“Reasonable time” requirement

The cases Montalto and Others v. Italy, Annunziata and Others v. Italy, Bertagna v. Italy, and Samperi and Chiapusio v. Italy concerned the excessive length of court  proceedings, as provided by “Pinto” laws and were ruled on January 12, 2023. The cases were examined jointly due to the similar nature of their complaints.  

Montalto and Others v. Italy concerned four different applications against  Italy brought before the ECtHR. The applicants in the jointly taken case argued a breach of their rights under Article 6(1) ECHR due to the excessive length of court proceedings and the non - or delayed enforcement of national decisions, as established by ECtHR case law.

Regarding Italy's objection in case no. 44130/17, that the current applicant’s intervention date, as the successor of the former applicant, should be considered as the start date of the proceedings the ECtHR cited its judgment in Cocchiarella and added that, upon the applicant's communication of their intention to continue the case as the successor, they were entitled to seek redress covering the entire duration of the proceedings. In line with this, the ECtHR dismissed the objection.The Court indicated also that the domestic just satisfaction granted to the applicants were not adequate according to its case law and that the applicants were entitled to the victim status under Article 6(1). In accordance with its case law, the ECtHR ruled that, in the present case, the length of the proceedings was excessive, thus showing a violation of Article 6 ECHR.

Concerning the applicants’ claim regarding the non - or delayed enforcement of national “Pinto” law, the Court referring again to its case law dismissed Italy’s objection, deemed that the case was not inadmissible according to Article 35, and found a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. In its assessment of finding violations of Article 6(1) ECHR, the ECtHR unanimously held that Italy must pay the applicants non-pecuniary damages, as well as costs and expenses, respectively, and upheld the pending national “Pinto” decisions.

The case Annunziata and Others v. Italy included seven different applications submitted before the ECtHR against Italy, all complaining the excessive duration of the proceedings before the national courts and claiming that Article 6(1) was breached, similar to the claim in Montalto and Others v. Italy. 

Reiterating the same objection in Montalto and Others, Italy argued that the applicants could not claim victim status due to domestic compensation awarded; however, the ECtHR noted that the grants were inadequate and declared the application admissible in line with its case law. Moreover, Italy claimed that the applicant’s conduct led to the extension of the hearings. Similar to Montalto and Others, the ECtHR noted that the duration of the hearings were to be examined according to specific conditions and the criteria regarding applicant and authority conduct, case complexity, and matter at stake. The ECtHR decided that the behavior of the applicant did not substantiate the extensive duration of the proceedings. Moreover, as in the case of Cocchiarella vs Italy, the ECtHR ruled in favor of finding a breach of Article 6 ECHR due to excessive duration. As the stipulation of 'reasonable time' was not met, the ECtHR unanimously found a breach of Article 6(1) ECHR and ruled that Italy must pay the relevant amounts determined for non-pecuniary damages and expenses incurred, respectively, to each applicant and per application. 

The ECtHR dismissed Italy’s objection regarding the applicant’s failure to demonstrate non-pecuniary damage,  in view of  the fact that hearings of an excessive duration constitute per se a non-pecuniary damage, and the fact that  the applicant claimed before the “Pinto” courts for that, . Moreover, the applicant was not awarded any compensation by the “Pinto” courts regarding the excessive duration of proceedings. Therefore , the ECtHR upheld the victim status of the applicant similarly to the other cases. 

The ECtHR reaffirmed the criteria and conditions according to which the excess duration of the proceedings was to be examined, as did in other cases. In line with its case law, and the fact that no submission did justify the 9-year duration of the proceedings, the ECtHR also concluded a breach of Article 6(1) ECHR in Bertagna v. Italy, unanimously, and awarded EUR 2,900 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,132 for costs and expenses to the applicants. 

Samperi and Chiapusio v. Italy involved two applications lodged before the ECtHR on different dates and were taken jointly due to their similar subject matter, the excessive duration of the hearings, in which the applicants’ heirs stood before the ECtHR.

According to its case law, on the same grounds as the other cases discussed, the ECtHR dismissed Italy’s objection and recognized the applicants as victims. Moreover, regarding Italy’s non-exhaustion of domestic remedies objection, the ECtHR held that as the applicant lodged with three levels of jurisdiction domestically, so any further appeal would be considered “excessive”, and not required.

Applying the same reasoning of the aforementioned cases, the ECtHR in its assessment found a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR due to hearings not being concluded within a “reasonable time”. Furthermore, the ECtHR unanimously awarded EUR 1,080 and EUR 2,250 for non-pecuniary damage and cost incurred to Samperi; and EUR 7,300 and EUR 250 for non-pecuniary damage and costs incurred to Chiapusio, respectively. 

Non-enforcement of decisions

Similarly, in the case of La Spada v. Italy, in which the ECtHR dealt and found a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, a breach of Article 6 of the ECHR was also identified. The case involved the applicant’s land seizure through the constructive expropriation law (occupazione acquisitiva) and the failure to enforce the ensuing decisions of the domestic courts.

