SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30464/07
Giuseppe DE CRISTOFARO against Italy
and 7 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10 July 2012 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Dragoljub Popović,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
András Sajó,
Guido Raimondi,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
Helen Keller, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged at different times between 5 July 2007 and 8 March 2012 (see list appended),
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
As regards applications no. 15064/11 (De Felice I) and no. 77137/11 (De Felice II)
1. The applicant, Mr Leandro De Felice, is an Italian national born in Naples on 9 April 1954.
2. On 4 August 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Campania Regional Administrative Court.
3. The proceedings were concluded by a judgment dated 19 April 2007.
4. On 18 October 2007 the applicant applied to the Naples Court of Appeal under Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001, known as the “Pinto Act”, complaining about the excessive length of the above-mentioned proceedings.
5. The Court of Appeal, by a decree filed in the relevant registry on 7 July 2008, awarded to the applicant the sum of 6,708.32 EUR as compensation.
6. On an unspecified date in 2009, the applicant challenged the decree of the Court of Appeal of Naples before the Court of Cassation complaining about the insufficient amount of the compensation obtained.
7. The sum due was paid to the applicant on 26 November 2010. On 7 December 2010 the applicant lodged an application with the Court [no. 15064/11] complaining about the delayed payment of the “Pinto” compensation.
8. The Court of Cassation, by a decision filed in the relevant registry on 5 September 2011, dismissed the appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the legal fees, costs and expenses of the proceedings quantified at 900 EUR.
9. On 9 November 2011 the applicant lodged a further application with the Court [no. 77137/11] in relation to the same “Pinto” proceedings, complaining about the insufficiency of the “Pinto” compensation awarded to him, the order of the Court of Cassation to pay legal fees, costs and expenses of the proceedings and the ineffectiveness of the “Pinto” remedy.
As regards applications no. 67544/11(Arpaia I) and no. 77145/11(Arpaia II)
10. The applicant, Mr Domenico Arpaia, is an Italian national born in Poggiomarino (Naples) on 14 September 1943.
On 29 January 1990 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings before the Campania Regional Administrative Court.
11. The proceedings ended on 24 October 2008.
12. On 9 June 2008 the applicant instituted “Pinto” proceedings before the Court of Appeal of Naples, seeking compensation for the excessive length of the above-mentioned proceedings, which at the time were still pending.
13. The Court of Appeal of Naples, by a decree filed in the relevant registry on 21 November 2008, awarded to the applicant the sum of 8,266.66 EUR as compensation.
14. On an unspecified date in 2009 the applicant challenged the decree before the Court of Cassation, complaining about the insufficiency of the compensation obtained.
15. The sum due was paid to the applicant on 23 September 2011.
16. The Court of Cassation, by a decision filed in the relevant registry on 29 August 2011, dismissed the appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the legal fees, costs and expenses of the proceedings quantified at 1,000 EUR.
17. On 27 September 2011 the applicant lodged an application with the Court [no. 67544/11] complaining, inter alia, about the insufficient amount of the “Pinto” compensation.
18. On 9 November 2011 the applicant lodged a further application with the Court [no. 77145/11] in relation to the same “Pinto” proceedings, complaining about the delayed payment of the “Pinto” compensation and the ineffectiveness of the “Pinto” remedy.
As regards applications no. 30464/07 (De Cristofaro I) and no. 15981/12 (De Cristofaro II)
19. The applicant, Mr Giuseppe De Cristofaro, is an Italian national born in Naples on 13 April 1949.
20. On 12 March 1997, the applicant filed an appeal against a decision of the Nola Magistrate’s Court before the Rome Labour Court.
21. The final judgment in the proceedings was delivered on 19 June 2003.
22. On 11 October 2004 the applicant instituted “Pinto” proceedings before the Court of Appeal of Rome, seeking compensation for the excessive length of the above-mentioned proceedings.
23. By a decree filed in the relevant registry on 21 March 2005, the Court of Appeal of Rome awarded to the applicant the sum of 1,050 EUR as compensation.
24. On an unspecified date in 2006, the applicant challenged the decree before the Court of Cassation, complaining about the insufficiency of the compensation obtained.
25. On 23 March 2007 the sum awarded by the Court of Appeal of Rome was paid to the applicant.
26. On 5 July 2007 the applicant lodged an application with the Court [no. 30464/07] complaining about the delayed payment of the compensation awarded by the Court of Appeal of Rome.
