FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 11717/21 and 11718/21
D’ANGELO VINCENZO S.R.L. against Italy
and SIRTEC S.R.L. against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 23 November 2023 as a Committee composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
Lətif Hüseynov,
Ivana Jelić, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions were communicated to the Italian Government (“the Government”). In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions. In some of the applications, they further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicants’ rights guaranteed by other provisions of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The Government also undertook to ensure the enforcement of the domestic decisions under consideration in the cases concerned (see appended table) within the same three-month period, and to pay any costs of the domestic enforcement proceedings.
The payment and the enforcement of the domestic decisions in the cases concerned will constitute the final resolution of the cases.
The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations.
The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:
“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions (see, for example, Ventorino v. Italy, no. 357/07, 17 May 2011; De Trana v. Italy, no. 64215/01, 16 October 2007; Nicola Silvestri v. Italy, no. 16861/02, 9 June 2009; Antonetto v. Italy, no. 15918/89, 20 July 2000; and De Luca v. Italy, no. 43870/04, 24 September 2013).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 14 December 2023.
Viktoriya Maradudina Krzysztof Wojtyczek
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of registration
Representative’s name and location
Relevant
domestic
decision
Domestic
court order
Other complaints under well‑established case‑law
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage
per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
11717/21
13/02/2021
D’ANGELO VINCENZO S.R.L.
2005
Lentini Giovanni
Castelvetrano
Trapani District
Court R.G. 2479/2014,
30/01/2015
Sciacca District
Court R.G. 1057/2015,
29/10/2015
Sciacca District
Court R.G. 1299/2015,
21/12/2015
ATO Belice Ambiente
S.p.a.
Payment of sums as
reimbursement for services provided by
the applicant company.
Prot. 1 Art. 1 - lack of or delayed payment of a debt by State authorities
07/11/2022
12,500
250
11718/21
13/02/2021
SIRTEC S.R.L.
2002
Lentini Giovanni
Castelvetrano
Trapani District
Court R.G. 2476/2014,
12/11/2014
Sciacca District
Court R.G. 1055/2015,
29/10/2015
Sciacca District
Court R.G. 1297/2015,
21/12/2015
ATO Belice Ambiente
S.p.a.
Payment of sums as
reimbursement for services provided by
the applicant company.
Prot. 1 Art. 1 - lack of or delayed payment of a debt by State authorities
07/11/2022
16,200
250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy