issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 068 (2021)
23.02.2021
Judgments of 23 February 2021
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing two Chamber judgments1, which
are summarised below.
These judgments are available only in French.
Vilela v. Portugal (application no. 63687/14)
The applicants, Pedro Miguel Afonso Vilela, Benedito Alves Vileva and Maria dos Anjos Pereira
Afonso, are Portuguese nationals who were born respectively in 1994, 1965 and 1966 and live in Vila
Verde. The second and third applicants are the parents of the first applicant, who was born in 1994
and died on 6 April 2017.
The case concerned allegations of medical negligence during the hospitalisation of the third
applicant, when she had given birth to the first applicant, who was born with a 100% degree of
disability.
The applicants complained in particular of a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and
family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
No violation of Article 8 (substantive limb – medical treatment) in respect of Pedro Miguel Afonso
Vilela
Violation of Article 8 (procedure) in respect of Pedro Miguel Afonso Vilela
The Court declared the other applicants’ complaints inadmissible.
Just satisfaction: 6,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 for costs and
expenses to Pedro Miguel Afonso Vilela’s parents.
Iancu v. Romania (no. 62915/17)
The applicant, Olimpia-Mirela Iancu is a Romanian national who was born in 1974 and lives in
Oradea.
The case concerned criminal proceedings following which the applicant had been convicted of
complicity in fraud.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention, the applicant complained
that a final judgment delivered on appeal following those proceedings had been signed by only four
out of five judges on the bench. As a fifth judge had retired before being able to sign the judgment,
another judge, who had not taken part in the proceedings, had signed for her. The applicant alleged
in substance that the other judge had not had any direct knowledge of the case.
No violation of Article 6 § 1
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber
judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a
panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and
deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the
Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution - _blank
