FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38931/22
Paola RIZZA and Liborio CAPPELLO
against Italy
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 23 November 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 1 August 2022,
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 list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants were represented by Mr L. Cappello, living in Enna.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of “Pinto” domestic decisions were communicated to the Italian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make 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 Government acknowledged the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of “Pinto” domestic decisions. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application 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 Government also undertook to ensure within the same period the execution of the domestic court decision at issue in the case, and to bear any costs related to the national enforcement procedure.
The payment and the enforcement of the final domestic decision will constitute the final resolution of the case.
The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declaration.
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 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 the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of “Pinto” domestic decisions (see, for example, Gaglione and Others v. Italy, nos. 45867/07 and others, 21 December 2010, and Gagliano Giorgi v. Italy, no. 23563/07, 6 March 2012).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which 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 14 December 2023.
Viktoriya Maradudina Krzysztof Wojtyczek
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of “Pinto” domestic decisions)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Relevant domestic decision
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage
per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
38931/22
01/08/2022
Paola RIZZA
1955
Liborio CAPPELLO
1956
Cappello Liborio
Enna
Caltanissetta Court
of Appeal
R.G. 120/2021,
28/07/2021
08/09/2023
200
30
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy