D'Alba and Others v. Italy
Struck out of the list
Berörda konventionsartiklar
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 58442/09 Giuseppa D’ALBA against Italy and 9 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 19 September 2024 as a Committee composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek , President , Lətif Hüseynov, Erik Wennerström , judges ,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of “Pinto” domestic decisions were communicated to the Italian Government (“the Government”). In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention.
The applicant, Ms Giuseppa d’Alba, died after the institution of the proceedings before the Court. Her heirs (see the appended table below) wished to pursue the application. The Government did not object against the locus standi of the heirs in the proceedings.
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
The Court firstly takes note of the information regarding the death of the applicant, Ms Giuseppa d’Alba, and the wish of her heirs to continue the proceedings in her stead, as well as the absence of an objection on the Government’s part to their standing. Therefore, the Court considers that the heirs of Ms Giuseppa d’Alba, as indicated in the table below, have a legitimate interest in pursuing the application.
The Court further notes that the Government informed it that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of “Pinto” domestic decisions. In some of the applications, they further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicants’ rights guaranteed by other provisions of the Convention (see for relevant details the attached table). They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The Government also undertook to ensure the enforcement of the domestic decisions under consideration in the cases concerned (see appended table) within the same three-month period, and to pay any costs of the domestic enforcement proceedings.
The payment and the enforcement of the domestic decisions in the cases concerned will constitute the final resolution of the cases.
The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from them accepting the terms of the declarations.
The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:
“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of “Pinto” domestic decisions (see, for example, Gaglione and Others v. Italy, nos. 45867/07 and others, 21 December 2010, and Gagliano Giorgi v. Italy, no. 23563/07, 6 March 2012).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Decides that the heirs of Mr Giuseppa d’Alba have locus standi in the proceedings ;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 10 October 2024.
Viktoriya Maradudina Krzysztof Wojtyczek Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of Pinto domestic decisions)
No.
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Other complaints under
well-established case-law
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant’s comments,
if any
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage
per applicant
(in euros) [1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros) [2]
58442/09
26/10/2009
Giuseppa D’ALBA
1935
Died in 2012
Heirs:
Giovanni BARONE
1959
Mario BARONE
1963
Rosalia BARONE
Born in 1975
Di Salvo Federico
Florence
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of civil proceedings - the excessive length of the main proceedings since the Pinto decision acknowledging the violation and awarding compensation has not been enforced to date (Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 87-90,
ECHR 2006-V)
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of
civil proceedings - The
applicant complains about the
excessive length of the Pinto
proceedings since the Pinto
decision acknowledging the
violation and awarding
compensation has not yet been enforced by the Government
(Gagliano Giorgi v. Italy,
no. 23563/07, § 73-76,
ECHR 2012).
06/05/2024
08/06/2024
200
30
17852/23
26/04/2023
(3 applicants)
Maria Teresa Lucia SERGIO
1944
Linda CANGELMI
1958
Vittoria DAMMICO
1951
Abbate Ferdinando Emilio
Rome
06/05/2024
200
30
20537/23
17/05/2023
Eugenio SCORZA
1953
Falbo Cristina
Cosence
06/05/2024
200
30
21108/23
17/05/2023
(11 applicants)
Maria Domenica GUERRA
1958
Alessandra BONETTI
1965
Rosa Anna CAPOGROSSI
1954
Donatella GLORIA
1960
Franco GROSSI
1941
Maria Pia NEVOLA
1955
Marcella PRENCIPE
1956
Maria Rita RISCALDATI
1964
Antonio RUSSO
1946
Immacolata Maria SCURTI
1951
Patrizia SERGIO
1960
Abbate Ferdinando Emilio
Rome
06/05/2024
200
30
26598/23
29/06/2023
Delia MASSA D’ELIA
1969
Pasquariello Gianpiero
Caserte
06/05/2024
200
30
29864/23
01/06/2023
(52 applicants)
Giovanni ABBRACCIAVENTO
1942
Carmelo ARENA
1954
Ignazio BARONE
1961
Diego BARRACO
1963
Giovanni BIGICA
1961
Vincenzo CALCAGNO
1954
Sigismundo CALDARERI
1957
Tommaso CALIÒ
1964
Antonino CALTAGIRONE
1959
Gaetano CAMPIONE
1959
Giuseppe CANNAVÒ
1964
Giovanni CAPOBIANCO
1961
Gaetano CAPPELLANO
1962
Umberto CARRATÙ
1965
Arturo COMPAGNONI
1957
Carmelo CUMBO
1954
Carmelo CUNSOLO
1965
Giuseppe D’ANNA
1961
Salvatore DI GIORGIO
1959
Mario Salvatore GIUFFRIDA
1963
Maurizio GUARNERI
1960
Leonardo GUIDOTTI
1962
Vincenzo LANZALACO
1955
Vincenzo LO MEDICO
1965
Giovanni MANISCALCO
1958
Domenico MARASCA
1956
Salvatore MARINO
1965
Pietro MAZZARA
1962
Antonio MESCOLO
1962
Salvatore MIGLIORE
1959
Stefano MIGLIORE
1956
Salvatore Innocenzo MIOSI
1956
Giovanni NIGRO
1963
Carmelo ODDO
1961
Pasquale PARRUCCHELLA
1964
Francesco Paolo PASSANTINO
1958
Alfredo PIACENTINO
1965
Dario PISCITELLO
1961
Angelo PITTI
1964
Antonio PULIZZOTTO
1959
Giuseppe PULVIRENTI
1959
Oronzo PUTIGNANO
1956
Benedetto RUBINO
1953
Augusto SAROLI
1967
Gaetano Maurizio SCIALABBA
1962
Antonio SPERANZA
1965
Raimondo SPEZIO
1957
Oronzo TARANTINO
1964
Aldo TEDESCHI
1962
Loreto VARA
1955
Massimo VECCE
1962
Giuseppe VOLPE
1961
Savoca Alessandro
Palerme
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of civil proceedings - the excessive length of the main proceedings since the Pinto decision acknowledging the violation and awarding compensation has not been enforced to date (Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 87-90,
ECHR 2006-V).
06/05/2024
03/06/2024
200
30
35097/23
01/08/2018
Alfonso IANNICELLI
1962
Frisani Pietro
Florence
06/05/2024
200
30
35098/23
24/07/2019
Francesco MATTIELLO
1974
Frisani Pietro
Florence
06/05/2024
200
30
35100/23
24/07/2019
Yashmina PERRA
1984
Frisani Pietro
Florence
06/05/2024
200
30
35128/23
12/09/2023
Domenico DI GIACOMO
1955
Abbate Ferdinando Emilio
Rome
06/05/2024
200
30
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant