VIDU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA - 9835/02 (Judgment (Revision) : Court (Third Section)) French Text [2017] ECHR 50 (17 January 2017)

VIDU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA - 9835/02 (Judgment (Revision) : Court (Third Section)) French Text [2017] ECHR 50 (17 January 2017)

The applicants had already obtained possession and property of the disputed land before the ECHR judgments, a fact withheld from the Court, which would have decisively influenced the outcome. This omission constituted abuse of process, justifying revision and inadmissibility.

Citation
[2017] ECHR 50
Parties
Initial Applicant: Hareta-Paraschiva Vidu; Initial Applicant: Matilda Zoescu; Initial Applicant: Adriana Popescu; Current Applicant: Ruxandra Vidu; Current Applicant: Cristian Dragoş Vidu; Respondent: Romania
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
17 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Revision of Previous Judgments / Final Judgment on Revision Request
Outcome
Request for revision allowed; application declared inadmissible as abusive.
Legal Topics
Revision of Judgments, Abuse of Process, Non Execution of Domestic Judgments, Right to Property, Fair Trial
Human Rights Civil Procedure Revision of Judgments Abuse of Process Non Execution of Domestic Judgments Right to Property Fair Trial

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hareta-Paraschiva Vidu

Initial Applicant

Matilda Zoescu

Initial Applicant

Adriana Popescu

Initial Applicant

Ruxandra Vidu

Current Applicant

Cristian Dragoş Vidu

Current Applicant

Romania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Revision of Previous Judgments / Final Judgment on Revision Request

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new facts justify revision of previous ECHR judgments
  2. 2 Whether applicants abused the right of individual petition by withholding material facts
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were already in possession of the disputed property

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants had already obtained possession and property of the disputed land before the ECHR judgments, a fact withheld from the Court, which would have decisively influenced the outcome. This omission constituted abuse of process, justifying revision and inadmissibility.

Court Disposition

Request for revision allowed; application declared inadmissible as abusive.

Orders

  • Revision of judgments of 21 February 2008 and 10 June 2014 granted.
  • Application declared inadmissible.