European Court of Human Rights

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> CAFFÈ ROVERSI S.P.A. v. ITALY - 12825/87 [1992] ECHR 12 (27 February 1992)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1992/12.html
Cite as: [1992] ECHR 12

---

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

---

In the case of Caffè Roversi S.p.a. v. Italy*,

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance

with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention")** and the

relevant provisions of the Rules of Court, as a Chamber composed of

the following judges:

Mr R. Ryssdal, President,

Mr F. Matscher,

Mr B. Walsh,

Mr C. Russo,

Mr A. Spielmann,

Mr N. Valticos,

Mr A.N. Loizou,

Mr J.M. Morenilla,

Mr F. Bigi,

and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr H. Petzold, Deputy

Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 29 October 1991 and

24 January 1992,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the

last-mentioned date:

_______________

Notes by the Registrar

* The case is numbered 25/1991/277/348. The first number is the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the

relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its

creation and on the list of the corresponding originating

applications to the Commission.

** As amended by Article 11 of Protocol No. 8 (P8-11), which came

into force on 1 January 1990.

_______________

PROCEDURE

1. The case was referred to the Court on 8 March 1991 by the

European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission"), within the

three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47

(art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an application

(no. 12825/87) against the Italian Republic lodged with the

Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by an Italian company, Caffè

Roversi S.p.a., on 27 January 1987.

The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48

(art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Italy recognised

the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46).

The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the

facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its

obligations under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).

2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with

Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant company stated

that it wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the

lawyer who would represent it (Rule 30).

3. On 23 April 1991 the President of the Court decided that,

pursuant to Rule 21 para. 6 and in the interests of the proper

administration of justice, this case and the cases of Diana, Ridi,

Casciaroli, Manieri, Mastrantonio, Idrocalce S.r.l., Owners'

Services Ltd, Cardarelli, Golino, Taiuti, Maciariello, Manifattura

FL, Steffano, Ruotolo, Vorrasi, Cappello, G. v. Italy, Andreucci,

Gana, Barbagallo, Cifola, Pandolfelli and Palumbo, Arena,

Pierazzini, Tusa, Cooperativa Parco Cuma, Serrentino, Cormio,

Lorenzi, Bernardini and Gritti and Tumminelli* should be heard by

the same Chamber.

_______________

* Cases nos. 3/1991/255/326 to 13/1991/265/336; 15/1991/267/338;

16/1991/268/339; 18/1991/270/341; 20/1991/272/343; 22/1991/274/345;

24/1991/276/347; 33/1991/285/356; 36/1991/288/359; 38/1991/290/361;

40/1991/292/363 to 44/1991/296/367; 50/1991/302/373;

51/1991/303/374; 58/1991/310/381; 59/1991/311/382; 61/1991/313/384

_______________

4. The Chamber to be constituted for this purpose included ex

officio Mr C. Russo, the elected judge of Italian nationality

(Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the

President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On the same day, in the

presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of

the other seven members, namely Mr F. Matscher, Mr J. Pinheiro

Farinha, Sir Vincent Evans, Mr A. Spielmann, Mr I. Foighel,

Mr J.M. Morenilla and Mr F. Bigi (Article 43 in fine of the Convention

and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).

Subsequently, Mr B. Walsh, Mr A.N. Loizou and

Mr N. Valticos, substitute judges, replaced respectively Mr Pinheiro

Farinha and Sir Vincent Evans, who had both resigned and whose

successors had taken up their duties before the hearing, and

Mr Foighel, who was unable to take part in the further consideration of

the case (Rules 2 para. 3, 22 para. 1 and 24 para. 1).

5. Mr Ryssdal assumed the office of President of the Chamber

(Rule 21 para. 5) and, through the Deputy Registrar, consulted the Agent

of the Italian Government ("the Government"), the Delegate of the

Commission and the applicant company's lawyer on the organisation of

the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant to the order made

in consequence, the Registrar received the applicant's memorial on

9 July 1991 and the Government's memorial on 16 July. By a letter

received on 22 August, the Secretary to the Commission informed the

Registrar that the Delegate would submit oral observations.

6. On 28 August the Commission produced the file on the

proceedings before it, as requested by the Registrar on the

President's instructions.

7. In accordance with the decision of the President - who had

given the applicant leave to use the Italian language (Rule 27

para. 3) -, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights

Building, Strasbourg, on 29 October 1991. The Court had held a

preparatory meeting beforehand.

There appeared before the Court:

(a) for the Government

Mr G. Raimondi, magistrato,

seconded to the Diplomatic Legal

Service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Co-Agent,

Mr G. Manzo, magistrato, seconded to the

Ministry of Justice,

Mrs A. Passannanti, magistrato, seconded to the

Ministry of Justice, Counsel;

(b) for the Commission

Mr J.A. Frowein, Delegate;

(c) for the applicant

Mr B. Micolano, avvocato, Counsel.

The Court heard addresses by Mr Raimondi and Mrs Passannanti

for the Government, by Mr Frowein for the Commission and by

Mr Micolano for the applicant.

8. On 10 October the Government had filed their observations on

the applicant's claims for just satisfaction (Article 50 of the

Convention) (art. 50); on 5 November the Commission lodged its

observations on those claims.

