In the case of Manifattura FL 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 15/1991/267/338. 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. 12407/86) against the Italian Republic lodged with the
Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by an Italian company,
Manifattura FL, on 9 July 1986. The company was designated by the
letter "M." in the proceedings before the Commission; subsequently
it agreed to the disclosure of its identity.
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 company stated
that it wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the
lawyer who would represent it (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, 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 13/1991/265/336; 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 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 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 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 G. Sambataro, avvocato, Counsel.
The Court heard addresses by Mr Raimondi and Mrs Passannanti
for the Government, by Mr Frowein for the Commission and by
Mr Sambataro for the applicant company.
8. On 5 November the Commission lodged its observations on the
applicant company's claims for just satisfaction (Article 50 of the
Convention) (art. 50).
AS TO THE FACTS
9. The applicant is a limited company whose registered office
is at Vaiano (Florence). 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 14 October 1982 the X company brought an action
against the applicant before the Modena District Court to
obtain a declaration that no purchase and sale contract
existed between it and the applicant company contrary to the
latter's allegation.
17. In its counterclaim of 13 January 1983, the
applicant asked that the court should first declare the
aforesaid contract valid and then order that it be
performed.
18. The investigation began at the hearing of
18 January 1983, followed by hearings on 12 April, 14 June
and 8 November 1983, 13 March 1984 (adjourned at the
plaintiff's request) and 15 May 1984. On 21 May 1984 the
investigating judge allowed an application by the X company
and ordered the examination of a witness whose evidence was
taken at the hearing of 24 April 1985. Two more hearings
were held on 5 November 1985 and 18 March 1986.
19. On 18 March 1986 the parties made their final
submissions. The investigating judge referred the case to
the appropriate chamber of the court and fixed the hearing
for 15 March 1989.
20. On 12 April 1989 the District Court dismissed the X
company's claim and allowed the applicant's claim. The text
of its decision was lodged with the registry on
4 September 1989.
21. On 9 March 1990 the X company applied to the Bologna
Court of Appeal for the reversal of the above decision."
10. According to the information supplied to the European Court
by the Government and the applicant company, the first hearing was
held on 13 June 1990; the appellant company sought an adjournment in
order to allow Manifattura FL the time to enter its reply. The case
was adjourned until 10 October 1990, then to 17 April 1991, for the
final submissions. On that occasion the applicant entered its reply
and obtained an adjournment until 29 May 1991. The case was then
set down for trial before the chamber on 15 October 1993.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
11. Manifattura FL lodged its application with the Commission on
9 July 1986. It complained of the length of the civil proceedings
brought by it and relied on Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
Convention.
12. On 11 May 1990 the Commission declared the application
(no. 12407/86) 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 230-B
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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 PARA. 1 (art. 6-1)
14. The applicant company claimed that its 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.
15. The period to be taken into consideration began on
14 October 1982 when the proceedings were instituted against the
applicant in the Modena District Court. It has not yet ended
because the Bologna Court of Appeal has still to give judgment.
16. 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.
17. The Government invoked the excessive workload of the
relevant courts and the conduct of the applicant company, which in
particular had not requested that its case be examined more rapidly.
18. However, the case was not a complex one. There was a long
period of stagnation in the proceedings before the competent chamber
of the Modena District Court (18 March 1986 - 12 April 1989). 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). It is moreover
difficult to understand why it took nearly five months to file the
text of the judgment with the registry (12 April -
4 September 1989).
It is true that on appeal the applicant waited more than
thirteen months to enter a reply (9 March 1990 - 17 April 1991); in
addition, the applicant company and the X company each caused an
adjournment. It remains nevertheless the case that the trial
hearing will be conducted at best more than twenty-eight months
after the end of the investigation (29 May 1991 - 15 October 1993).
19. Accordingly, the Court cannot regard as "reasonable" in this
instance a lapse of time of more than nine years.
There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1).
II. 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. The applicant sought in the first place a deposit from the
Italian Government to guarantee the payment of the sum claimed in
the national courts or, failing that, a sum of 65,000,000 Italian
lire in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
The Commission took the view that the company was entitled
to reparation for non-pecuniary damage; it should also be awarded
compensation for pecuniary damage if it succeeded in establishing
the existence of such damage and that of a causal connection with
the violation found.
22. As regards the primary claim, the Court notes that it is not
empowered under the Convention to order a Contracting State to take
such a measure (see, mutatis mutandis, the Vocaturo v. Italy
judgment, cited above, Series A no. 206-C, p. 33, para. 21).
On the question of the award of a sum for pecuniary damage,
the evidence does not show that the necessary conditions have been
satisfied. As to the non-pecuniary damage alleged, assuming that
Manifattura FL, a commercial company, was capable of suffering such
damage, the Court considers that the finding of a violation of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) in itself provides sufficient just
satisfaction for the purposes of Article 50 (art. 50).
B. Costs and expenses
23. The applicant company also claimed, firstly, 50,000,000
lire, plus 15,000,000 lire per year, in respect of the costs
necessary to obtain satisfaction at national level and, secondly,
15,968,040 lire for its costs and expenses before the Convention
organs.
24. The first sums do not fall to be taken into consideration
under Article 50 (art. 50) because it does not appear from the
evidence that such costs were incurred in order to prevent the
breach of the "reasonable time" requirement. The second figure may
be taken into account, but the applicant's claims are excessive;
making an assessment on an equitable basis, the Court fixes at
8,000,000 lire the amount to be reimbursed under this head.
C. Interest
25. The Commission invited the Court to fix for the Governnment
- who did not give an 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 this judgment constitutes in itself, as regards
any non-pecuniary damage, sufficient just satisfaction for
the purposes of Article 50 (art. 50);
3. Holds that the respondent State is to pay to the applicant
company, within three months, 8,000,000 (eight million)
Italian lire for costs and expenses;
4. 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