European Court of Human Rights

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF PASQUARIELLO v. ITALY

(Application no. 8366/23)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

6 June 2024

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Pasquariello v. Italy,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Péter Paczolay, President,
 Gilberto Felici,
 Raffaele Sabato, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 16 May 2024,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application against Italy lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") on 9 February 2023.

2.  The applicant was represented by Mr G. Pasquariello, a lawyer practising in Caserta.

3.  The Italian Government ("the Government") were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

4.  The applicant's details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

5.  The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  The applicant complained principally of the non-enforcement of the domestic decisions given in his favour. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

7.  The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a "hearing" for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II).

8.  In the leading cases of Ventorino v. Italy, no. 357/07, 17 May 2011, De Trana v. Italy, no. 64215/01, 16 October 2007, Nicola Silvestri v. Italy, no. 16861/02, 9 June 2009, Antonetto v. Italy, no. 15918/89, 20 July 2000 and De Luca v. Italy, no. 43870/04, 24 September 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicant's favour.

10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

2. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

11.  The applicant submitted other complaints under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the lack or delayed payment of a debt by State authorities and the lack of an effective remedy in domestic law.

12.  In view of the findings in the above paragraphs, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.

3. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Ventorino, De Trana, Nicola Silvestri, Antonetto and De Luca, all cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

14.  The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgments which remain enforceable.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of the domestic decisions;
3. Holds that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicant's remaining complaints;
4. Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decisions referred to in the appended table;

5. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 June 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Péter Paczolay

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.