In the case of Taiuti 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 12/1991/264/335. 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. 12238/86) against the Italian Republic lodged with
the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by an Italian national,
Mr Renzo Taiuti, on 23 May 1986. Mr Taiuti was designated by the
letter "T." in the proceedings before the Commission; subsequently
he agreed to the disclosure of his 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 stated that
he did not wish to take part in the proceedings.
3. On 23 April 1991 the President 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, 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 11/1991/263/334; 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 November the Commission lodged its observations on the
claims for just satisfaction which the applicant had communicated to
the Registrar on 12 June (Article 50 of the Convention; Rules 50 and
1(k), taken together) (art. 50) and on which the Government had
already commented in their memorial.
AS TO THE FACTS
9. Mr Renzo Taiuti is an Italian national and resides in
Florence. He is retired. 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 1 June 1982 the applicant instituted divorce proceedings
before the Florence District Court.
17. The applicant and his wife appeared before the presiding
judge of the District Court, after which the case was referred to
the investigating judge. The investigation commenced at the hearing
of 16 November 1982, followed by three further hearings on
1 February, 22 March and 24 May 1983. At the hearing of
13 October 1983 the judge allowed a request by the applicant and
appointed an expert to assess the applicant's fitness for work.
18. The investigation of the case was to have resumed on
24 May 1984, but the hearing set for that date was not held
until 29 March 1985 owing to the transfer of the investigating
judge.
19. At the hearing of 4 June 1985 the investigating judge
rejected a request by the applicant's wife that a witness be
examined. The parties made their final submissions at the hearing
of 28 June 1985 and the investigating judge set down the hearing
before the appropriate chamber of the District Court for
11 December 1985.
20. On that date, the District Court referred the case back to
the investigating judge for the examination of the witness requested
by the applicant's wife. At the next hearing, held on 15 May 1986,
the witness sent word that he was unable to attend and the hearing
was postponed to 9 October 1986. On that date the witness did not
appear, but the applicant's wife produced a copy of the record of
his testimony during earlier proceedings.
21. The parties made their final submissions at the hearing on
30 October 1986.
22. The investigating judge referred the case to the appropriate
chamber of the court which heard the parties on 17 February 1988,
after which judgment was reserved. The date of the Florence
District Court's judgment has not been communicated, but the text
thereof was lodged with the court registry on 20 October 1988.
23. ... ."
10. According to the Government, the District Court's judgment
became final on 1 December 1990.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
11. Mr Taiuti lodged his application with the Commission on
23 May 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. 12238/86) 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-I
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
1 June 1982 when the applicant instituted divorce proceedings.
According to information provided by the Government, it ended on
1 December 1990 (see paragraph 10 above).
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 excessive workload of the
Florence District Court. In addition, the applicant had not
requested that his case be dealt with more rapidly.
17. In the proceedings in issue the investigating judge fixed
long periods between the hearings and, according to the incomplete
information provided to the Court, there were two periods of total
inactivity (from 13 October 1983 to 29 March 1985 and from
30 October 1986 to 17 February 1988). Furthermore, the Florence
District Court would appear to have delayed either giving judgment
following the hearing of 17 February 1988 or filing its judgment
with the registry.
The Government pleaded the backlog of cases in the 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, the Court cannot regard as "reasonable" the
lapse of time in the present case, in particular as special
diligence is required in cases concerning civil status and capacity
(see the Bock v. Germany judgment of 23 March 1989, Series A
no. 150, p. 23, para. 49).
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. Mr Taiuti claimed in the first place compensation for damage
without giving any figures.
21. In the Government's contention, he failed to establish the
existence of any pecuniary damage and a finding of a breach of the
requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) would in itself provide
sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage that he
may have suffered.
22. There is no evidence that the applicant sustained any
pecuniary damage as a result of the failure to comply with the
reasonable time requirement. On the other hand, he must have
suffered a degree of non-pecuniary damage for which the Court,
making an assessment on an equitable basis, awards him
2,000,000 Italian lire.
B. Costs and expenses
23. The applicant also sought 3,327,500 lire for costs incurred
before the Court.
Having regard to the evidence at its disposal and its case-law in
this field, the Court awards Mr Taiuti the amount claimed.
C. Interest
24. 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.
25. 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 the applicant,
within three months, 2,000,000 (two million) Italian lire for
non-pecuniary damage and 3,327,500 (three million three hundred and
twenty-seven thousand five hundred) 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