not disclosed to the Court, was decisive for the outcome. The omission constituted an abuse of process, justifying revision of the judgment and a declaration of inadmissibility.

Court Disposition

Application for revision allowed; original judgment revised; application declared inadmissible as abusive.

Orders

  • The request for revision of the judgment of 1 December 2009 is granted.
  • The application is declared inadmissible.