Abenavoli v. Italy

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.

September 1997

Abenavoli v. Italy - 25587/94

Judgment 2.9.1997

Article 6

Administrative proceedings

Article 6-1

Reasonable time

Length of proceedings in administrative courts: violation

[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries. It also covers the following judgments of 2 September 1997 against Italy: De Santa (25574/94), Nicodemo (25839/94) and Lapalorcia (25586/94)]

I.ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION (“REASONABLE TIME”)

A.Applicability

Applicants asserted either a purely economic right (De Santa, Lapalorcia and Abenavoli) or an essentially economic right (Nicodemo); administrative authorities’ discretionary powers not in issue – cases’ private-law features predominated over public‑law features.

Conclusion: Article 6 § 1 applicable (seven votes to two: De Santa, Lapalorcia and Abenavoli; six votes to three: Nicodemo).

B.Compliance

1.Periods to be taken into consideration

Starting-point (in each case): institution of proceedings in Regional Administrative Court (“the RAC”).

End: date of deposit with registry of Consiglio di Stato’s judgment (De Santa); date on which RAC’s judgment became final (Lapalorcia); proceedings still pending (Abenavoli and Nicodemo).

Total: from approximately six years and two months (Lapalorcia) to nearly seventeen years (De Santa).

2.Applicable criteria

Certain stages of proceedings considered in each case.

Conclusion: violation (seven votes to two: De Santa, Lapalorcia and Abenavoli; six votes to three: Nicodemo).

II.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION

A.Damage

1.Pecuniary damage: not claimed (De Santa); claim dismissed, for lack of causal connection with violation found (Abenavoli and Nicodemo).

2.Non-pecuniary damage: claim allowed in part (De Santa, Abenavoli and Nicodemo).

3.Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage: claim allowed in part (Lapalorcia).

B.Costs and expenses

Before Court: claim allowed in part (De Santa) – before Convention institutions: claim allowed in part (Lapalorcia and Abenavoli) – not claimed (Nicodemo).

Conclusion: respondent State to pay applicants specified sums (unanimously: De Santa, Lapalorcia and Abenavoli; eight votes to one: Nicodemo).

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy