Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 � 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
��������� Mark Villiger, President, ��������� Angelika Nu�berger, ��������� Bo�tjan M. Zupančič, ��������� Ann Power-Forde, ��������� Ganna Yudkivska, ��������� Andr� Potocki, ��������� Ale� Pejchal, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar ,
�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.
�1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that ...
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
BAILII · Verbatim mirror
In the case of Eremi�ov� and Pechov� v. the Czech Republic, (request for revision of the judgment of 16 February 2012),
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
��������� Mark Villiger, President,
��������� Angelika Nu�berger,
��������� Bo�tjan M. Zupančič,
��������� Ann Power-Forde,
��������� Ganna Yudkivska,
��������� Andr� Potocki,
��������� Ale� Pejchal, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek,
Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 28 May 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
THE LAW
����� THE REQUEST FOR REVISION
�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.
...�
�1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that ...
(c) ... it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.�
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Decides to revise the judgment;
2. Decides to strike out the application in so far it concerns the complaints of the second applicant (Ms Katar�na Pechov�);
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay to the first applicant (Ms Petra Eremi�ov�), within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 � 2 of the Convention, EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State, at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 June 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 �� 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek��������������������������������������������������������������� Mark
Villiger
������ Registrar����������������������������������������������������������������������������� President
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.