“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-enforcement or delayed enforcement of national decisions, as established by ECtHR case law.

Regarding Italy's objection in case no. 44130/17—that the date on which the current applicant intervened as the successor to the former applicant should be considered the start of the proceedings—the ECtHR cited its judgment in Cocchiarella and stated 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 Italy’s 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 ECHR. According to its case law, the ECtHR ruled that, in the present case, the length of the proceedings was excessive and constituted a violation of Article 6 of the ECHR.

Concerning the applicants’ claim regarding the non-enforcement 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 for non-pecuniary damages, as well as for 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 about 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 the awarded domestic compensation, but the ECtHR noted that the grants were inadequate and declared the application admissible in line with its case law. Regarding the application no. 60145/19, 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 excessively lengthy hearings constitute per se such damage, and the fact that the applicant had made such claims before the 'Pinto' courts. Moreover, the applicant was not awarded any compensation by the 'Pinto' courts regarding the excessive duration of the 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, 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. 

The case Palazzi v. Italy concerned the excessive length of proceedings in an expropriation-related Benevento case against Italy. In April 2002, the Court of Appeal of Rome recognized the applicants' arguments under the 'Pinto' Act; however, they were granted an insufficient amount for their arguments. Accordingly, the applicants complained subsequently before the ECtHR.

In its assessment, the ECtHR by considering its case law, found a noncompliance with the “reasonable time” requirement in the domestic case, since the hearings had first taken place on March 13, 1995, and were pending when the Pinto Court of Appeal ruled in 2003. Moreover, the ECtHR unanimously granted EUR 1,200 for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 5000 for costs and expenses incurred to the applicant.

Bertolotti v. Italy concerned the applicant’s arguments that the domestic hearings were of excessive duration, and she was deprived of her possessions in an arbitrary manner.

Referring to its judgment on the Cocchiarella v. Italy case and considering the existing evidence, the ECtHR found that there was a violation of Article 6.1 ECHR in the present case. However, the ECtHR dismissed the applicant’s arguments under Article 13 ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 given that it found the applicant’s arguments regarding deprivation of possession were resolved through an agreement between the parties which compensated largely the claims made. The ECtHR, unanimously, awarded the applicant EUR 700 for damages and EUR 1000 for costs and expenses incurred. 

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 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 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.

In the case Ben Amamou v. Italy, the applicant claimed that his submission to the Court of Cassation was rejected on ex officio grounds, specifically under Article 141 of the Private Insurance Code (“CdA”), without allowing for an adversarial debate, thereby breaching his right to a fair hearing and access to a court under Article 6.1 ECHR.

In 2010, the applicant was seriously injured in a traffic accident caused by an unidentified vehicle. He lodged a claim before the District Court of Perugia under Article 141 of the Private Insurance Code (CdA) on November 14, 2011, demanding compensation from the insurance company of the vehicle he was on board. Even though the Perugia Court provisionally granted him EUR 500,000, it dismissed the submission noting that the application of Article 141 entails that the two vehicles be identified and insured. After the Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold the previous decision, the applicant lodged with the Court of Cassation, however the Third Chamber of the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal on April 24, 2020.

In its assessment of the case, the ECtHR noted that the right to a fair trial entails the right to an adversarial process, which is also deemed important when a court raises matters on its own motion. Accordingly, the ECtHR examined whether the aforementioned Italian courts respected the right as such. The ECtHR found that the Court of Cassation had based its ruling on a new ground which was not debated by both parties, but rather found the applicant “by surprise”. In line with this, the ECtHR concluded by a 6-to-1 majority that the lack of adversarial debate resulted in breach of Article 6.1 ECHR, and unanimously decided that it was not further needed to assess the claim under the same article for the right to access to a court.

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Sabato emphasized the importance of the adversarial principle and stated that the substitution of grounds by the Court of Cassation must respect it. However, Judge Sabato in the present case did not agree that the substitution of grounds was in breach of Article 6.1 ECHR as the parties had an equal opportunity to present their arguments.

The case Roccella v. Italy concerned the issue of the Appeal Court not hearing the witnesses.

The applicant was accused of insulting the plaintiff, M., during a judicial seizure at M’s dental office. During the first instance hearings two witnesses from each side were heard, and in a 2013 judgment the domestic court ruled the applicant not guilty deciding that the evidence submitted only constituted a “reasonable doubt”. The public prosecutor and the plaintiff both appealed to the Genoa Court to question the reliability of one of the defendant’s witnesses' testimonies. The Court of Appeal dismissed the public prosecutor’s appeal under articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure; however, it deemed the civil party’s submission admissible and, on October 31, 2014, decided that the applicant should pay M. for damages, finding the prosecution witness’ statement reliable and one of the defendant’s witnesses unreliable, as that person was involved in civil proceedings against M. The applicant’s further appeal was dismissed by the Court of Cassation on February 17, 2016, being inadmissible as new assessment of the facts could not begin in secondary observations.

Moreover, the applicant claimed a breach of his rights under Article 6.1 ECHR due to the appeal judge reversing the decision without hearing the witnesses, whose testimonies have been significant for the first instance court’s decision. The ECtHR noted that a difference in hearing between the parties and their witnesses may cause a breach of the equality of arms principle. In line with its case law, in the present case, the ECtHR had to primarily examine whether the aforementioned principle and the principle of adversarial proceedings were breached in substance. In its assessment, the ECtHR considered that the higher court’s ruling on the civil matter, based on the transcribed testimonial evidence from the first-instance court’s hearings, did not violate the right to a fair trial. Considering its case law, the ECtHR concluded that State parties can allow broader discretion in civil matters compared to criminal cases. Finding the fairness of the proceedings unaffected, the ECtHR unanimously ruled  that Article 6.1 ECHR was not breached.