Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) (dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 53

May 2003

Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) (dec.) - 36813/97

Decision 27.3.2003 [Section I]

Article 34

Victim

Retention of victim status despite finding of a violation by a domestic court and payment of compensation

Article 35

Article 35-1

Exhaustion of domestic remedies

Effective domestic remedy

Effectiveness of cassation appeal to contest the amount of compensation paid in respect of the excessive length of proceedings: preliminary objection dismissed

The applicants were the owners of certain plots, of which the parts suitable for development were subject to an expropriation permit. The district council determined, by decree, the final compensation for the expropriation. In 1990, the applicants disputed the amount of the compensation before the Court of Appeal. Experts were appointed to determine the compensation, according to new criteria laid down in a law which had been enacted during the course of the dispute and was applicable to the pending proceedings. Eventually, in 1998, the applicants were held to be entitled to compensation in an amount higher then that fixed by the decree. In April 2001, the applicants applied to the Court of Appeal for compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm which they claimed to have sustained owing to the length of the proceedings, as provided for in Law No. 89 of 24 March 2001, the so-called “Pinto Act”, which introduced into the Italian legal system a remedy against the excessive length of judicial proceedings. In July 2001, the Court of Appeal awarded them only a certain sum by way of non-pecuniary damages. The applicants did not appeal on a point of law, contending that in the light of the case-law of the Court of Cassation, their appeal would be bound to fail.

Admissible under Article 6 § 1 (reasonable length of proceedings):

(a) The Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies: the Court has found no case in which the Italian Court of Cassation took into consideration a complaint, such as that put forward by the applicants, alleging that the amount awarded by the Court of Appeal in respect of the excessive nature of the length of proceedings was insufficient by comparison with the alleged harm or inadequate by comparison with the Strasbourg case-law. The complaints in question had been dismissed by the Court of Cassation. The Court infers that the applicants had no interest in appealing on a point of law. They also incurred the risk of being ordered to pay costs. Accordingly, the applicants were not required, for the purpose of exhausting domestic remedies, to appeal on a point of law. The objection is therefore rejected.

(b) The Government’s objection alleging that the applicants were not “victims”: the Court of Appeal did indeed acknowledge, by its decision of July 2001, that the length of the proceedings brought by the applicants had been excessive, which may be analysed as recognition of a violation of the Convention. The Court of Appeal awarded each of the applicants approximately EUR 600 in respect of the non-pecuniary harm caused by the length of the proceedings. However, in similar cases the Court has awarded considerably higher amounts. The Court accepts that the national authorities may calculate the compensation in a case involving proceedings of excessive duration in a manner which does not necessarily entail a strict and formalistic application of the criteria adopted by the Court. However, the sum awarded must bear a reasonable relationship to the sum awarded by the Court in similar cases. That is not so here, since the sum awarded in similar cases in the Strasbourg case-law is almost ten times higher than the amount awarded to the applicants by the Italian court. While respecting the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the national courts, those courts must comply with the Court’s case-law too and award consistent sums. In the light of the difference, the sum awarded to the applicants cannot be regarded as adequate and thus capable of making good the alleged violation. The applicants can claim to be victims within the meaning of Article 34. This objection is therefore also rejected.

Admissible under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

© 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