27. By a decision filed in the relevant registry on 4 December 2008, the Court of Cassation upheld the appeal of the applicant and increased the compensation to 3,000 EUR.
28. On 23 February 2012 the sum due was paid to the applicant.
29. On 8 March 2012 the applicant lodged a further application with the Court [no. 15981/12] in relation to the same “Pinto” proceedings, complaining about the delayed payment of the “Pinto” compensation awarded by the Court of Cassation and the ineffectiveness of the “Pinto” remedy.
As regards applications no. 57150/11(De Micco I) and no. 15985/12 (De Micco II)
30. The applicant, Mr Andrea De Micco, is an Italian national born in Naples on 27 August 1940.
31. On 28 October 1999 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings before the Campania Regional Administrative Court. The final judgment in the proceedings was delivered on 14 June 2005.
32. On an unspecified date in 2006 the applicant instituted “Pinto” proceedings before the Court of Appeal of Naples, seeking compensation for the excessive length of the above-mentioned proceedings.
33. By a decree filed in the relevant registry on 21 July 2006, the Court of Appeal of Naples awarded to the applicant the sum of 1,000 EUR as compensation.
34. The sum due was paid to the applicant on 7 July 2010.
35. On 7 September 2010 the applicant filed an application (no. 57150/10) before the Court complaining about the delayed payment of the compensation awarded by the Court of Appeal of Naples.
36. On an unspecified date in 2007 the applicant challenged the decree of the Court of Appeal of Naples before the Court of Cassation, complaining about the insufficiency of the compensation obtained.
37. By a decision filed in the relevant registry on 19 October 2009, the Court of Cassation upheld the appeal and increased the compensation to 2,850 EUR.
38. The sum due was paid to the applicant on 3 February 2012.
39. On 24 February 2012 the applicant lodged a further application with the Court (no. 15985/12) in relation to the same “Pinto” proceedings, complaining about the delayed payment of the “Pinto” compensation awarded by the Court of Cassation and the ineffectiveness of the “Pinto” remedy.
COMPLAINTS
40. Each applicant instituted proceedings under Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001 (known as the “Pinto Act”), in relation to which, at different times, each of them lodged two separate applications with the Court invoking Articles 6 § 1, 13, and 17 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to complain about the following:
As regards applications De Felice I and De Felice IIthe delayed payment of the “Pinto” compensation [application no. 15065/11];the insufficiency of the “Pinto” compensation; the order of the Court of Cassation to pay the legal fees, costs and expenses of the proceedings. [application no. 77137/11];the ineffectiveness of the “Pinto” remedy [applications no. 15064/11 and no. 77137/11].
As regards applications Arpaia I and Arpaia IIthe insufficiency of the “Pinto” compensation [application no. 67544/11];the delayed payment of the “Pinto” compensation; [application no. 77145/11];the ineffectiveness of the “Pinto” remedy [applications no. 67544/11 and no.77145/11].
As regards applications De Cristofaro I, De Cristofaro II, De Micco I and De Micco IIthe delayed payment of the “Pinto” compensation awarded by the Courts of Appeal [applications no. 30464/0 and no. 57150/10];the delayed payment of the “Pinto” compensation awarded by the Court of Cassation [applications no. 15981/12 and no. 15985/12];the ineffectiveness of the “Pinto” remedy [applications no. 30464/0, no. 15981/12, no. 57150/10 and no. 15985/12].
THE LAW
41. The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given the similar context in which they were all brought, as well as the underlying nature of the complaints contained therein.
42. The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see, among others, Jian v. Romania, (dec.), no. 46640/99 and Keretchashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006) or if incomplete and therefore misleading information was submitted to the Court (see, among others, Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006; and Basileo v. Italy, (dec.) no. 11303/02, 23 August 2011). Similarly, an application can be rejected as abusive if applicants – despite their obligation under Article 47 § 6 of the Rules of Court – fail to inform the Court about new important developments regarding their pending applications given that such conduct prevents the Court from ruling on the matter in full knowledge of the facts (see Bekauri v. Georgia, (dec.) no. 14102/02, §§ 21-23, 10 April 2012).
43. The Court recalls that the notion of abuse of the right of application is not limited to the above-described hypothesis and in general any conduct of an applicant that is manifestly contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application as provided for in the Convention and impedes the proper functioning of the Court or the proper conduct of the proceedings before it constitutes an abuse of the right of application (see Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia, no. 798/05, §§ 62 and 65, 15 September 2009).
