Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 117
March 2009
Simaldone v. Italy - 22644/03
Judgment 31.3.2009 [Section II]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Reasonable time
Late payment of (inadequate) reparation awarded in length-of-proceedings case under the “Pinto” law: violation
Article 13
Effective remedy
Significant delays in payment of compensation under “Pinto” law not indicative of structural problem in procedure: no violation
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions
Late payment of inadequate reparation awarded in length-of-proceedings case under the “Pinto” law: violation
Facts: In 1992 the applicant brought proceedings before the Regional Administrative Court against his employer, the local public health service, seeking reimbursement of the cost of his daily meals. In April 2002 he applied to the Court of Appeal under the Pinto Act, complaining of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In a decision of January 2003 the Court of Appeal found that a reasonable time had been exceeded and awarded the applicant EUR 700 on an equitable basis in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 1,000 to his lawyer for costs and expenses, including those before the Court. The amount awarded in execution of the “Pinto decision” was paid on 6 April 2004.
Law: Article 6 § 1 – Main proceedings: The main proceedings had lasted more than ten years and three months for one level of jurisdiction. The amount awarded in compensation for this excessive length of proceedings had been insufficient, especially as the length of the “Pinto” proceedings had been excessive and the “Pinto” compensation had been paid belatedly.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Payment of the “Pinto” compensation: The Court reiterated that, according to its case-law, even though administrative authorities might need a certain lapse of time to make a payment, in the case of a compensatory remedy designed to redress the consequences of excessively lengthy proceedings that lapse of time should not generally exceed six months from the date on which the decision awarding compensation became enforceable. However, the sum awarded to the applicant had been paid twelve months after the Court of Appeal’s decision under the Pinto Act had been filed with its registry. By failing for twelve months to take the necessary steps to comply with the court of appeal’s Pinto decision, the Italian authorities had deprived the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of all useful effect.
Furthermore, the delay in question had amounted to an unjustified interference by the authorities with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. The applicant had brought proceedings for compensation for the damage sustained as a result of the violation of his right to a hearing “within a reasonable time” and had then had to endure additional frustration when it proved difficult to secure payment of the compensation. As to how long a delay was capable of constituting a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, here too the reference should be a maximum delay of six months from the date on which the decision, not contested by any of the parties before the Court of Cassation, became final. Lastly, concerning compensation for the delays by the payment of default interest, it was pointed out that the applicant had received EUR 23 interest for a twelve-month delay in payment of the Pinto award. However, given the nature of the internal remedy and the fact that the applicant had not been required to institute enforcement proceedings, the payment of interest was not decisive in this case.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 13 – Where a State had made a significant move by introducing a compensatory remedy, the Court had to leave a wider margin of appreciation to the State to allow it to organise that remedy in a manner coherent with its own legal system and traditions, in conformity with the country’s standard of living. However, the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention were met only if the domestic remedy against violations of Article 6 § 1 remained an effective, adequate and accessible remedy in respect of the excessive length of judicial proceedings.As stated above, the compensation awarded to the applicant under the Pinto Act was actually paid twelve months after the Court of Appeal’s decision had been filed with its registry. Furthermore, the number of judgments delivered by the Court since 2006 finding violations by Italy of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of proceedings before the domestic courts, and the very high number of new applications lodged against Italy solely concerning delays in the payment of Pinto compensation, indicated the existence of a problem in the functioning of that remedy. However, between 2005 and 2007 the national courts of appeal with jurisdiction under the Pinto Act had delivered some 16,000 decisions, so that the number of applications lodged with the Court concerning delays in the payment of Pinto compensation, although high, did not, for the moment, indicate that the remedy provided under the Pinto Act was structurally ineffective. That being so, the twelve-month delay in the payment of the Pinto compensation in the present case, while constituting a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, was not sufficient to shed doubt on the effectiveness of the Pinto remedy. However, the Court wished to draw the Government’s attention to the problem of delays in the payment of Pinto compensation and the need for the national authorities to deploy adequate and sufficient means to guarantee that they honoured their commitments under the Convention and avoid the Court being inundated with large numbers of repetitive cases concerning compensation awarded by the courts of appeal under the Pinto procedure and/or delays in the payment of such compensation, which would be a threat to the future effectiveness of the Convention machinery.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – EUR 3,950 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© 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