GIORGIO v. ITALY

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 24499/21
Giuseppe GIORGIO
against Italy

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 21 March 2024 as a Committee composed of:

 Péter Paczolay, President,
 Gilberto Felici,
 Raffaele Sabato, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 May 2021,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant was represented by Ms A. Petrucci, a lawyer practising in Rionero in Vulture.

The applicant’s complaints raised under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention concerning the incompatibility of his state of mental health with detention and the psychiatric care provided in prison were communicated to the Italian Government (“the Government”) only under Article 3 of the Convention.

THE LAW

The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by this complaint. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration provided as follows:

“The Italian Government recognize that the Applicant was subjected to the conventional violations as they claim, according to the principles expressed by the Court of Human Rights in this context.

The Italian Government, with this declaration, offer the sum of 12.500 euros to the Applicant to cover any non-pecuniary damage, and the sum of 2.000 euros to cover any costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the Applicant on these amounts.

The Government believe that this declaration, containing the acknowledgement of the abovementioned violations and the provision of a refund, represents an adequate compensation for the Applicant, according to the jurisprudence of the Court on the matter.

The Government respectfully invite the Court to declare that it is not necessary to prosecute the exam of the violations alleged by the Applicants and dismiss the cases in application of Article 37 of the Convention, given that the conditions established by Article 62A of the Rules of Court are respected.

The Government will proceed to pay the sums offered with the present declaration within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, from 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 payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration on 10 January 2024. By correspondence of 3 February 2024, he asked the Court to pursue the examination of the case arguing, in particular, that the declaration did not constitute a sufficient acknowledgment of the violation and that the amount of compensation was insufficient.

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 applicant wishes the examination of the case 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 medical and psychiatric care in prison (see, for example, Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 144-48, 31 January 2019, and Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 135-40, 23 March 2016).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, which encompass all the applicant’s claims, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, which – taking into account the evidence provided by the parties on the applicant’s state of health and on the care provided to him in prison – is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (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 application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application 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 case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 11 April 2024.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Péter Paczolay
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(compatibility of state of mental health with detention and psychiatric care in prison)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant