In the case of Casciaroli v. Italy*,
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with
Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention")** and the relevant
provisions of the Rules of Court, as a Chamber composed of the
following judges:
Mr R. Ryssdal, President,
Mr F. Matscher,
Mr B. Walsh,
Mr C. Russo,
Mr A. Spielmann,
Mr N. Valticos,
Mr A.N. Loizou,
Mr J.M. Morenilla,
Mr F. Bigi,
and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr H. Petzold, Deputy
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 29 October 1991 and
24 January 1992,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the
last-mentioned date:
_______________
Notes by the Registrar
* The case is numbered 5/1991/257/328. The first number is the
case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the
relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the
case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its
creation and on the list of the corresponding originating
applications to the Commission.
** As amended by Article 11 of Protocol No. 8 (P8-11), which came
into force on 1 January 1990.
_______________
PROCEDURE
1. The case was referred to the Court on 8 March 1991 by the
European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission"), within the
three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47
(art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an
application (no. 11973/86) against the Italian Republic lodged with
the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by an Italian national,
Mrs Rosina Casciaroli, on 24 December 1985.
The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44,
art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Italy recognised the
compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The
object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the
facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its
obligations under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).
2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with
Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant stated that
she wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer
who would represent her (Rule 30).
3. On 23 April 1991 the President of the Court decided that,
pursuant to Rule 21 para. 6 and in the interests of the proper
administration of justice, this case and the cases of Diana, Ridi,
Manieri, Mastrantonio, Idrocalce S.r.l., Owners' Services Ltd,
Cardarelli, Golino, Taiuti, Maciariello, Manifattura FL, Steffano,
Ruotolo, Vorrasi, Cappello, G. v. Italy, Caffè Roversi S.p.a.,
Andreucci, Gana, Barbagallo, Cifola, Pandolfelli and Palumbo, Arena,
Pierazzini, Tusa, Cooperativa Parco Cuma, Serrentino, Cormio,
Lorenzi, Bernardini and Gritti and Tumminelli* should be heard by
the same Chamber.
_______________
* Cases nos. 3/1991/255/326; 4/1991/256/327; 6/1991/258/329 to
13/1991/265/336; 15/1991/267/338; 16/1991/268/339; 18/1991/270/341;
20/1991/272/343; 22/1991/274/345; 24/1991/276/347; 25/1991/277/348;
33/1991/285/356; 36/1991/288/359; 38/1991/290/361; 40/1991/292/363
to 44/1991/296/367; 50/1991/302/373; 51/1991/303/374;
58/1991/310/381; 59/1991/311/382; 61/1991/313/384
_______________
4. The Chamber to be constituted for this purpose included ex
officio Mr C. Russo, the elected judge of Italian nationality
(Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the
President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On the same day, in
the presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names
of the other seven members, namely Mr F. Matscher,
Mr J. Pinheiro Farinha, Sir Vincent Evans, Mr A. Spielmann,
Mr I. Foighel, Mr J.M. Morenilla and Mr F. Bigi (Article 43 in fine
of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).
Subsequently, Mr B. Walsh, Mr A.N. Loizou and Mr N. Valticos,
substitute judges, replaced respectively Mr Pinheiro Farinha and
Sir Vincent Evans, who had both resigned and whose successors had
taken up their duties before the hearing, and Mr Foighel, who was
unable to take part in the further consideration of the case
(Rules 2 para. 3, 22 para. 1 and 24 para. 1).
5. Mr Ryssdal assumed the office of President of the Chamber
(Rule 21 para. 5) and, through the Deputy Registrar, consulted the
Agent of the Italian Government ("the Government"), the Delegate of
the Commission and the applicant's lawyer on the organisation of the
proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant to the order made
in consequence, the Registrar received the applicant's memorial on
15 July 1991 and the Government's memorial on 16 July. By a letter
received on 22 August, the Secretary to the Commission informed the
Registrar that the Delegate would submit oral observations.
6. On 28 August the Commission produced the file on the
proceedings before it, as requested by the Registrar on the
President's instructions.
7. In accordance with the decision of the President - who had
given the applicant leave to use the Italian language
(Rule 27 para. 3) -, the hearing took place in public in the Human
Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 29 October 1991. The Court had held
a preparatory meeting beforehand.