Regarding the breach of Article 6 for non-enforcement of decisions, Italy claimed that the applicant did not exhaust domestic remedies, r The ECtHR noted that as there was an enforcement decision, the applicant was not obliged to apply for legal enforcement process, and that the claim made was admissible under Article 35 of the ECHR. In this regard, the ECtHR Ifound that Italy  should enforce the pending decision of the domestic court and cease the violation. EUR 12,500 and EUR 6,000 respectively were made to be paid to the applicant for non-pecuniary damage and incurred charges, in addition to tax.

Right to a fair trial

The case Shala v. Italy concerns the applicant’s claim that he was sentenced in absentia without being heard by the Italian court, that following his arrest he was denied a retrial ab initio, could not challenge the local jurisdiction, and could not be judged according to the summary procedure.

In 1999, the applicant was requested for pretrial detention for drug related crime. The applicant could not be reached and was proclaimed a fugitive. Once he was extradited to Italy, he contested the judgment arguing that he was not informed of the trial, however the Court of Cassation did not reverse the Milan Court of Appeal’s judgment.

In its assessment, the ECtHR referred to its established case law. Moreover, it noted that there was no decisive evidence submitted to indicate that he was aware of the trial and that he purposely evaded the litigation. Referring to the case no. 36043/08, Huzuneanu v. Italy, the ECtHR reiterated that in absentia proceedings bear the potential of unfair trial, regardless of the accused being assigned a representative lawyer.  Based on these considerations , the ECtHR decided that the hearings, in general, were unfair .

Accordingly, the ECtHR held that the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR was violated. The applicant, regarding the possibility of reinitiating the case before the domestic court, found it adequate but did not submit any claim for damages. However, upon the submission for costs incurred, the ECtHR granted the applicant EUR 7,000 in addition to tax.

Legislative Intervention in Ongoing Pending Cases

Bellotto and Others v. Italy concerned five separate applications before the ECtHR against the Italian State. Due to the similar nature of their claims, the retroactive application of Section 1(218) of Law No. 266/2005 to ongoing cases, the applications were taken jointly.

The applicants claimed that such retroactive implementation of the aforementioned law to pending cases created a breach of their right to due process protected under Article 6 of ECHR and that they consequently lost their properties, the right to which is protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Moreover, by examining its case law in addition to the evidence provided, the ECtHR held the case admissible. Since the general principle of the rule of law and Article 6 ECHR do not permit any intervention in the justice system by the law-making body, except for significant public interest reasons, and as the ECtHR did not find any justification for interference on “compelling grounds of general interest”, it found a breach of Article 6(1) ECHR. However, the ECtHR did not find a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as it concluded that the applicants had not been subjected to economic harm.

The ECtHR, considering its case law, did not grant any compensation for pecuniary damage and concluded that finding a breach of Article 6 was adequate for non-pecuniary damage, however, unanimously awarded EUR 250 to each applicant for costs and expenses incurred.

Leoni v. Italy involved the matter of legislative interference with pending proceedings, as the introduction of Law no. 296 of 27 December 2006 (“Law no. 296/2006”) in the case resulted in the deduction of the applicant’s pension. The applicant argued before the ECtHR that his right to a fair trial as well as the free enjoyment of his possessions were unlawfully breached. The case was taken by his heirs according to the locus standi principle before the ECtHR due to his passing.

Initially, the applicant reallocated his pension savings to Italy from Switzerland under the Italo‑Swiss Convention on Social Security. Upon that, the Italian National Institute of Social Security (“the INPS”) made a recalculation of his benefits based on a theoretical compensation (retribuzione teorica). Not receiving the exact amount he had saved in the original case, the applicant had filed before the national courts, and as the case was pending, the Law no. 296/2006 went into effect, impacting the decision of the national courts in favor of INPS. 

In its assessment, the ECtHR referred to its established case law, finding the circumstances to be identical to those in Maggio and Others v. Italy and Stefanetti and Others v. Italy, and concluded that there had been a breach of Article 6 of the ECHR. However, the ECtHR, considering its decision in Maggio and Others v. Italy, where a pension deduction of no more than half did not constitute a breach, ruled that the claim regarding the free enjoyment of possessions was inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as the applicant's pension deduction amounted to only 17.6% in the present case. Therefore, ECtHR deemed the claim ill-founded under Article 35 ECHR.

Concluding that the introduced law had effectively impacted the outcome of the court decision and that the applicant experienced opportunity loss, the ECtHR unanimously granted EUR 760 for pecuniary damage, as well as  EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 500 for the costs incurred before the ECtHR to the applicants.

Polletti v. Italy involved the same subject matter and facts of applicant’s heirs taking stead due to death as Leoni v. Italy. The ECtHR, however, in this case, in addition to finding a breach of Article 6 ECHR found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by citing its case law Stefanetti and Others. 

Since in its case law the ECtHR awarded compensation upon deduction of more than 50% of pension contributions, it decided to grant the difference between the deducted amount of 55% of the pension and the received amount to the applicant. In light of this, the ECtHR awarded unanimously EUR 113,569 for pecuniary damage, EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 500 for trial expenses incurred.