AS TO THE FACTS

9. The applicant is a limited company whose registered office

is in Bologna. The facts established by the Commission pursuant to

Article 31 para. 1 (art. 31-1) of the Convention are as follows

(paragraphs 16-19 of its report):

"16. On 13 November 1981 the applicant filed a suit

against Mr and Mrs P. before the Modena District Court

claiming payment of 8,910,088 Italian lire.

17. The investigation, commenced at the hearing of

21 January 1982, continued with hearings on 8 April 1982,

27 May 1982, 21 October 1982, 13 January 1983, 7 April 1983,

9 June 1983, 27 October 1983 (on which date the

investigating judge called for a report by a graphology

expert), 16 November 1983 (adjourned due to the expert's

absence), 22 December 1983, 7 June 1984 (adjourned at the

request of the parties as the expert's report had been

lodged only the previous day), 10 July 1984, 18 July 1984,

13 December 1984, 18 April 1985, 10 October 1985,

19 December 1985, 23 January 1986, 19 June 1986 and

4 December 1986.

18. On the last-mentioned date the case was ready for

decision and was referred by the investigating judge to the

appropriate chamber of the court to be dealt with at the

hearing set for 13 April 1988.

19. On 14 April 1988 the District Court allowed the

applicant's claim. The text of the judgment was lodged with

the court registry on 20 May 1988.

20. ... ."

10. According to the information supplied to the European Court

by the applicant, there was no appeal.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

11. Caffè Roversi S.p.a lodged its application with the

Commission on 27 January 1987. It complained of the length of the

civil proceedings brought by it and relied on Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1) of the Convention.

12. On 11 May 1990 the Commission declared the application

(no. 12825/87) admissible. In its report of 5 December 1990

(Article 31) (art. 31), it expressed the unanimous opinion that

there had been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). The full

text of the Commission's opinion is reproduced as an annex to this

judgment*.

_______________

* Note by the Registrar: for practical reasons this annex will

appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 230-G

of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the

Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.

_______________

FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT BY THE GOVERNMENT

13. At the hearing the Government confirmed the submission put

forward in their memorial, in which they requested the Court to hold

"that there [had] been no violation of the Convention in the present

case".

AS TO THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 PARA. 1 (art. 6-1)

14. The applicant claimed that its civil action had not been

tried within a "reasonable time" as required under Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1) of the Convention, according to which:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations

..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a

reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ..."

The Government disputed this view, whereas the Commission

accepted it.

15. The period to be taken into consideration began on

13 November 1981 when the proceedings were instituted against Mr and

Mrs P. in the Modena District Court. It would appear to have ended

on 20 May 1989, the date on which the District Court's judgment must

have become final (see the Pugliese (II) v. Italy judgment of

24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-A, p. 8, para. 16).

16. The reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be

assessed with reference to the criteria laid down in the Court's

case-law and in the light of the circumstances of the case, which in

this instance call for an overall assessment.

17. The Government invoked the complexity of the facts, the

applicant's conduct and the excessive workload of the District

Court.

18. The Court points out that the investigation took a little

more than five years (13 November 1981 - 4 December 1986), following

which one year and four months elapsed before the trial hearing on

13 April 1988.

As regards the first of these periods, the Court observes

that the parties caused several adjournments. In addition, the

investigating judge had to have recourse to an expert graphological

opinion, hear witnesses and rule on an application for an attachment

order. Yet the case was not so complex that it warranted no less

than twenty hearings. Moreover, the judge in question waited

respectively fourteen and six months before ordering, at the

applicant's request, the two above-mentioned investigative measures.

The second period, coming after the first as it did, made

the situation worse. The Government pleaded the backlog of cases in

the Modena District Court, but Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) imposes on

the Contracting States the duty to organise their legal systems in

such a way that their courts can meet each of its requirements (see,

inter alia, the Vocaturo v. Italy judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A

no. 206-C, p. 32, para. 17).

19. Accordingly, the Court cannot regard as "reasonable" the

lapse of time in the present case.

There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1).

II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50)

20. According to Article 50 (art. 50):

"If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a

legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting

Party is completely or partially in conflict with the

obligations arising from the ... Convention, and if the

internal law of the said Party allows only partial

reparation to be made for the consequences of this decision

or measure, the decision of the Court shall, if necessary,

afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

A. Damage

21. The applicant company claimed in the first place 50,000,000

Italian lire for damage.

The Commission took the view that the applicant was entitled

to compensation for any pecuniary damage sustained by it if it

succeeded in establishing its existence and that of a causal

connection with the violation found.

22. The evidence does not show that these conditions have been

satisfied. Accordingly the Court dismisses the claim.

B. Costs and expenses

23. Caffè Roversi S.p.a. also sought 20,358,400 lire for costs

and expenses incurred before the Convention organs.

Having regard to the evidence at its disposal and to its

case-law in this field, the Court awards it 8,000,000 lire under

this head.

C. Interest

24. The Commission invited the Court to fix for the Government

- who did not give their opinion - a compulsory time-limit for

executing the present judgment and to make provision for the payment

of interest in the event of their failure to comply therewith.

25. The first of these proposals is in conformity with a

practice followed by the Court since October 1991.

As to the second, the Court does not consider it appropriate

to require any payment of interest in this instance, particularly as

no such request was made by the applicant.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1);

2. Holds that the respondent State is to pay to the applicant,

within three months, 8,000,000 (eight million) Italian lire

for costs and expenses;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public

hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on

27 February 1992.

Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL

President

Signed: Marc-André EISSEN

Registrar

---