Legislative intervention in 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 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 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 as Leoni v. Italy, with the applicant’s heirs stepping in due to the applicant’s death. 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.

Non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic court decisions

The case Gualtieri and Others v. Italy comprised 10 different applications lodged before the ECtHR on different dates, all complaining of delayed or non-enforced national court rulings. 

In its assessment, the ECtHR considered that the full and effective implementation of a court decision constitutes part of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR. Referring to its case law, specifically Ventorino v. Italy and De Trana v. Italy, the ECtHR noted that it had found violations in similar precedent judgments. The ECtHR therefore found a breach of Article 6(1) ECHR unanimously and ruled that Italy must pay each household non-pecuniary damage, as well as for costs and expenses per application, and that the domestic court decisions must be fully enforced.

The case Giglio and Perretti v. Italy consisted of two separate applications lodged before the ECtHR which were taken jointly due to the similar nature of their facts. The applicants argued that Italy was not enforcing the domestic court decisions.

In its examination, the ECtHR noted that enforcement of any court decision constituted an essential element of the principle of fair trial according to its case law.

The ECtHR unanimously decided that the non-enforcement of decisions led to a breach of Article 6(1) ECHR, as well as of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 according to its case law. Therefore  the ECtHR ruled that Italy had to enforce the domestic court decisions and pay the applicants respectively EUR 5,600 and EUR 750 for non-pecuniary damages, and EUR 250 to each applicant for costs and expenses incurred.  

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, however 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 found 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.