ZAICESCU AND FALTICINEANU v. ROMANIA - 42917/16 (Request for revision of a judgment - Struck out of the list : Fourth Section) [2025] ECHR 146 (17 June 2025)

ZAICESCU AND FALTICINEANU v. ROMANIA - 42917/16 (Request for revision of a judgment - Struck out of the list : Fourth Section) [2025] ECHR 146 (17 June 2025)

The death of the second applicant before the judgment was delivered constitutes a decisive new fact justifying revision of the judgment under Rule 80. As no heir or close relative expressed a wish to pursue the application, the application is struck out in respect of the second applicant. The award for costs and expenses is maintained in favour of the first applicant alone.

Citation
[2025] ECHR 146
Parties
First Applicant: Leonard Zăicescu; Second Applicant: Ana Fălticineanu; Respondent: Romania
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
17 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Revision of Judgment / Post Judgment Revision Following Applicant's Death
Outcome
Judgment revised; application struck out in respect of second applicant; costs and expenses awarded to first applicant.
Legal Topics
Revision of Judgment, Death of Applicant, Striking Out Applications, Costs and Expenses
Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Revision of Judgment Death of Applicant Striking Out Applications Costs and Expenses

Case Brief

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leonard Zăicescu

First Applicant

Ana Fălticineanu

Second Applicant

Romania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Revision of Judgment / Post Judgment Revision Following Applicant's Death

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the death of the second applicant before judgment constitutes a new fact justifying revision under Rule 80 of the Rules of Court
  2. 2 Whether the application should be struck out in respect of the deceased applicant in the absence of heirs wishing to pursue it
  3. 3 Whether the award of costs and expenses should be modified

Ratio Decidendi

The death of the second applicant before the judgment was delivered constitutes a decisive new fact justifying revision of the judgment under Rule 80. As no heir or close relative expressed a wish to pursue the application, the application is struck out in respect of the second applicant. The award for costs and expenses is maintained in favour of the first applicant alone.

Court Disposition

Judgment revised; application struck out in respect of second applicant; costs and expenses awarded to first applicant.

Orders

  • Judgment of 23 April 2024 revised as regards application no. 42917/16.
  • Application struck out in so far as it concerns the second applicant (Ms Ana Fălticineanu).