Information Note on the Court’s case-law 69
November 2004
Ernestina Zullo v. Italy - 64897/01
Judgment 10.11.2004 [Section I]
Article 41
Just satisfaction
Criteria for assessing non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the length of proceedings
[This case was referred to the Grand Chamber on 30 March 2005]
Facts and law: The application concerned the length of civil proceedings. The applicant relied on the Pinto Act under domestic law to complain about the length of the proceedings. An Italian Court of Appeal found that the reasonable time had been exceeded (the proceedings in question had lasted more than seven years) and awarded her 1,200 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and 500 euros for costs and expenses. The applicant had also lodged a complaint with the Strasbourg Court about the length of the proceedings. The Court declared the application admissible, considering that the amount awarded in compensation for non-pecuniary damage at the end of the “Pinto” proceedings had not properly or adequately redressed the violation alleged. On the merits the Court concluded in its judgment that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 as the domestic proceedings had already lasted nine years and three months.
Article 41 – The Court reiterated the special criteria for assessing on an equitable basis the non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the length of proceedings. In that connection it “consider[ed] that a sum varying between EUR 1,000 and 1,500 per year’s duration of the proceedings (and not per year’s delay) [was] a base figure for the relevant calculation. The outcome of the domestic proceedings (whether the applicant los[t], w[on] or ultimately reach[ed] a friendly settlement) [was] immaterial to the non-pecuniary damage sustained on account of the length of the proceedings. The aggregate amount [would] be increased by EUR 2,000 if what [was] at stake in the dispute [was] of a certain importance, such as in cases concerning labour law, civil status and capacity, pensions, or particularly serious proceedings relating to a person’s health or life. The basic award [would] be reduced in accordance with the number of courts dealing with the case throughout the duration of the proceedings, the conduct of the applicant – particularly the number of months or years due to unjustified adjournments for which the applicant [was] responsible – what [was] at stake in the dispute – for example where the financial consequences [were] of little importance for the applicant – and on the basis of the standard of living in the country concerned. A reduction [could] also be envisaged where the applicant ha[d] been only briefly involved in the proceedings in their capacity as heir. The amount [could] also be reduced where the applicant ha[d] already obtained a finding of a violation in domestic proceedings and a sum of money by using a domestic remedy. ...”.
The application of the above criteria to the instant case led to the following result: Non-pecuniary damage – In respect of proceedings which had lasted more than nine years for two levels of jurisdiction 8,000 euros could be regarded as an equitable sum. The stakes in the dispute (pension) were such as to justify increasing the amount by 2,000 euros and the conduct of the applicant had not contributed to delaying the proceedings. The Court accordingly awarded 10,000 euros. It deducted 30% on account of the finding of a violation by the domestic court and deducted the amount of compensation (1,200 euros) awarded at domestic level. Since the applicant had claimed less than the amount that the Court had thus calculated, the Court decided to award the amount claimed. In respect of costs and expenses the Court fixed an amount from which it deducted the amount (500 euros) awarded at domestic level.
N.B. These principles were reiterated in the Cocchiarellav. Italy judgment of 10.11.2004 (no. 64886/01) concerning proceedings of the same type that had lasted more than eight years for two levels of jurisdiction and in the Riccardi Pizzati v. Italy judgment of 10.10.2004 (no. 62361/00) concerning civil proceedings that had lasted more than twenty-six and a half years. In the latter case the Court dismissed the claim for reimbursement of the costs of the Court of Cassation proceedings because the appeal to that Court had been declared inadmissible on account of a failure by the applicant’s lawyer to comply with a formality, which was an error of which the Government could not bear the consequences.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy