Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
September 1997
Lapalorcia v. Italy - 25586/94
Judgment 2.9.1997
Article 6
Administrative proceedings
Article 6-1
Reasonable time
Length of proceedings in administrative courts: violation
[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries. It also covers the following judgments of 2 September 1997 against Italy: De Santa (25574/94), Nicodemo (25839/94) and Abenavoli (25587/94)]
I.ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION (“REASONABLE TIME”)
A.Applicability
Applicants asserted either a purely economic right (De Santa, Lapalorcia and Abenavoli) or an essentially economic right (Nicodemo); administrative authorities’ discretionary powers not in issue – cases’ private-law features predominated over public‑law features.
Conclusion: Article 6 § 1 applicable (seven votes to two: De Santa, Lapalorcia and Abenavoli; six votes to three: Nicodemo).
B.Compliance
1.Periods to be taken into consideration
Starting-point (in each case): institution of proceedings in Regional Administrative Court (“the RAC”).
End: date of deposit with registry of Consiglio di Stato’s judgment (De Santa); date on which RAC’s judgment became final (Lapalorcia); proceedings still pending (Abenavoli and Nicodemo).
Total: from approximately six years and two months (Lapalorcia) to nearly seventeen years (De Santa).
2.Applicable criteria
Certain stages of proceedings considered in each case.
Conclusion: violation (seven votes to two: De Santa, Lapalorcia and Abenavoli; six votes to three: Nicodemo).
II.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Damage
1.Pecuniary damage: not claimed (De Santa); claim dismissed, for lack of causal connection with violation found (Abenavoli and Nicodemo).
2.Non-pecuniary damage: claim allowed in part (De Santa, Abenavoli and Nicodemo).
3.Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage: claim allowed in part (Lapalorcia).
B.Costs and expenses
Before Court: claim allowed in part (De Santa) – before Convention institutions: claim allowed in part (Lapalorcia and Abenavoli) – not claimed (Nicodemo).
Conclusion: respondent State to pay applicants specified sums (unanimously: De Santa, Lapalorcia and Abenavoli; eight votes to one: Nicodemo).
© 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