In the case of Golino 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 11/1991/263/334. 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. 12172/86) against the Italian Republic lodged with
the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by an Italian national,
Mr Luigi Golino, on 16 April 1986.
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 did not wish to take part in the proceedings.
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, 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 to 10/1991/262/333; 12/1991/264/335;
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 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") and the Delegate
of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37
para. 1 and 38). In accordance with the order made in consequence,
the Registrar received the Government's memorial on 16 July 1991.
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 1991, respectively, the Commission and
the Government lodged their observations on the claims for just
satisfaction which the applicant had communicated to the Registrar
on 31 July (Article 50 of the Convention; Rules 50 and 1(k), taken
together) (art. 50).
AS TO THE FACTS
9. Mr Luigi Golino is an Italian national and resides at
Marcianise (Caserta). The facts established by the Commission
pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 (art. 31-1) of the Convention are as
follows (paragraphs 16-23 of its report):
"16. On 24 August 1980 the applicant was involved in a traffic
accident (a collision between the motorcycle which he was riding and
one ridden by a Mrs F.) which caused him serious injury.
17. Criminal proceedings against Mrs F., in the course of which
a medical opinion was also submitted, ended in the case being
discharged under an amnesty law.
18. By summons served on 4 September 1982, the applicant claimed
damages in respect of the accident against Mrs F. and Mr M. before
the Santa Maria Capua Vetere District Court.
19. The investigation of the case, commenced at the hearing of
14 December 1982, continued at the hearings of 5 April 1983,
8 July 1983 (adjourned at the defendants' request), 8 November 1983,
23 December 1983, 10 April 1984, 25 September 1984 and
25 January 1985.
20. On 28 May 1985 the investigating judge invited the parties
to make their final submissions at the hearing of 19 November 1985.
However, on that date the investigating judge had other commitments
and the hearing was thus adjourned to 1 April 1986. On that date,
allowing a request by the defendants, the investigating judge called
for the taking of an expert opinion in order to establish the
seriousness of the injuries suffered by the applicant and summoned
the expert to the hearing of 26 September 1986.
21. Because the investigating judge was unable to attend, this
was postponed by court order to 6 February 1987, when the expert was
sworn in. He examined the applicant on 26 February 1987 and lodged
the opinion on 12 May 1987. At the end of the hearing on
5 June 1987, the case was ready to be tried.
22. On 27 November 1987 the parties made their final submissions
and the investigating judge referred the case to the competent court
chamber. The hearing before it took place on 21 February 1989, when
judgment was reserved.
23. On 14 March 1989 the District Court ordered the defendants
to pay damages. The text of the decision was lodged with the
registry on 27 May 1989."
10. According to the information supplied by the Government to
the European Court, no appeal was filed.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
11. Mr Golino lodged his application with the Commission on
16 April 1986. 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.
12. On 11 May 1990 the Commission declared the application
(no. 12172/86) 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 229-H
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)
13. 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.
14. The period to be taken into consideration began on
4 September 1982 when the proceedings were instituted against Mrs F.
and Mr M. in the Santa Maria Capua Vetere District Court. It ended,
at the latest, on 27 May 1990 when the District Court's judgment
became final (see the Pugliese (II) v. Italy judgment of
24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-A, p. 8, para. 16).
15. 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.
16. The Government invoked the complexity of the facts, the
conduct of the applicant - who in particular had not requested that
his case be dealt with more rapidly - and the excessive workload of
the District Court.
17. The Court notes in the first place that the investigation
took just under six years (14 December 1982 - 27 November 1987). It
is true that the investigating judge had to question four witnesses
and have recourse to an expert opinion; in addition, the applicant
caused an adjournment (not referred to in the Commission's report)
and the defendants obtained two adjournments. The Court observes
nevertheless, like the Commission, that there were two periods of
stagnation: from 28 May 1985 to 1 April 1986 and from that date to
6 February 1987. Moreover, the judge waited until the hearing of
25 September 1984 to hear witnesses which Mr Golino had cited at the
very beginning and until 1 April 1986 to order an expert opinion, a
measure requested by the defendants but which he could have ordered
earlier of his own motion.
The trial hearing did not take place until 21 February 1989, one
year and three months after the end of the investigation, which
delay made the situation worse. The Government pleaded the backlog
of cases pending in the Santa Maria Capua Vetere District Court, 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).
18. Accordingly and notwithstanding the fact that the State
cannot be held responsible for the year which elapsed until the
decision, the text of which was lodged with the registry on
27 May 1989, became final, 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)
19. 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
20. The applicant claimed in the first place compensation for
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, without giving any figures. He
did not seek the reimbursement of costs and expenses.
The Commission took the view that, in addition to reparation for
non-pecuniary damage, Mr Golino was entitled to compensation for any
pecuniary damage sustained by him if he succeeded in establishing
its existence and that of a causal connection with the violation
found.
21. The evidence does not show that these conditions have been
satisfied. On the other hand, the applicant undoubtedly suffered
non-pecuniary damage for which the Court, making an assessment on an
equitable basis, awards him 2,000,000 Italian lire.
B.Interest
22. 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.
23. 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 to Mr Golino,
within three months, 2,000,000 (two million) Italian lire for
non-pecuniary damage;
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