L.M. v. ITALY

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 22198/20
L.M.
against Italy

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14 December 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 application lodged on 8 June 2020,

Having regard to the decision to grant the applicant anonymity, in accordance with Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of the Court,

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 Mr M. De Longis, a lawyer practising in Benevento.

The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the alleged incompatibility of the applicant’s psychiatric disorder with detention in prison and the failure to put in place adequate measures in light of the applicant’s deaf-mutism were communicated to the Italian Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. 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 he claims, according to the principles expressed by the Court of Human Rights in this context.

The Italian Government, with this declaration, offer the sum of EUR 10.000,00 to the Applicant as compensation for non-material damage and the sum of EUR 2.000,00 for legal fees and costs.

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 Applicant and dismiss the case 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 22 March 2023. By correspondence of 18 April 2023, she 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, that the amount of compensation was insufficient especially in light of the legal costs incurred by the applicant and that the complaint concerning the measures put in place during the COVID-19 emergency for people suffering from deaf-mutism had never been addressed by the Court.

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 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), as well as concerning the conditions of detention of people with disabilities, including people suffering from deaf-mutism (see, in particular, Z.H. v. Hungary, no. 28973/11, §§ 28-33, 8 November 2012).

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 both parties on the applicant’s state of health and disabilities and on the care provided to her 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.

To the extent that the applicant contested the amount of compensation proposed for costs and expenses, the Court recalls that it has the discretion to award legal costs when it strikes out an application (Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court). The general principles governing reimbursement of costs under Rule 43 § 4 are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention (see, among others, Romanenco v. the Republic of Moldova (dec.), no. 39107/14, 25 March 2021; Union of Jehovah’s Witnesses of Georgia v. Georgia (dec.), no. 72874/01, § 33, 21 April 2015; and Meriakri v. Moldova (dec.), no. 53487/99, § 33, 1 March 2005). In the present case, having regard to the documents in its possession and to the amount already proposed by the Government, the Court considers it reasonable to award an additional sum of EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) in respect of legal costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

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;

Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay to the applicant, within three months, in addition to the sums contained in the unilateral declaration submitted by the Government, EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) in compensation of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable in this respect to the applicant;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English and notified in writing on 18 January 2024.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Krzysztof Wojtyczek
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(medical care and assistance in prison)

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

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