S.C. ECOLOGICAL CENTER S.A. v. ROMANIA - 54593/11 (Judgment (Revision) : Court (Third Section Committee)) (rev 1) French Text [2016] ECHR 335 (05 April 2016)

S.C. ECOLOGICAL CENTER S.A. v. ROMANIA - 54593/11 (Judgment (Revision) : Court (Third Section Committee)) (rev 1) French Text [2016] ECHR 335 (05 April 2016)

The Court found that the annulment of the urban planning certificate was a fact that could have had a decisive influence on the outcome, but it was a fact that could reasonably have been known to the Government before the original judgment. Therefore, the requirements for revision were not met.

Citation
[2016] ECHR 335
Parties
Applicant: S. C. Ecological Center S. A.; Respondent: Romania
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
05 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Judgment (revision) / Application for Revision of Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for revision rejected
Legal Topics
Revision of Judgment, Non Execution of Domestic Judgments, Right to a Fair Trial, Right to Property
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Revision of Judgment Non Execution of Domestic Judgments Right to a Fair Trial Right to Property

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. C. Ecological Center S. A.

Applicant

Romania

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judgment (revision) / Application for Revision of Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the annulment of the urban planning certificate constituted a new fact justifying revision of the Court's previous judgment
  2. 2 Whether the Government could have reasonably known of the annulment before the original judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the annulment of the urban planning certificate was a fact that could have had a decisive influence on the outcome, but it was a fact that could reasonably have been known to the Government before the original judgment. Therefore, the requirements for revision were not met.

Court Disposition

Application for revision rejected

Orders

  • The Government's request for revision of the judgment of 17 March 2015 is rejected.