Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> F.M. v. ITALY - 12784/87 [1992] ECHR 57 (23 September 1992)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1992/57.html
Cite as: [1992] ECHR 57
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
In the case of F.M. 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. Bernhardt, President,
Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson,
Mr F. Matscher,
Mr L.-E. Pettiti,
Mr C. Russo,
Mr N. Valticos,
Mr S.K. Martens,
Mrs E. Palm,
Mr F. Bigi,
and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr H. Petzold,
Deputy Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 21 September 1992,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on
that date:
_______________
Notes by the Registrar
* The case is numbered 10/1992/355/429. 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 by the European
Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on
13 April 1992, 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. 12784/87)
against the Italian Republic lodged with the Commission under
Article 25 (art. 25) by an Italian national, Mrs F.M.,
on 2 March 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. On 25 April 1992 the President of the Court decided that,
pursuant to Rule 21 para. 6 of the Rules of Court and in the
interests of the proper administration of justice, this case
and the cases of Pizzetti, De Micheli, Salesi, Trevisan, Billi
and M. v. Italy* should be heard by the same Chamber.
_______________
* Cases nos. 8/1992/353/427; 9/1992/354/428; 11/1992/356/430
to 14/1992/359/433
_______________
3. 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 Thór Vilhjálmsson, Mr F. Matscher, Mr L.-E. Pettiti,
Mr N. Valticos, Mr S.K. Martens, Mrs E. Palm and Mr F. Bigi
(Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4)
(art. 43).
4. 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") and the
Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the
procedure (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). On 27 July 1992 the
Government informed the Registrar that they wished to refer
the Court to their observations before the Commission.
5. On 13 April the Registrar had sent to the applicant the
enquiry provided for in Rule 33 para. 3 (d). On 17 July 1992
Mrs M.'s lawyer informed him that his client had died and that
he had not succeeded in discovering any heirs. Consequently,
the President instructed the Registrar to obtain the opinion
of the Government and the Delegate of the Commission regarding
the possibility of striking the case out of the list (Rule 49
para. 2). Their replies reached the registry on
3 September and 20 August respectively.
6. The Chamber, sitting on 21 September and presided over by
the Vice-President of the Court, Mr R. Bernhardt, in place of
Mr Ryssdal, who was unable to take part in the further
consideration of the case (Rule 21 para. 5, second
sub-paragraph), decided to dispense with the hearing set down
for that date. It had found that the conditions for such a
derogation from the usual procedure were satisfied (Rules 26
and 38).
AS TO THE FACTS
7. Until her death Mrs F.M. lived at Pomezia (Rome
province). The facts established by the Commission pursuant
to Article 31 para. 1 (art. 31-1) of the Convention are as
follows (paragraphs 15-17 of its report):
"15. On 5 February 1986, the applicant, a disabled
civilian, instituted proceedings against the Minister of
the Interior before the Rome magistrate's court (pretore)
... ."
[She sought payment under Law no. 18 of 11 February 1980
of an attendance allowance (indennità di accompagnamento)
which the Latium social security authorities had refused
her.]
"16. The taking of evidence began at the hearing of
14 April 1986 and closed, after the medical report
ordered by the judge had been submitted, at the hearing
of 13 October 1986. On that date the Rome magistrate's
court ordered the Minister of the Interior to pay the
allowance claimed. The decision was deposited with the
registry on 19 December 1986.
17. On 10 January 1987 the Minister of the Interior
appealed against the above decision and, on
15 January 1987, the President of the Rome District Court
arranged for the appeal to be heard by the competent
division of the court on 25 January 1989. On that date
the appeal by the Minister of the Interior was
dismissed."
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
8. Mrs F.M. lodged her application with the Commission
on 2 March 1987. She complained of the length of the
proceedings instituted by her and relied on Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1) of the Convention.
9. On 2 July 1990 the Commission declared the application
(no. 12784/87) admissible. In its report of 20 February 1992
(made under Article 31) (art. 31), it expressed the opinion,
by thirteen votes to eight, that there had been a violation of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). The full text of the
Commission's opinion and the separate opinions contained in
the report 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 245-A of Series A of the Publications of the Court),
but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the
registry.
_______________
AS TO THE LAW
10. By a letter of 17 July 1992, Mr Angelozzi, the
applicant's lawyer before the Commission, informed the
Registrar that he had learned of Mrs M.'s death and that it
had proved impossible to discover any heirs.
The Government were consulted and expressed the view that
the case should be struck out of the list pursuant to Rule 49
para. 2 of the Rules of Court.
The Delegate of the Commission did not submit any
observations.
11. According to Rule 49 para. 2:
"When the Chamber is informed of a friendly settlement,
arrangement or other fact of a kind to provide a solution
of the matter, it may, after consulting, if necessary,
the Parties, the Delegates of the Commission and the
applicant, strike the case out of the list."
The applicant's death and the failure of the attempts
made to discover any heirs constitute facts "of a kind to
provide a solution of the matter" (see the Macaluso and
Manunza v. Italy judgments of 3 December 1991, Series A
no. 223-A and B).
In addition, the Court discerns no reason of ordre public
(public policy) for continuing the proceedings (Rule 49
para. 4). In this connection it points out that in a number
of previous cases it has had occasion to review the
"reasonableness" of the length of judicial proceedings in
various Contracting States, including Italy. In so doing it
specified the nature and the extent of the obligations arising
in this context from Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
Convention. Furthermore, the cases of Pizzetti, De Micheli,
Salesi, Trevisan, Billi, M., Scuderi, M.R. and Massa v. Italy
are still pending before it. These are cases which raise
similar questions and in which the Court will shortly give
judgment.
Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to strike the case out of the list.
Done in English and in French, and notified in writing
under Rule 55 para. 2, second sub-paragraph, of the Rules of
Court on 23 September 1992.
Signed: Rudolf BERNHARDT
President
Signed: Marc-André EISSEN
Registrar