In the case of Cifola 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 30 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 40/1991/292/363. 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. 13216/87) against the Italian Republic lodged with the
Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by an Italian national,
Mr Attilio Cifola, on 11 September 1987.
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 he
wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who
would represent him (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,
Casciaroli, 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, 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 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; 41/1991/293/364 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 deliberations held
on 30 October, 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). In accordance with the order
made in consequence, the Registrar received on 16 July 1991 the
Government's memorial and the claims for just satisfaction
(Article 50 of the Convention) (art. 50) submitted by the applicant,
whom the President had authorised to use the Italian language
(Rule 27 para. 3). By a letter received on 22 August, the Secretary to
the Commission informed the Registrar that the Delegate did not consider
it necessary to reply thereto.
6. On 28 June 1991 the Chamber had decided to dispense with a
hearing, having found that the conditions for such derogation from
the usual procedure were satisfied (Rules 26 and 38).
7. On 28 August the Commission produced the file on the
proceedings before it, as requested by the Registrar on the
President's instructions.
8. On 5 and 26 November, respectively, the Commission and the
Government filed their observations on the applicant's claims for
just satisfaction (Article 50 of the Convention) (art. 50).
AS TO THE FACTS
9. Mr Attilio Cifola is an Italian national and resides in
Rome. He is a builder. The facts established by the Commission
pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 (art. 31-1) of the Convention are as
follows (paragraphs 16-21 of its report):
"16. On 5 March 1984 the applicant took proceedings before
the Rome District Court against the group of co-owners of a
building (condominio) located in Rome to determine his
proprietary rights over a part of the building and his claim
for damages.
17. The investigation began at the hearing on
29 May 1984. The investigating judge found that the file
contained no evidence of a summons against Mrs P. and
directed the applicant to provide such evidence or to have
the summons reissued. The transfer of the investigating
judge caused the automatic adjournment of the next hearing,
fixed for 6 December 1984. At the hearing of 26 March 1985,
the applicant produced documentary evidence that he had taken
out a new summons against Mrs P. The investigating judge
found that the summons was out of time and adjourned the
hearing to 16 July 1985. On that date, the applicant
requested an adjournment in order to take out a further
summons against Mrs P.
18. At the hearing of 7 January 1986, the investigating
judge found the content of the new summons to be insufficient
and again adjourned the proceedings in the case. At the
hearing of 14 April 1986, the applicant established that the
first summons (that of 5 March 1984) had been served in due
form.
19. At the hearing of 8 July 1986, the parties made their
final submissions and the investigating judge fixed the date
of the hearing before the appropriate chamber of the court
for 10 February 1988, on which date judgment was reserved.
20. By decision of 1 March 1988 the District Court
confirmed the applicant's right of property over the disputed
part of the building which it also found to be subject to a
right of passage for the other co-owners. The text of the
decision was lodged with the registry on 25 March 1988.
21. It does not appear that an appeal was filed against
that decision."
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
10. Mr Cifola lodged his application with the Commission on
11 September 1987. He complained of the length of the civil
proceedings brought by him and relied on Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
of the Convention.
11. On 11 May 1990 the Commission declared the application
(no. 13216/87) admissible. In its report of 15 January 1991
(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 231-A
of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the
Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.
_______________
AS TO THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 PARA. 1 (art. 6-1)
12. The applicant claimed that his 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.
13. The period to be taken into consideration began on
5 March 1984 when the proceedings were instituted against the
defendants in the Rome District Court. According to the information
supplied to the Commission, it ended, at the latest, on
25 March 1989, on which date the District Court's judgment became
final, no appeal having been filed (see the Pugliese (II) v. Italy
judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-A, p. 8, para. 16).
14. 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.
15. The Government invoked the conduct of the applicant, who in
particular had not sought to have his case dealt with more rapidly.
16. The Court observes that the investigation took a little more
than twenty-five months (29 May 1984 - 8 July 1986); the trial
hearing took place one year and seven months later, on
10 February 1988.
Initially, there was a misunderstanding between the
investigating judge and the applicant's lawyer on the question of
the validity of the originating summons; it is hard to understand
why it should have taken nearly two years to resolve this matter
(29 May 1984 - 14 April 1986). In addition, there were ten months
between the first hearing and the second (29 May 1984 -
26 March 1985). There was then a second period of stagnation in the
proceedings, of nineteen months, between the end of the
investigation and the trial hearing (8 July 1986 -
10 February 1988). On the other hand, the respondent State cannot
be held responsible for the year which went by before the judgment,
which was filed with the registry on 25 March 1988, became final.
17. Taking the proceedings as a whole, however, the Court cannot
regard as "reasonable" the lapse of time in the present case.
There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1).
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50)
18. 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."
19. The applicant claimed a sum for damage and the reimbursement
of his costs and expenses, without putting forward any figures.
The Commission took the view that he was entitled to
reparation not only for non-pecuniary damage, but also for any
pecuniary damage sustained by him if he succeeded in establishing
its existence and that of a causal connection with the violation
found.
20. The evidence does not show that these conditions have been
satisfied. The applicant may, however, have suffered non-pecuniary
damage, but in the circumstances of the case the Court considers,
like the Government, that the finding of a violation of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) provides him in itself with sufficient just
satisfaction for the purposes of Article 50 (art. 50).
In view of the fact that Mr Cifola did not indicate any sum,
the claim concerning his costs and expenses must also be dismissed.
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 this judgment constitutes in itself, as regards
the non-pecuniary damage alleged, sufficient just
satisfaction for the purposes of Article 50 (art. 50);
3. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim.
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