FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 10315/22
Natasa GRBEC against Italy
and 17 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14 September 2023 as a Committee composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
Lətif Hüseynov,
Ivana Jelić, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants were represented by N. Zampieri, a lawyer practising in Schio (Vicenza). They are heirs of persons who performed functions of administrative assistants, collaborators, technical assistants, and administrative officers in schools.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the application of retrospective legislation (Article 1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005 of 23 December 2005) to pending national proceedings were communicated to the Italian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged that the applicants are heirs of the persons identified in the appended table and they further accepted that there had been the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the present applications. The Government offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the 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 cases.
The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations.
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 applicants wish the examination of the cases 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 against Italy emphasising that the adoption of Law no. 266/2005 which definitively and retroactively settled the merits of the pending dispute between the applicants and the State and rendered futile any continuation of the proceedings was not justified by overriding reasons of general interest (see, for example, Cicero and Others v. Italy, nos. 29483/11 and 4 others, §§ 31-33, 30 January 2020; De Rosa and Others v. Italy, nos. 52888/08 and 13 others, §§ 48-54, 11 December 2012; and Agrati and Others v. Italy, nos. 43549/08, 6107/09 and 5087/09, §§ 59-66, 7 June 2011). When the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, it held that the applicants had suffered a real loss of opportunity and that, consequently, the violations found were likely to have caused the applicants material damage. The Court also considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself just satisfaction for the non‑pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants (see De Rosa and Others, cited above, §§ 60-62).
Noting the admissions and undertakings contained in the Government’s declarations, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications 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 cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 5 October 2023.
Viktoriya Maradudina Krzysztof Wojtyczek
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(Legislative interference)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Date of receipt of
Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant’s comments
Amount awarded for pecuniary damage
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[2]
10315/22
10/02/2022
Natasa GRBEC
1973
15/06/2023
17/07/2023
The Government offered not to proceed with the recovery of 40% of the sums paid to the applicants, Natasa Grbec and Michel Grbec, heirs of Claudio GRBEC, in execution of judgment no. 173/04 of the Trieste District Court, R.G. 82/02, 04/05/2004.
50
10488/22
10/02/2022
Michel GRBEC
1975
10319/22
10/02/2022
Jan VOLCIC
1974
The Government offered not to proceed with the recovery of 40% of the sums paid to the applicants, Jan Volcic and Roberto Volcic, heirs of Maria STREKELI, in execution of judgment of the Trieste District Court, R.G. 84/02, 04/05/2004.
10384/22
11/02/2022
Robert VOLCIC
1977
10322/22
10/02/2022
Emiliano ELISI
1974
The Government offered not to proceed with the recovery of 40% of the sums paid to the applicants, Emiliano Elisi and Tullia Pascutto, heirs of Roberto ELISI, in execution of judgment of the Trieste District Court, R.G. 81/02, 04/05/2004.
10330/22
10/02/2022
Tullia PASCUTTO
1947
10333/22
11/02/2022
Mauro MANFROI
1969
The Government offered to jointly pay the applicants, Mauro Manfroi, Marta Manfroi and Elena Manfroi, heirs of Maria SIRENA, 40% of the sums awarded by judgment no. 93/05 of the Belluno District Court, R.G. 232/04, 13/06/2005 if not already enforced.
10357/22
11/02/2022
Marta MANFROI
1974
10359/22
11/02/2022
Elena MANFROI
1974
24451/22
02/05/2022
Ferdinando BUSETTO
1951
The Government offered to jointly pay the applicants, Ferdinando Busetto and Federico Silvio Busetto, heirs of Tiziana SARTORE, 40% of the sums awarded by judgment no. 274/05 of the Vicenza District Court, R.G. 1171/04, 1175/04, 1177/04, 1179/04, 1211/04, 1219/04, 28/08/2005 and which the applicants returned, provided that they give proof of the restitution.
25498/22
02/05/2022
Federico Silvio BUSETTO
1989
24924/22
28/04/2022
Manuel TOMMASIN
1986
The Government offered to jointly pay the applicants, Manuel Tommasin, Cristian Tommasin, Balinda Tommasin and Kety Tommasin, heirs of Graziella TOMMASIN, 40% of the sums awarded by judgment no. 48/05 Venezia District Court, R.G. 996/03, 18/01/2005 if not already enforced.
25000/22
28/04/2022
Cristian TOMMASIN
1975
25209/22
28/04/2022
Balinda TOMMASIN
1970
24549/22
28/04/2022
Kety TOMMASIN
1967
24996/22
28/04/2022
Massimo RIGHETTO
1967
The Government offered to jointly pay the applicants, Massimo Righetto, Sabrina Righetto and Nicola Righetto, heirs of Ernesta FASOLATO, 40% of the sums awarded by the first-instance judgment of the Venezia District Court, R.G. 1830/04, 04/11/2005 if not already enforced.
25070/22
28/04/2022
Sabrina RIGHETTO
1968
25491/22
28/04/2022
Nicola RIGHETTO
1969
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.