FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30788/18
Nicola CAITO against Italy
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 21 May 2024 as a Committee composed of:
Péter Paczolay, President,
Gilberto Felici,
Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;
the decision to give notice of the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of domestic judgments to the Italian Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr L. D’Ascia;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The applications concern the non-enforcement of judgments nos. 5214/2017, 5225/2017 and 5261/2017 awarding compensation issued by the Palermo District Court on 5 October 2017.
2. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the non-enforcement of the above three domestic judgments in their favour.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
3. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
4. The Government argued that, although judgments nos. 5214/2017, 5225/2017 and 5261/2017 of the Palermo District Court were filed on 5 October 2017, the applicants only sent the relevant documents to the debtor authority in order to recover the debt on 19 April 2018. Furthermore, they only provided the correct bank details for receiving the payment in February 2019. The payments were then ordered by the debtor authority between March and August 2019.
5. The applicants reiterated that the domestic authorities had failed to enforce the judgments within a reasonable time.
6. The Court recalls that a successful litigant may be required to undertake certain procedural steps in order to recover the judgment debt, be it during a voluntary execution of a judgment by the State or during its enforcement by compulsory means (see Shvedov v. Russia, no. 69306/01, §§ 29-37, 20 October 2005). Accordingly, it is not unreasonable that the authorities request that the applicant produce additional documents, such as bank details, to allow or speed up the execution of a judgment (see, mutatis mutandis, Kosmidis and Kosmidou v. Greece, no. 32141/04, § 24, 8 November 2007; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 69, ECHR 2009; and Arbačiauskienė v. Lithuania, no. 2971/08, § 86, 1 March 2016). The creditor’s uncooperative behaviour may be an obstacle to timely enforcement of a judgment, thus alleviating the authorities’ responsibility for delays (see Belayev v. Russia (dec.), no. 36020/02, 22 March 2011). In fact, while the primary responsibility for enforcement of a judgment against the State lies with the authorities, they cannot comply with their obligations without the applicants’ minimal cooperation to that effect (Gadzhikhanov and Saukov v. Russia, nos. 10511/08 and 5866/09, § 29, 31 January 2012; Kuzhelev and Others v. Russia, nos. 64098/09 and 6 others, § 106, 15 October 2019; and Di Giuseppe v. Italy (dec.) [Committee], no. 7997/21, § 7, 5 December 2023, with further references).
7. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court agrees with the Government that the obligation to provide the debtor authority with the correct bank account details and the supporting documents constitutes a reasonable procedural step which the creditor is required to take in order to obtain sums awarded by domestic judgments. Failure by the creditor to comply with this obligation constitutes an obstacle to the enforcement of the decisions in his favour, for which the authorities cannot be held responsible (see Gadzhikhanov and Saukov, cited above, § 29)
8. In this connection, the Court observes that the applicants did not provide the correct bank details and the relevant supporting documents until February 2019 and did not explain the reasons for the delay. The Court also notes that the debtor authority made the payment within six months from the date on which it received the correct bank details and the relevant documents.
9. In these circumstances, the Court finds that the applications are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 13 June 2024.
Liv Tigerstedt Péter Paczolay
Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Represented by
1.
30788/18
Caito v. Italy
13/06/2018
Nicola CAITO
1939
Alessandro SAVOCA
2.
30893/18
Agostino and Others v. Italy
13/06/2018
Giuseppe AGOSTINO
1957
Gaspare BARRESI
1957
Calogero BARRILE
1938
Lorenzo BLANCATO
1949
Domenica BONIFACIO
1954
Salvatore BOSCO
1946
Pietro BUSCEMI
1936
Orlando CALDERONE
1935
Francesca Giusi CAMERANO
1987
Antonio CAMPOLO
1950
Biagio CAVALLARO
1949
Concettina CAVALLARO
1944
Concetto Lucio Maria CAVALLARO
1957
Grazia CAVALLARO
1947
Giuseppe CORSO
1948
Vincenzo COSTANZO ZAMMATARO
1954
Santo CUCINOTTA
1948
Francesco DI MARCO
1944
Gesualdo GENNARO
1949
Salvatore GENNARO
1959
Ugo GENOVESE
1931
Maria INFARINATO
1936
Giuseppe LA QUATRA
1944
Antonino LA SPINA
1946
Michelangelo LEANZA
1958
Giovanni LICCIARDI
1946
Carmelo LO PRESTI
1936
Angela LO VECCHIO
1955
Antonino LODATO
1962
Maria Concetta LODATO
1966
Carmelo LOREFICE
1951
Natale MAIMONE
1948
Francesco MANCUSO
1952
Luigi MARE
1964
Francesco MAURO
1920
Nicolò MIANI
1953
Lorenzo MILILLI
1945
Francesco MOLONIA
1934
Corrado PIAZZESE
1959
Giovanni RINZELLI
1947
Domenico SACCONE
1949
Francesco SANTOCONO
1948
Francesco SIMONE
1950
Benito Giuseppe SPATA
1941
Carmelo TARASCIO
1950
Gioacchino TRAINA
1962
Concetto VALVO
1947
Maria Catena VIOLA
1957
Filippo VISCONTI
1956
Alessandro SAVOCA
3.
31665/18
Baglio and Others
v. Italy
13/06/2018
Giovanni BAGLIO
1946
Clemente BATTAGLIA
1959
Giovanna BORDIERI
1958
Giuseppe BORDONE BACARELLA
1941
Gioacchino BRUNO
1944
Giovanni BUGLISI
1955
Vincenzo CARLINO
1951
Vincenzo Eugenio CHIRCO
1950
Domenico CICERO
1941
Salvatore CIULLA
1957
Salvatore CRAPISI
1959
Mirco DI GRANDI
1986
Tiziana DI GRANDI
1980
Giuseppe DRAGO
1949
Gaetano FARAONE
1947
Antonino FRANCIAMORE
1950
Isidoro FRENDA
1955
Giacomo GELSOMINO
1947
Maddalena LETO
1938
Calogera LICATA
1943
Davide Antonio Graziano MANIGLIA
1970
Gianni Luca Maria MANIGLIA
1967
Rosalena MILIA
1966
Rosalinda MILIA
1970
Salvatore MILIA
1969
Stefano MILIA
1973
Teresa MILIA
1963
Giovanni PREDILETTO
1948
Giuseppa PREDILETTO
1953
Loredana PREDILETTO
1963
Francesco QUARTANA
1971
Giovanna QUARTANA
1960
Giuseppe QUARTANA
1964
Agata RAINERI
1956
Domenico SCIANNA
1959
Paolo TIRRITO
1951
Elena VITALE
1940
Tommaso VITANZA
1953
Alessandro SAVOCA