Verrascina and others V. Italy

In the case of  Verrascina and Others (application nos. 15566/13 and five others, judgment of 28 April 2022), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled on complaints concerning the excessive length of legal proceedings which lasted between nine and twenty-four years, violating the right to fair trial under Article 6 of European Convention of Human rights (ECHR). 

In 2012, Article 4 of the "Pinto Law" was reformed, to the effect that a claim for excessive length of a proceeding could be filed before an Italian court only at the end of the contested procedure. In 2018, the Italian Constitutional Court ruled that such a provision was unconstitutional. Hence, the Italian government maintained that the applicants had not exhausted all domestic remedies, as they had the chance to file an application for reparation within the Italian system. Therefore, their complaints to the ECtHR were to be rejected as inadmissible.

The ECtHR noted that the remedy for excessive duration of a judicial procedure must be accessible and effective. Irrespective of the Italian rule applicable at the time of submission, the cases under scrutiny were decided with delays ranging from 9 to 24 years. The remedy provided by Italian legislation must be not only available, but also effective, which was not the case for the applicants in the present instance. Therefore, the ECtHR concluded that there had been a violation of Articles 6.1 and 13 of the  ECHR.

Concerning material damage, the ECtHR dismisses some applicants’ claims for failing to prove any causal link. However, the ECtHR awarded non-pecuniary damage of  EUR 22,000  for the application no. 15566/13; EUR 11,000 for the application no. 4030/14; EUR 20,000 for the application no.177336/14; EUR 17,000 for application no. 10767/15; EUR 18,200 for the application no.21564/15. The state shall also cover the costs and expenses of the trial for EUR 3,000 for the application no.15566/13.

Tremigliozzi and Mazzeo V. Italy

In the case of Tremigliozzi and Mazzeo v. Italy (24816/03, judgment of 21 July 2022 ), the applicants alleged a violation of Article 6.1 of ECHR concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings. Following the death of Ms. Tremigliozzi, her heir, Ms. Giuseppina Cimino, expressed her intention to pursue the application. The Court accepted her request, noting that the Italian Government had not objected to her standing in the ongoing proceedings.

The applicants argued that civil proceedings, which began on 18 February 1995 before the Tribunal of Benevento, had lasted unreasonably long, violating their right to a judgment within a reasonable time. They also criticised the inadequacy of the compensation previously awarded by the Court of Appeal of Rome in a proceeding under the Pinto Act (Law no. 89/2001). 

In response, the government contended that the applicants had not challenged the amount of that compensation within six months from the final judgment date of 30 July 2003 and therefore had failed to meet admissibility requirements. 

The Court rejected the Government’s objection, finding that the applicants’ comments on the Pinto compensation were not separate complaints but rather part of their broader argument about excessive delays. The ECtHR limited its review to the period of proceedings up to 10 April 2003, when the Court of Appeal issued the Pinto judgment, since the applicants had not pursued additional remedies regarding the subsequent delay. Referring to established criteria to assess the reasonable length of a civil proceeding, such as the complexity of the case, the behaviour of the parties, and what was at stake, and citing its earlier case-law (namely Cocchiarella v. Italy, judgment of the Grand Chamber, 2006), the Court held that the length of the proceedings up to that date was excessive. 

Unanimously, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6.1 of the ECHR. It awarded just satisfaction to Ms. Cimino, as heir of the first applicant, and to Mr. Mazzeo, the second applicant, in the amounts of EUR 3,220 for non-pecuniary damage per applicant and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses per application.