In the case of Vorrasi 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 20/1991/272/343. 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. 12706/87) against the Italian Republic lodged with the
Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by an Italian national,
Mrs Maria Vorrasi, on 31 October 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 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,
Casciaroli, Manieri, Mastrantonio, Idrocalce S.r.l., Owners'
Services Ltd, Cardarelli, Golino, Taiuti, Maciariello,
Manifattura FL, Steffano, Ruotolo, 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; 15/1991/267/338;
16/1991/268/339; 18/1991/270/341; 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"), 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 the memorial of the
applicant - whom the President had authorised to use the Italian
language (Rule 27 para. 3) - 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
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 10 October and 5 November respectively, the Government
and the Commission filed their observations on the applicant's
claims for just satisfaction (Article 50 of the Convention)
(art. 50).
AS TO THE FACTS
9. Mrs Maria Vorrasi is an Italian national and resides in
Rome. She is a housewife. 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. By a writ served on 15 March 1978 the applicant
instituted proceedings against her mother, Mrs L., and her
three brothers before the Melfi District Court, asking for
the division of her father's estate.
17. The investigation commenced at the hearing of
10 May 1978. At the hearing of 21 June 1978 the applicant
made a request for the appointment of an expert to assess
the property constituting the estate and to put forward a
plan of apportionment. The investigating judge deferred his
decision on this request.
18. The next hearing did not take place until
19 February 1980, on which date the proceedings in the case
were adjourned because Mrs L.'s counsel could not attend.
19. The parties then entered into negotiations for a
friendly settlement and this prompted a series of
postponements of the following hearings:
- 15 April 1980 (postponed at Mrs L.'s request);
- 17 June 1980 (postponed at the parties' request);
- 31 March 1981 (postponed at Mrs L.'s request);
- 1 December 1981 (postponed at the parties' request);
- 16 March 1982 (postponed at the parties' request);
- 23 November 1982 (postponed at the parties' request);
- 16 March 1983 (postponed at Mrs L.'s request);
- 1 June 1983 (postponed at Mrs L.'s request);
- 21 December 1983 (postponed at Mrs L.'s request);
- 4 April 1984 (postponed at the parties' request);
- 11 July 1984 (postponed at Mrs L.'s request).
20. At the hearing on 12 March 1985 the applicant
reiterated her request for an expert opinion, but at
Mrs L.'s request the investigating judge adjourned the case
firstly to 4 June 1985 and then to 10 December 1985. On
that date the applicant again called for an expert opinion.
On 27 December 1985 the investigating judge ruled that an
expert opinion could not be given on the basis of the
documents produced by the parties, and directed them to
complete the case-file.
21. The applicant complied at the hearing of
18 February 1986 and reiterated her request for an expert
opinion. Mrs L. requested a further adjournment. The
investigating judge set the next hearing down for
13 May 1986. However, the hearing did not take place until
10 March 1988, on which date the investigating judge
reserved his decision on the request for an expert opinion.
On 6 April 1988 he directed that an expert be summoned.
22. At the hearing on 30 June 1988 the expert was sworn
in and given one hundred and twenty days to deliver his
opinion. The investigating judge adjourned the case to
17 November 1988.
23. The expert opinion, however, was not lodged within
the time stipulated and the hearing was postponed to
23 March 1989. ... ."
10. According to the information supplied to the European Court
by the applicant and the Government, on 23 March 1989 the parties
requested an adjournment in order to study the expert's report,
which had been lodged on 22 November 1988. The following hearing
which had been set down for 22 June was not held until 5 October.
On that occasion Mrs Vorrasi's lawyer asked that, in the light of
the report, the estate be attributed to one of the heirs only; to
this end, he requested the judge to direct that they appear in
person in order to determine which of them was interested in the
holdings of the others. As one of the lawyers had asked for time to
consult his clients, the investigation, which was first adjourned
until 23 November 1989, reopened in fact on 24 May 1990. As the
applicant repeated her request for the appearance in person of the
other heirs, the judge reserved his decision until 28 June 1990. On
25 July he ordered the joinder of the case with another which was
also pending before him and concerned the same property and persons.
On a date which has not been specified, he ordered that the
heirs appear in person on 31 January 1991, but this did not occur on
that date because he had been transferred in the meantime. His
replacement, who was appointed on 14 May 1991, set down a hearing
for 24 September 1991. The Court has no information on what
happened at that hearing.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
11. Mrs Vorrasi lodged her application with the Commission on
31 October 1986. 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. 12706/87) 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 230-E
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 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.
14. The period to be taken into consideration began on
15 March 1978 when the proceedings were instituted against the
defendants in the Melfi District Court. It has not yet ended since
it appears that that court has still not given judgment.
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 conduct of the applicant - who
had not requested that her case be examined more rapidly - and the
lack of judges at the Melfi District Court.
17. The Court notes in the first place that the problem to be
determined was a complex one concerning the apportionment of
indivisible property among several heirs. It stresses in addition,
like the Government, that the State was not responsible for the long
period - from 15 April 1980 to 11 July 1984 - during which the
parties sought a number of adjournments in connection with their
attempt to achieve an out-of-court settlement. It may be
questioned, moreover, why the parties found it necessary to seek, on
23 March 1989, additional time to study the expert's report, which
had been filed four months previously.
Nevertheless, the Commission rightly drew attention to two
periods of inactivity for which the State was wholly responsible
(21 June 1978 to 19 February 1980 and 18 February 1986 to
10 March 1988). There was a third such period: the new
investigating judge did not hold a hearing until, at the earliest,
four months and ten days after his appointment (14 May -
24 September 1991), which appointment had occurred several months
after his predecessor's transfer, which had taken place some time
between 25 July 1990 and 31 January 1991.
The Government pleaded the lack of judges appointed to the
Melfi 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. Taking the proceedings as a whole, the Court cannot regard
as "reasonable" in this instance a lapse of time which is already
more than thirteen and a half years.
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. Mrs Vorrasi claimed in the first place financial
compensation for pecuniary damage. She did not make any claim for
non-pecuniary damage and this is not a matter for the Court to
examine of its own motion.
The Commission took the view that the applicant was entitled
to compensation for any pecuniary damage sustained by her if she
succeeded in establishing its existence and that of a causal
connection with the violation found.
21. There is no evidence that these conditions have been
satisfied. Accordingly, the claim must be dismissed.
B. Costs and expenses
22. The applicant also sought the reimbursement of 7,103,000
Italian lire in respect of costs which she had incurred before the
Convention organs.
Having regard to the evidence at its disposal and its
case-law in this field, the Court awards 4,000,000 lire under this
head.
C. Interest
23. 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.
24. 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, 4,000,000 (four million) Italian 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