CASE OF IANCU AND RISTEA v. ROMANIA

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF IANCU AND RISTEA v. ROMANIA

(Applications nos. 9791/19 and 9946/19)

JUDGMENT

(Revision)
 

STRASBOURG

20 October 2026

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Iancu and Ristea v. Romania (request for revision of the judgment of 14 October 2025),

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Faris Vehabović, President,
 Anja Seibert-Fohr,
 Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,
and Valentin Nicolescu, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 29 September 2026,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in two individual applications (nos. 9791/19 and 9946/19) lodged with the Court against Romania under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 8 February 2019 by two applicants, Mr Marin Iancu and Mr Marian Ristea respectively.

2.  In its judgment of 14 October 2025, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, under its procedural limb, on account of the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the death by gunshot of the first applicant’s daughter and the second applicant’s injury by gunshot during the events of December 1989 which led to the fall of the communist regime. The Court also decided to award the applicants just satisfaction in the amounts set out in the table appended to that judgment.

3.  On 8 January 2026 the Government informed the Registry that, during the process of executing the judgment of 14 October 2025, they had become aware of the fact that one of the two applicants, Mr Marin Iancu, had died on 25 July 2020, before the Court had delivered its judgment. They therefore requested that the judgment be revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.

4.  On 17 March 2026 the Court considered the revision request and decided to invite the applicant’s representative, Ms Eleonora Arjoca, to submit comments thereon within four weeks, in accordance with Rule 80 § 4. Despite evidence that the representative received and downloaded that letter, no reply has been received by the Registry to date.

THE LAW

THE REQUEST FOR REVISION

5.  The Government requested the revision of the judgment of 14 October 2025, which they had been unable to execute in full because one of the applicants, Mr Marin Iancu, had died before the judgment had been delivered. They argued that the heirs of this applicant, if any, should have informed the Court of the death of their close relative and of their intention to pursue the proceedings.

6.  The Court notes that Mr Marin Iancu died on 25 July 2020. It further notes that no observations have been submitted to it by any potential heirs.

7.  The Court considers that the judgment of 14 October 2025 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, the relevant parts of which provide:

“1.  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 accepts the Government’s argument that the applicant’s death would have had a decisive influence on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80.

9.  In those circumstances, the Court accepts the Government’s request for revision of the Iancu and Ristea v. Romania judgment of 14 October 2025, in so far as it concerns application no. 9791/19 lodged by Mr Marin Iancu.

10.  In previous similar cases where an applicant has died during the proceedings and no relatives have expressed the wish to pursue the application, the Court, finding that respect for human rights did not require it to continue their examination, has decided to strike the cases out of its list (see Vlad and Others v. Romania (revision), nos. 40756/06 and 2 others, §§ 8‑12, 15 October 2024 and Buzatu and Others v. Romania (revision) [Committee], nos. 9759/19 and 7 others, §§ 5-11, 13 January 2026).

11.  Accordingly, application no. 9791/19 (lodged by Mr Marin Iancu) should be struck out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to revise the judgment of 14 October 2025 in the case of Iancu and Ristea v. Romania, in respect of application no. 9791/19;

and, accordingly:

1. Decides to strike application no. 9791/19, lodged by Mr Marin Iancu, out of its list of cases.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 October 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Valentin Nicolescu Faris Vehabović
 Acting Deputy Registrar President