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 >> MONACO v. ITALY - 12923/87 [1992] ECHR 6 (26 February 1992)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1992/6.html
Cite as: [1992] ECHR 6
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
In the case of Monaco 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 Thór Vilhjálmsson,
Mr F. Matscher,
Mr L.-E. Pettiti,
Mr B. Walsh,
Mr C. Russo,
Mr A. Spielmann,
Mr N. Valticos,
Mr S.K. Martens,
and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr H. Petzold, Deputy
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 28 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 32/1991/284/355. 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. 12923/87) against the Italian Republic lodged with
the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by an Italian national,
Mrs Angelina Monaco, on 14 May 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 Gilberti,
Nonnis, Trotto, Nibbio, Borgese, Biondi, Macaluso, Cattivera, Seri,
Manunza, Gori, Casadio, Testa, Lestini, Covitti, Zonetti, Simonetti
and Dal Sasso* should be heard by the same Chamber.
_______________
* Cases nos. 19/1991/271/342; 23/1991/275/346; 26/1991/278/349;
28/1991/280/351 to 31/1991/283/354; 34/1991/286/357;
35/1991/287/358; 37/1991/289/360;45/1991/297/368; 52/1991/304/375 to
57/1991/309/380; 60/1991/312/383
_______________
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 Thór Vilhjálmsson,
Mr F. Matscher, Mr J. Pinheiro Farinha, Mr L.-E. Pettiti,
Mr B. Walsh, Mr N. Valticos and Mr S.K. Martens (Article 43 in fine
of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).
Subsequently, Mr A. Spielmann, substitute judge, replaced
Mr Pinheiro Farinha, who had resigned and whose successor at the
Court had taken up his duties before the hearing (Rules 2 para. 3
and 22 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 Government's memorial on
17 July 1991 and the applicant's memorial on 25 July. By a letter
received on 22 September, the Secretary to the Commission informed
the Registrar that the Delegate would submit oral observations.
6. On 29 August the Commission had 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 28 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 G. Angelozzi, avvocato, Counsel,
Mr M. de Stefano, avvocato, Adviser.
The Court heard addresses by Mr Raimondi and Mr Manzo for the
Government, by Mr Frowein for the Commission and by Mr Angelozzi and
Mr de Stefano for the applicant, as well as their answers to its
question.
8. On 14 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 Angelina Monaco is an Italian national and resides at
Subiaco (Rome). She is unemployed. The facts established by the
Commission pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 (art. 31-1) of the
Convention are as follows (paragraphs 16-20 of its report):
"16. On 28 February 1985 the applicant took proceedings against
the Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) before the
Rome magistrate's court (pretore) in order to establish her
disability pension right.
17. The investigation began at the hearing of 5 June 1985, when
the magistrate's court called for a medical opinion. On
25 October 1985 the medical opinion was lodged with the registry,
and the hearing of 30 October 1985 before the magistrate's court
ended with the dismissal of the applicant's claim. The text of the
decision was lodged with the registry on the same day.
18. On 16 September 1986 the applicant appealed against the
above decision and on 29 September 1986 the presiding judge of the
Rome District Court fixed the hearing before the competent court
chamber for 19 October 1988. On that date, the court called for a
further medical opinion and adjourned the case to 1 March 1989.
19. On a date which has not been specified" - according to the
information provided to the European Court by the participants in
the proceedings the date in question was 1 March 1989 - "the Court
allowed the applicant's claim. The text of the decision was lodged
with the registry on 27 November 1989.
20. It does not appear that an appeal was filed against that
decision in the Court of Cassation."
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
10. Mrs Monaco lodged her application with the Commission on
14 May 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.
11. On 11 May 1990 the Commission declared the application
(no. 12923/87) 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 228-D
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
12. 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)
13. 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.
14. The period to be taken into consideration began on
28 February 1985 when the proceedings against the INPS were
instituted in the magistrate's court. It ended, at the latest, on
27 November 1990 when the judgment of the Rome District Court became
final (see the Pugliese (II) v. Italy judgment of 24 May 1991,
Series A no. 206-A, p. 8, para. 16).
15. 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.
16. The Government invoked the excessive workload of the
relevant courts and the latter's duty in principle to deal with
cases in the order in which they were registered. In addition, they
pleaded the complexity of the facts and the inaction of the
applicant, who had never requested that the hearings be held at
shorter intervals.
According to the applicant, the case was a simple one and her own
conduct could have had only a negligible effect.
17. The Court stresses that special diligence is necessary in
employment disputes, which include pensions disputes (see, inter
alia, mutatis mutandis, the Vocaturo v. Italy judgment of
24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-C, p. 32, para. 17). Italy moreover
acknowledged this by amending, in 1973, the special procedure laid
down in this field and by introducing, in 1990, emergency measures
intended to speed up the conduct of such proceedings.
The Government pleaded the backlog of cases in the relevant courts,
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 the same judgment,
ibid.).
The present case did not give rise to any complex question of fact
or law. Moreover the proceedings were conducted at a normal pace in
the magistrate's court. In addition, the State cannot be held
responsible for the period of approximately ten and a half months
which elapsed between the decision of 30 October 1985 and the filing
of the applicant's appeal; nor is it answerable for the year which
went by before the judgment, which was lodged with the registry on
27 November 1989, became final.
On the other hand, the appeal proceedings were dormant for more than
two years. On 29 September 1986 the President of the Rome District
Court set down the first hearing before the competent chamber for
19 October 1988 and it does not appear from the evidence that
investigative measures were carried out prior to that hearing. It
is, moreover, hard to understand why it should have taken more than
eight months to lodge the judgment in question with the registry.
18. Accordingly and in view of what was at stake in the
proceedings for Mrs Monaco, 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)
19. 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
20. The applicant claimed in the first place 8,000,000 Italian
lire for damage.
In the Government's contention, she sustained no pecuniary damage;
she had moreover secured an order that her disability pension be
paid with effect from 1 November 1983. As to non-pecuniary damage,
a finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just
satisfaction.
21. There is no evidence that the violation found caused
Mrs Monaco pecuniary damage. On the other hand, she must have
suffered a degree of non-pecuniary damage for which the Court,
making an assessment on an equitable basis, awards her
5,000,000 lire.
B. Costs and expenses
22. The applicant also sought 3,000,000 lire for costs and
expenses incurred before the Convention organs.
Having regard to the evidence at its disposal and its case-law in
this field, the Court awards her 2,000,000 lire under this head.
C. Interest
23. Mrs Monaco requested finally that interest be paid on the
sums awarded, at the statutory rate in force in her country and for
the period running from the delivery of the present judgment to the
payment of such sums by the Italian authorities.
The Commission invited the Court to fix for the Government
- who did not give their opinion - a compulsory time-limit for
executing the judgment and to make provision for the payment of
interest in the event of their failure to comply therewith.
24. 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.
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, 5,000,000 (five million) Italian lire for
non-pecuniary damage and 2,000,000 (two 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 26 February 1992.
Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL
President
Signed: Marc-André EISSEN
Registrar