Bottazzi v. Italy [GC]

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi

Karar Metni

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 8

July 1999

Bottazzi v. Italy [GC] - 34884/97

Judgment 28.7.1999 [GC]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Reasonable time

Administrative practice

Length of civil proceedings: violation

[This summary also covers the following Grand Chamber judgments of 28 July 1999: A.P. v. Italy (no. 35265/97); Di Mauro v. Italy (no. 34256/96); and Ferrari v. Italy (no. 33440/96).]

(Extract from press release)

Facts: The applicants are all Italian citizens. Mr Emilio Bottazzi was born in 1916 and lives in Genoa. Mr A.P. was born in 1952 and lives in Biauzzo di Codroipo (Udine). Mr Sebastiano Di Mauro was born in 1937 and lives in Terracina. Mr A.L.P. was born in 1939 and lives in Milan. Mrs Marcella Ferrari was born in 1911 and lives in Rome.

The Bottazzi case: The case concerned the applicant’s request for a review of the decision to stop paying him his war pension, on the ground that his health had deteriorated. The proceedings had begun on 4 April 1991 and ended on 2 December 1997, the date on which the Court of Audit’s judgment dismissing his appeal was deposited with the registry.

The A.P. case: The case concerned an order against M.L.D. to pay the applicant for services provided under a business contract. M.L.D. had appealed on 19 February 1990 and the case was disposed of on 28 November 1995, the date on which the judgment of the Udine District Court granting the applicant’s claims in part was deposited with the registry.

The Di Mauro case: The case concerned civil proceedings which the owner of a flat rented by the applicant had instituted, seeking to terminate the lease. The proceedings had begun on 5 March 1984 and ended on 27 December 1997, since neither party had resumed them in the relevant court of appeal.

The A.L.M. case: The case concerned proceedings brought by the applicant against a company for payment of 250,575,000 Italian lire which, he alleged, were owed to him. The proceedings had begun on 11 September 1992 and ended on 14 March 1996, when the judgment of the Milan District Court dismissing the applicant’s action was deposited with the registry.

The Ferrari case: The case concerned the applicant’s claim for payment by a Rome health clinic of an adjustment for inflation and of statutory interest in respect of arrears of her widow’s pension which had been paid six years late. The proceedings had begun on 31 January 1990 and ended on 6 August 1998, when judgment of the Rome District Court granting the applicant’s claims in part was deposited with the registry.

The applicants complained that their cases had not been heard within a “reasonable time” as required by Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The five applicants complained of a violation of their right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the excessive length of the civil proceedings in their respective cases.

Law

I. The Bottazzi, A.P., Di Mauro and Ferrari cases

Article 6 § 1 of the Convention: In each of these four cases the Court noted at the outset that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention imposed on the Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial systems in such a way that they could meet the requirements of that provision. It wished to reaffirm the importance of administering justice without delays which might jeopardise its effectiveness and credibility. It pointed out, moreover, that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in its Resolution DH (97) 336 of 11 July 1997 (Length of civil proceedings in Italy: supplementary measures of a general character), had considered that “excessive delays in the administration of justice constitute an important danger, in particular for the respect of the rule of law”. The Court next drew attention to the fact that since 25 June 1987, the date of the Capuano v. Italy judgment, it had already delivered 65 judgments in which it had found violations of Article 6 § 1 in proceedings exceeding a “reasonable time” in the civil courts of the various regions of Italy. Similarly, under former Articles 31 and 32 of the Convention, more than 1,400 reports of the Commission had resulted in resolutions by the Committee of Ministers finding Italy in breach of Article 6 of the Convention for the same reason. The frequency with which violations were found showed that there was an accumulation of identical breaches which were sufficiently numerous to amount not merely to isolated incidents. Such breaches reflected a continuing situation that had not yet been remedied and in respect of which litigants had no domestic remedy. This accumulation of breaches accordingly constituted a practice that was incompatible with the Convention. The Court examined the facts of the present case in the light of the information provided by the parties and the above-mentioned practice. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considered that in these cases the length of the proceedings in question (almost six years and eight months in the case of Bottazzi; more than five years and nine months in the case of A.P.; approximately thirteen years and nine months in the case of Di Mauro; and more than eight years and six months in the case of Ferrari) had been excessive and had failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously, except Di Mauro - fifteen votes to two).

Article 41 of the Convention: The Court awarded the following amounts in just satisfaction:

Bottazzi:15,000,000 Italian lire for pecuniary damage and 7,000,000 lire for costs and expenses;

A.P.: 30,000,000 lire for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and 8,000,000 lire for costs and expenses;

Di Mauro: 5,000,000 lire for non-pecuniary damage and 10,000,000 lire for costs and expenses;

Ferrari: 15,000,000 lire for non-pecuniary damage and 11,275,488 lire for costs and expenses.

II. The A.L.M. case: The Court noted that the Government’s application of 7 September 1998 bringing the case before the Court had arrived at the Registry on 8 September, whereas the Commission’s report had been transmitted to the Committee of Ministers on 13 May 1998. The Government maintained that the three-month period provided for in former Article 32 had not expired by the time that their application was lodged. In their submission, the rule contained in Law no. 742 of 7 October 1969 (and also, they asserted, in the legislation of other European countries) that procedural time-limits in the “ordinary and administrative courts” were suspended during judicial vacations was a “general” principle which applied to proceedings in the Court. The applicant requested the Court to dismiss the Government’s application as being out of time. The Court pointed out that under former Article 47 of the Convention an application had to be lodged within the three-month period laid down by former Article 32. No provision allowing an exemption from that requirement was to be found in either the Convention or the Rules of Court as applicable at the time the application was lodged. Furthermore, even supposing that the rule on the suspension of procedural time-limits during “judicial vacations” did exist in the legislation of countries other than Italy, the Court considered that the Government had failed to establish the existence of a generally recognised principle of law, inherent in former Article 32 of the Convention, to the effect that procedural time-limits were suspended during judicial vacations. The Government had therefore exceeded the time allowed it. Furthermore, no special circumstance of a nature to suspend the running of time or justify its starting to run afresh was apparent from the file. The Government’s application bringing the case before the Court was consequently inadmissible as it had been made out of time.

Conclusion: no jurisdiction - out of time (unanimously).

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy