Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 136
December 2010
Gaglione and Others v. Italy - 45867/07, 45918/07, 45919/07 et al.
Judgment 21.12.2010 [Section II]
Article 35
Article 35-3-b
No significant disadvantage
Complaints concerning substantial delays in recovering judgment debts exceeding 200 euros: preliminary objection dismissed
Article 46
Article 46-2
Execution of judgment
Measures of a general character
Respondent State required to take measures to restore effectiveness of Pinto remedy
Facts – This application concerns 475 cases in which the applicants, who were parties to court proceedings, applied to the relevant courts under the “Pinto” Act (which brought in a remedy allowing complaints to be lodged in respect of the length of civil proceedings). Between 2003 and 2007 the courts found that a reasonable time had been exceeded and awarded the applicants sums in compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered. In 2006 and 2007 the applicants instituted enforcement proceedings. The amounts awarded were paid to some of them between 2007 and 2008, but others had still not received payment by the date on which the latest information was provided to the Court.
Law – (a) Preliminary objections
(i) No significant disadvantage: Contrary to the Government’s submission, it was not necessary to declare the applications inadmissible for lack of a significant disadvantage within the meaning of the new criterion provided for in Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention as amended by Protocol No. 14. It could not be asserted that the applicants had not suffered a significant disadvantage, having regard to the amounts due to them (ranging from 200 to over 13,700 euros) in the “Pinto” proceedings and the delays in question (between 9 and 49 months, and 19 months or more in 65% of the applications).
Conclusion: preliminary objection dismissed (unanimously).
(ii) Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies: Requiring the applicants to bring fresh “Pinto” proceedings – as recommended by the respondent Government – would be tantamount to locking them into a vicious circle in which the malfunctioning of one remedy would oblige them to have recourse to another.
Conclusion: preliminary objection dismissed (unanimously).
(b) Merits
Article 6 § 1: Whilst the authorities might need time to make payment, in respect of a compensatory remedy designed to redress the consequences of excessively lengthy proceedings, that period should not generally exceed six months from the date on which the decision awarding compensation became enforceable. In the present case, having regard to the delay in enforcing the “Pinto” decisions, the authorities had far exceeded that period, thus depriving Article 6 § 1 of all useful purpose. Neither the reimbursement by the authorities of the costs and expenses incurred by the applicants in the enforcement proceedings nor the payment of interest could be regarded as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage sustained. Accordingly, the applicants retained their victim status.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The delay in question amounted to an interference, which the Government had failed to justify, with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. Neither a lack of resources nor an award of default interest could legitimise such an omission. Moreover, the period beyond which a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 would be deemed to have occurred should be fixed at six months from of the decision becoming final; that period had been considerably exceeded in the present case.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 46: The conclusions set out above and the number of similar cases that had either been processed or were pending before the Court confirmed the existence of a widespread problem, namely, the difficulty for the national authorities to guarantee in a substantial number of cases the payment of compensation within a reasonable time. Having regard to the structural nature of the situation, general measures at national level were required. The respondent State had to re-establish the effectiveness of the “Pinto” remedy by putting an end to delays in the payment of compensation awarded in those proceedings; as the delays probably arose as a result of insufficient budgetary cover, the respondent State should make more funds available in order to guarantee compliance with “Pinto” decisions within a time-limit of six months from the date of their becoming final.
Article 41: EUR 200 to each of the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© 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