There appeared before the Court:
(a) for the Government
Mr G. Raimondi, magistrato,
seconded to the Diplomatic Legal
Service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Co-Agent,
Mr G. Manzo, magistrato, seconded to the
Ministry of Justice,
Mrs A. Passannanti, magistrato, seconded to the
Ministry of Justice, Counsel;
(b) for the Commission
Mr J.A. Frowein, Delegate;
(c) for the applicant
Mr L. Girardi, avvocato, Counsel.
The Court heard addresses by Mr Raimondi and Mrs Passannanti for the
Government, by Mr Frowein for the Commission and by Mr Girardi for
the applicant, as well as their answers to its question.
8. On 5 November the Commission filed its observations on the
applicant's claims for just satisfaction (Article 50 of the
Convention) (art. 50).
AS TO THE FACTS
9. Mrs Rosina Casciaroli is an Italian national and resides at
Monticelli (Ascoli Piceno). The facts established by the Commission
pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 (art. 31-1) of the Convention are as
follows (paragraphs 16-22 of its report):
"16. On 3 December 1975 the applicant's husband died as the
result of a traffic accident involving several persons. Two civil
actions (cases nos. 1061/76 and 1081/77) were brought before the
Venice District Court by Mr S. and Mr P. respectively against Mr F.
and Mr M., the persons presumed responsible for the accident, and
their insurers.
17. Mr F. and Mr M. were also prosecuted on criminal charges,
which led to the suspension of the civil proceedings against them.
On 4 March 1976 the applicant entered a claim for damages in the
criminal proceedings against them. They were committed for trial in
the Venice District Court on 9 April 1977.
18. The trial opened with the hearing of 31 May 1978. On that
date Mr M. was charged with a further offence. The court called for
a medical report and transmitted the case file to the investigating
judge.
19. On 29 August 1980, after receiving the medical report, the
investigating judge set down the hearing before the Venice District
Court for 10 December 1980. At the close of the hearing, the case
was adjourned until 13 March 1981. On that date the Venice District
Court found the defendants guilty of manslaughter. It then awarded
the applicant damages in respect of her husband's death,
provisionally assessed at 20 million lire, the payment order being
immediately enforceable.
20. In the appeal lodged forthwith by the defendants, the Venice
Court of Appeal - which did not receive the case-file until
20 July 1981 - considered the case at the hearing on 24 March 1982,
at the close of which it upheld the trial court's decision.
21. Two days later the defendants appealed to the Court of
Cassation submitting their grounds of appeal on 12 and 15 May 1982.
The hearing before the Court of Cassation did not take place until
24 April 1986, on which date the appeal was dismissed. The text of
the judgment was lodged with the court registry on 6 October 1986.
22. On 13 May 1986 Mr S. and Mr P. resumed their civil action
before the Venice District Court and the applicant continued the
action she had brought in the criminal proceedings by intervening in
the civil proceedings in order to obtain payment of the damages
awarded to her.
23 .... ."
10. According to the information supplied to the European Court
by the participants in the Strasbourg proceedings, no less than
seven hearings were held between 13 May 1986 and 24 June 1988. At
these hearings the parties made various applications (for an
attachment order, for the joinder of cases, for testimony to be
heard) and caused several adjournments.
The investigating judge was transferred and the first hearing before
his successor took place on 24 February 1989. From then
until 19 April 1991, there were seven other hearings. The parties
are said to have requested six adjournments because they wished to
examine various documents, including the criminal file communicated
to the Court of Cassation; during this period, but on an unspecified
date, the investigating judge was transferred.
On 19 April 1991 his successor referred the case to the competent
chamber for a decision on Mrs Casciaroli's application for evidence
to be taken. The hearing is to be held on 29 January 1992.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
11. Mrs Casciaroli lodged her application with the Commission on
24 December 1985. She complained of the length of the civil
proceedings brought by her and relied on Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1) of the Convention.
12. On 11 May 1990 the Commission declared the application
(no. 11973/86) admissible. In its report of 5 December 1990
(Article 31) (art. 31), it expressed the unanimous opinion that
there had been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). The
full text of the Commission's opinion is reproduced as an annex to
this judgment*.
_______________
* Note by the Registrar: for practical reasons this annex will
appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 229-C
of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the
Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.
_______________
FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT BY THE GOVERNMENT
13. At the hearing the Government confirmed the submission put
forward in their memorial, in which they requested the Court to hold
"that there [had] been no violation of the Convention in the present
case".
AS TO THE LAW
I. PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION
14. In her memorial, the applicant maintained that she had
lodged her application with the Commission also on behalf of her
four children.
It appears from the file, however, that she alone has the status of
applicant.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 PARA. 1 (art. 6-1)
15. Mrs Casciaroli claimed that her civil action had not been
tried within a "reasonable time" as required under Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1) of the Convention, according to which:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,
everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by
[a] ... tribunal ..."
The Government disputed this view, whereas the Commission accepted
it.
16. The case began on 4 March 1976 when the applicant entered a
claim for damages in the criminal proceedings; it remains pending in
the Venice District Court.
17. The reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be
assessed with reference to the criteria laid down in the Court's
case-law and in the light of the circumstances of the case, which in
this instance call for an overall assessment.
18. Notwithstanding the Government's contrary view, the case was
not a complex one. Yet, as the Commission and the applicant pointed
out, there were several periods of stagnation in the criminal
proceedings. Twenty-five months elapsed between the date on which
the Venice District Court ordered further inquiries to be undertaken
and that on which the investigating judge committed the defendants
for trial (31 May 1978 - 29 August 1980). It then took more than
four months to transmit the file to the Court of Appeal
(13 March - 20 July 1981) and the Court of Cassation did not hold a
hearing until more than four years after the case had been brought
before it (26 March 1982 - 24 April 1986).
The Government pleaded the backlog of cases, but Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1) imposes on the Contracting States the duty to organise
their legal systems in such a way that their courts can meet each of
its requirements (see, inter alia, the Vocaturo v. Italy judgment of
24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-C, p. 32, para. 17).
The various delays which occurred affected the progress of the civil
proceedings brought by Mr S. and Mr P. and in which Mrs Casciaroli
intervened (see paragraph 9 above, nos. 16, 17 and 22). Those
proceedings are far from finished, although it must be said that the
parties contributed to slowing them down by numerous requests for
adjournments (see paragraph 10 above).
19. In these circumstances, the Court cannot regard as
"reasonable" in this instance a lapse of time of nearly sixteen
years.
There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1).
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50)
20. According to Article 50 (art. 50):
"If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a legal
authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party is
completely or partially in conflict with the obligations arising
from the ... Convention, and if the internal law of the said Party
allows only partial reparation to be made for the consequences of
this decision or measure, the decision of the Court shall, if
necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
A. Damage
21. Mrs Casciaroli claimed, for herself and for her children,
422,150,786 Italian lire for pecuniary damage and 100,000,000 for
non-pecuniary damage.
22. The Court notes, like the Government, that the national
courts may award the applicant financial compensation for pecuniary
damage because the case is still pending before them. On the other
hand, the applicant, in view of her family circumstances,
undoubtedly suffered non-pecuniary damage for which the Court,
making an assessment on an equitable basis, awards her
60,000,000 lire.
B. Costs and expenses
23. The applicant sought 3,255,336 lire for her costs referable
to the domestic proceedings and 18,800,000 lire for those which she
claimed to have incurred before the Convention organs.
24. The first sum cannot be taken into consideration because it
does not appear from the evidence that she incurred such costs in
order to prevent the breach of the "reasonable time" requirement.
The second figure may, however, be taken into account, but the
applicant's claims are excessive; having regard to the evidence at
its disposal and to its case-law in this field, the Court awards her
8,000,000 lire under this head.
C. Interest
25. The Commission invited the Court to fix for the Government
- who did not give their opinion - a compulsory time-limit for
executing the present judgment and to make provision for the payment
of interest in the event of their failure to comply therewith.
26. The first of these proposals is in conformity with a
practice followed by the Court since October 1991.
As to the second, the Court does not consider it appropriate to
require any payment of interest in this instance, particularly as no
such request was made by the applicant.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1);
2. Holds that the respondent State is to pay Mrs Casciaroli,
within three months, 60,000,000 (sixty million) Italian lire for
non-pecuniary damage and 8,000,000 (eight million) lire for costs
and expenses;
3. Dismisses the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public hearing in
the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 27 February 1992.
Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL
President
Signed: Marc-André EISSEN
Registrar
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy