FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 43390/22 and 43775/22
Luigi BARULLI against San Marino
and Adriana SALVATORI against San Marino
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 May 2023 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants were represented by Mr M. Fattori, a lawyer practising in Borgo Maggiore, San Marino.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the length of civil proceedings were communicated to the Government of San Marino (“the Government”).
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged that the length of the proceedings in the present applications failed to fulfil the requirement of “reasonable” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases.
The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration; they indicated that they did not agree with the terms of the declaration. No reasons were submitted in this respect.
The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:
“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006‑V; Tierce v. San Marino, no. 69700/01, § 32, ECHR 2003‑VII).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 8 June 2023.
Viktoriya Maradudina Alena Poláčková
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name
and location
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant’s comments
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
43390/22
02/09/2022
Luigi BARULLI
1955
Fattori Marino Federico
Borgo Maggiore
22/02/2023
07/04/2023
3,500
43775/22
02/09/2022
Adriana SALVATORI
1957
Fattori Marino Federico
Borgo Maggiore
22/02/2023
07/04/2023
3,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.