Information Note on the Court’s case-law 57
October 2003
Ganci v. Italy - 41576/98
Judgment 30.10.2003 [Section I]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Civil rights and obligations
Proceedings concerning special restrictions on the rights of a prisoner: Article 6 applicable
Access to court
Dismissal of appeal on the ground that the contested measure had expired: violation
Facts: The applicant was placed under a special detention regime during his pre-trial detention, then during imprisonment after his conviction. By derogation from the usual prison regime, additional prohibitions and restrictions were imposed on him. These limitations were imposed by means of orders issued by the Minister of Justice, each of which was valid for a limited duration of six months. The applicant challenged the orders before the court responsible for the execution of sentences. He was partially successful in respect of two measures. No decision on the merits was made in respect of four appeals. Although the applicant had brought those appeals at the beginning of the contested orders’ period of validity, the court did not rule until after the expiry of the measures in question. Noting that the orders’ period of validity had expired, the court found that the applicant no longer had an interest in having the appeals heard and declared them inadmissible.
Law: Article 6 – Applicability: In certain cases, the proceedings had been concluded in the applicant’s favour and had concerned serious limitations on human rights (particularly those covering the applicant’s contacts with his family). Article 6 applied (civil aspect).
Right to effective judicial protection: No judicial decision had been given in respect of four appeals during the orders’ periodof validity, and as a result the court had declared the appeals inadmissible. In contrast to the Messina no. 2 case (ECHR 2000-X), the court had never ruled on the merits of the four appeals. The failure of the court responsible for the execution of sentences to deliver a decision on the merits of the appeals against the orders issued by the Minister of Justice had infringed the applicant’s right to have his case heard by a court.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
The Court held unanimously that it was not necessary to consider whether there had also been a violation of Article 13.
Article 41 – The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any 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