European Court of Human Rights

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> PIERAZZINI v. ITALY - 13265/87 [1992] ECHR 30 (27 February 1992)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1992/30.html
Cite as: [1992] ECHR 30

---

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

---

In the case of Pierazzini 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 43/1991/295/366. 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. 13265/87) against the Italian Republic lodged with the

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

Mrs Paola Pierazzini, on 3 September 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 stated that she

wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who

would represent her (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,

Caffè Roversi S.p.a., Andreucci, Gana, Barbagallo, Cifola,

Pandolfelli and Palumbo, Arena, 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; 25/1991/277/348; 33/1991/285/356; 36/1991/288/359;

38/1991/290/361; 40/1991/292/363 to 42/1991/294/365;

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'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 memorial of the applicant

- whom the President had authorised to use the Italian language

(Rule 27 para. 3) - on 15 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 President's decision, 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 C. Borghi, avvocato, Counsel.

The Court heard addresses by Mr Raimondi and Mrs Passannanti

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

Mr Borghi for the applicant.

8. On 10 October the Government had lodged their observations

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

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

observations on those claims.

AS TO THE FACTS

9. Mrs Paola Pierazzini is an Italian national and resides in

Livorno. She is a housewife. The facts established by the

Commission pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 (art. 31-1) of the Convention

are as follows (paragraphs 16-21 of its report):

"16. On 27 December 1983 the applicant took out a writ

against Mr C. and Mrs X, Mrs Y and Mrs Z before the Tempio

Pausania District Court, asking for a settlement in respect

of holdings in two companies which she claimed to have

inherited following the death of her father, a joint owner

of the said companies.

17. After two postponements by the District Court of its

own motion on 1 March and 7 June 1984, the case was

adjourned indefinitely because of the transfer of the

investigating judge. Pending the appointment of the new

investigating judge, the applicant applied on

21 Octobre 1984 for the preventive attachment of Mr C.'s property

to the amount of 150,000,000 Italian lire. The application was

rejected by the presiding judge of the District Court on

18 April 1985 on the ground that he no longer had jurisdiction

in the case as the new investigating judge had been

appointed.

18. The investigation commenced at the hearing of

22 May 1986, followed by hearings on 13 November 1986,

18 December 1986, 12 January 1987 (adjourned as the

defendants' counsel could not appear) and 22 January 1987.

Thereafter, the examination of the case was again suspended

because of the transfer of the investigating judge.

19. The hearing before the new investigating judge did

not take place until 9 June 1988. At the hearing of

5 July 1988, the applicant re-applied for an attachment and

requested an expert's assessment of the assets of the

companies concerned. The investigating judge reserved his

decision.

20. On 3 March 1989 he dismissed the application for an

attachment but directed that the requested assessment be

made. The expert appointed was sworn in at the hearing of

20 April 1989 and given sixty days to lodge the report.

21. As this time-limit was not complied with, the

hearing of 12 October 1989 was adjourned to 16 November 1989

(on which date the applicant requested and received

permission to procure certain bank statements), then to

1 March 1990 and lastly to 15 November 1990."

10. According to the information supplied to the European Court

by the Government and the applicant, that last hearing did not take

place either, but the expert, who in the meantime had obtained an

extension of the time-limit, submitted his report on that date. In

addition, on 6 June 1991 the investigating judge suspended the

proceedings on account of the death of Mr C.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

11. Mrs Pierazzini lodged her application with the Commission on

3 September 1987. She complained of the length of the civil

proceedings brought by her and relied on Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of

the Convention.

12. On 11 May 1990 the Commission declared the application

(no. 13265/87) admissible. In its report of 15 January 1991

(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 231-C

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 her 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

27 December 1983, when the proceedings were instituted against the

defendants in the Tempio Pausania District Court. It has not yet

ended as that court has still to give judgment.

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 conduct of the applicant - who

had not requested that her case be examined more rapidly - and the

transfer of two investigating judges.

18. The Court recognises that the respondent State is not in

principle answerable for certain adjournments which were requested

by the applicant and not ordered by the judicial authorities of

their own motion.

It notes nevertheless, like the Commission, that there were

two periods of stagnation for which the State was entirely

responsible. These were from 27 December 1983 to 22 May 1986 and

from 22 January 1987 to 9 June 1988, a total of more than three

years and nine months.

The Government pleaded the transfer of the judges, 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).

In addition, the expert did not submit his report until

15 November 1990, a good ten months after the expiry of the prescribed

time-limit. He was acting in the context of judicial proceedings

supervised by the judge; the latter remained responsible for the

preparation of the case and the speedy conduct of the trial (see the

Capuano v. Italy judgment of 25 June 1987, Series A no. 119, p. 13,

para. 30).

19. In sum, the Court cannot regard as "reasonable" in this

instance a lapse of time already amounting to more than eight years.

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. Mrs Pierazzini claimed in the first place 319,950,000

Italian lire for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

The Commission took the view that, in addition to reparation

for non-pecuniary damage, the applicant was entitled to compensation

for any pecuniary damage sustained by her if she succeeded in

establishing its existence and that of a causal connection with the

violation found.

In the Government's contention, there was no pecuniary

damage because the case was still pending in the national courts; as

to non-pecuniary damage, the finding of a violation would constitute

sufficient just satisfaction for the purposes of Article 50

(art. 50).

22. The Court agrees with the Government on the first point, but

considers that the applicant must have suffered non-pecuniary damage

in respect of which, making an assessment on an equitable basis, it

awards her 15,000,000 lire.

B. Costs and expenses

23. The applicant also sought the reimbursement of 11,500,000

lire for the costs and expenses which she claimed to have incurred

before the Convention organs.

Having regard to the evidence at its disposal and to its

case-law in this field, the Court awards her 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, 15,000,000 (fifteen million) Italian

lire for non-pecuniary damage and 8,000,000 (eight million)

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

---