44. The Court underlines that according to Rule 44 A of the Rules of Court “The parties have a duty to cooperate fully in the conduct of the proceedings and, in particular, to take such action within their power as the Court considers necessary for the proper administration of justice...”. The Court has repeatedly held that the rules of procedure laid down in national laws are intended to ensure the proper administration of justice and the principle of legal certainty and that the parties must be able to rely on their application. The same observation applies, a fortiori, to the Convention and the Rules of Court (Miroļubovs and Others, cited above, § 66).
45. Finally, the Court reiterates that it cannot be its task to deal with manifestly abusive conduct of applicants or their authorised representatives, which creates gratuitous work for the Court, incompatible with its real functions under the Convention (see Petrović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 56551/11 and 10 others, 18 October 2011; and Bekauri, cited above, § 21).
46. Having regard to the relevant circumstances of the present applications, the Court considers that they represent an example of the irresponsible and misleading conduct of the applicants’ representative.
47. The Court notes that each of the applicants lodged with the Court, at different times, two separate applications raising different complaints about the same “Pinto” proceedings.
48. The Court is aware that this conduct is not per se abusive and sometimes it is even necessary due to the different moments in time at which the six-month time limit begins to run in relation to different complaints.
49. However, the Court considers that this conduct becomes abusive when, like in the present cases, the applicants and their representative, far from being cooperative with the Court and its mission and abiding by the Rules of Court, ignore precise instructions received by the Court and omit important information in their applications.
50. The Court underlines that the applicants and their representative submitted incomplete and therefore misleading information to it and that such conduct impeded the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court.
51. In the present cases, the Court attaches great importance to the fact that the Registry, having noticed Mr. Marra’s recurrent attitude in filing multiple applications on behalf of the same applicant, raising different complaints about the same domestic proceedings and having detected his reluctance to make reference to the applications already pending before the Court, addressed him seeking his cooperation.
52. Specifically, by a letter dated 27 October 2011, the applicants’ representative had been reminded about his duty to cooperate with the Court and instructed to bring to the Court’s attention, when filing a new application, the existence of other pending applications that he might have previously lodged with the Court, on behalf of the same applicant, in relation to the same domestic proceedings.
53. The above-mentioned letter, in the relevant part, reads as follow:
“...I underline that in compliance with the duty to cooperate with the Court (Rule 44A of the Rules of Court) from now on it will be appropriate and necessary to make reference to pending applications lodged on behalf of the same applicant in relation to the same domestic proceedings”.
54. The Court notes that the applicants and their representative blatantly neglected the Court’s reminder and omitted to draw the Court’s attention to the pending applications that they had previously lodged with the Court in relation to the same “Pinto” proceedings (no. 30464/07, no. 57150/10, no. 15064/11 and no. 67544/11).
55. In the light of the foregoing observations, the Court finds it appropriate to reject the applications at issue in the present case, in their entirety, as an abuse of the right of application pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
56. The Court underlines that lawyers must show a high level of professional prudence and meaningful cooperation with the Court by sparing it from the introduction of unmeritorious complaints and, once proceedings have been instituted, abiding by all the relevant rules of the procedure and professional ethics. Otherwise, the abusive or negligent application to the Court undermines the credibility of lawyers’ work in the eyes of the Court and even, if done systematically, may result in them being excluded from the proceedings under Rules 36 § 4 (b) and 44D of the Rules of Court (see Petrović and Bekauri, cited above).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-PassosFrançoise Tulkens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No
Application No
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
1
30464/07
05/07/2007
Giuseppe DE CRISTOFARO
13/04/1949
Volla
A. MARRA
2
57150/10
07/09/2010
Andrea DE MICCO
27/08/1940
Napoli
3
15064/11
07/12/2010
Leandro DE FELICE
09/04/1954
Napoli
4
67544/11
27/09/2011
Domenico ARPAIA
14/09/1943
Poggiomarino
5
77137/11
09/11/2011
Leandro DE FELICE
09/04/1954
Napoli
6
77145/11
09/11/2011
Domenico ARPAIA
14/09/1943
Poggiomarino
7
15981/12
08/03/2012
Giuseppe DE CRISTOFARO
13/04/1949
Volla
8
15985/12
24/02/2012
Andrea DE MICCO
27/08/1940
Napoli
A. MARRA
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy