[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> G. v. ITALY - 12787/87 [1992] ECHR 20 (27 February 1992) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1992/20.html Cite as: [1992] ECHR 20

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

In the case of G. v. Italy*,

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance

with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention")** and the

relevant provisions of the Rules of Court, as a Chamber composed of

the following judges:

Mr R. Ryssdal, President,

Mr F. Matscher,

Mr B. Walsh,

Mr C. Russo,

Mr A. Spielmann,

Mr N. Valticos,

Mr A.N. Loizou,

Mr J.M. Morenilla,

Mr F. Bigi,

and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr H. Petzold, Deputy

Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 30 October 1991 and

24 January 1992,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the

last-mentioned date:

_______________

Notes by the Registrar

* The case is numbered 24/1991/276/347. The first number is the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the

relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its

creation and on the list of the corresponding originating

applications to the Commission.

** As amended by Article 11 of Protocol No. 8 (P8-11), which came

into force on 1 January 1990.

_______________

PROCEDURE

1. The case was referred to the Court on 8 March 1991 by the

European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission"), within the

three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47

(art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an application

(no. 12787/87) against the Italian Republic lodged with the

Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by an Italian national, Mr G.,

on 6 March 1987.

The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48

(art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Italy recognised

the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46).

The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the

facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its

obligations under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).

2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with

Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant's wife informed

the registry on 15 April 1991 that her husband had died. She stated

that she wanted the proceedings to continue and to take part in them

and be represented by the lawyer she had designated (Rule 30). For

reasons of convenience Mr G. will continue to be referred to in this

judgment as "the applicant", although it is now his widow who is to

be regarded as having that status (see the Vocaturo v. Italy

judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-C, p. 29, para. 2).

Mrs G. requested the Court not to disclose her identity.

3. On 23 April 1991 the President of the Court decided that,

pursuant to Rule 21 para. 6 and in the interests of the proper

administration of justice, this case and the cases of Diana,

Ridi, Casciaroli, Manieri, Mastrantonio, Idrocalce S.r.l.,

Owners' Services Ltd, Cardarelli, Golino, Taiuti, Maciariello,

Manifattura FL, Steffano, Ruotolo, Vorrasi, Cappello, Caffè

Roversi S.p.a., Andreucci, Gana, Barbagallo, Cifola, Pandolfelli

and Palumbo, Arena, Pierazzini, Tusa, Cooperativa Parco Cuma,

Serrentino, Cormio, Lorenzi, Bernardini and Gritti and Tumminelli*

should be heard by the same Chamber.

_______________

* Cases nos. 3/1991/255/326 to 13/1991/265/336; 15/1991/267/338;

16/1991/268/339; 18/1991/270/341; 20/1991/272/343; 22/1991/274/345;

25/1991/277/348; 33/1991/285/356; 36/1991/288/359; 38/1991/290/361;

40/1991/292/363 to 44/1991/296/367; 50/1991/302/373;

51/1991/303/374; 58/1991/310/381; 59/1991/311/382; 61/1991/313/384

_______________

4. The Chamber to be constituted for this purpose included ex

officio Mr C. Russo, the elected judge of Italian nationality

(Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the

President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On the same day, in the

presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of

the other seven members, namely Mr F. Matscher, Mr J. Pinheiro

Farinha, Sir Vincent Evans, Mr A. Spielmann, Mr I. Foighel,

Mr J.M. Morenilla and Mr F. Bigi (Article 43 in fine of the Convention

and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).

Subsequently, Mr B. Walsh, Mr A.N. Loizou and

Mr N. Valticos, substitute judges, replaced respectively Mr Pinheiro

Farinha and Sir Vincent Evans, who had both resigned and whose

successors had taken up their duties before the deliberations held

on 30 October, and Mr Foighel, who was unable to take part in the

further consideration of the case (Rules 2 para. 3, 22 para. 1 and

24 para. 1).

5. Mr Ryssdal assumed the office of President of the Chamber

(Rule 21 para. 5) and, through the Deputy Registrar, consulted the Agent

of the Italian Government ("the Government"), the Delegate of the

Commission and the applicant's lawyer on the organisation of the

proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). In accordance with the order

made in consequence, the Registrar received the memorial of the

applicant - whom the President had authorised to use the Italian

language (Rule 27 para. 3) - on 1 July 1991 and the Government's

memorial on 16 July. By a letter received on 22 August, the

Secretary to the Commission informed the Registrar that the Delegate

did not consider it necessary to reply thereto.

6. On 28 June 1991 the Chamber had decided to dispense with a

hearing, having found that the conditions for such derogation from

the usual procedure were satisfied (Rules 26 and 38).

7. On 28 August the Commission produced the file on the

proceedings before it, as requested by the Registrar on the

President's instructions.

8. On 10 October and 5 November, respectively, the Government

and the Commission filed their observations on the applicant's

claims for just satisfaction (Article 50 of the Convention)

(art. 50).

AS TO THE FACTS

9. Mr G., an Italian national, resided in Rome until his death.

The facts established by the Commission pursuant to Article 31 para. 1

(art. 31-1) of the Convention are as follows (paragraphs 16-20 of

its report):

"16. On 27 June 1985 the applicant took proceedings

against the X company before the Rome magistrate's court

(pretore). He alleged that the company, which had employed

him until October 1983, had not remunerated him in

accordance with the managerial duties which he had

discharged, and requested that it be ordered to pay him

208,930,000 Italian lire, adjusted in line with inflation

and plus the statutory interest.

17. The investigation commenced at the hearing of

17 December 1985 followed by hearings of 9 January and

20 February 1986. At the close of the hearing on

28 April 1986 the magistrate's court dismissed the

applicant's claim. The text of the decision was lodged with

the court registry on 29 April 1986.

18. On 11 July 1986 the applicant appealed against the

decision and on 14 July 1986 the presiding judge of the Rome

District Court set down the hearing before the competent

chamber of the court for 29 June 1988.

19. A request that the hearing date be brought forward,

submitted by the applicant on 10 November 1986, was rejected

on 30 March 1987.

20. The hearing finally took place on 1 July 1988. On

that date the District Court delivered judgment, upholding

the decision by the magistrate's court. The text of the

judgment was lodged with the court registry on 21 July 1988.

21. ... ."

10. According to the information supplied to the European Court

by Mrs G., no appeal was filed in the Court of Cassation.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

11. Mr G. lodged his application with the Commission on

6 March 1987. He complained of the length of the civil proceedings

brought by him and relied on Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the

Convention.

12. On 11 May 1990 the Commission declared the application

(no. 12787/87) admissible. In its report of 5 December 1990

(Article 31) (art. 31), it expressed the unanimous opinion that

there had been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). The full

text of the Commission's opinion is reproduced as an annex to this

judgment*.

_______________

* Note by the Registrar: for practical reasons this annex will

appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 228-F

of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the

Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.

_______________

AS TO THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 PARA. 1 (art. 6-1)

13. The applicant claimed that his civil action had not been

tried within a "reasonable time" as required under Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1) of the Convention, according to which:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations

..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a

reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ..."

The Government disputed this view, whereas the Commission

accepted it.

14. The period to be taken into consideration began on

27 June 1985 when the proceedings against the X company were

instituted in the Rome magistrate's court. It ended on 21 July 1989

when the District Court's judgment became final (see the Pugliese

(II) v. Italy judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-A, p. 8,

para. 16).

15. The reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be

assessed with reference to the criteria laid down in the Court's

case-law and in the light of the circumstances of the case, which in

this instance call for an overall assessment.

16. The Government invoked the complexity of the facts and of

the legal issues and the excessive workload of the District Court.

The applicant stressed that he had had to wait thirty-six

months for the first-instance and second-instance decisions despite

the fact that there was statutory provision for shorter time-limits

in labour disputes. The period of nearly two years between the

filing of the appeal (11 July 1986) and the hearing in the competent

chamber (1 July 1988) had in itself infringed Article 6 (art. 6); in

addition, the President of the chamber in question had refused to

comply with the applicant's request that the date of the hearing be

brought forward.

The Commission took the view that the "complex features" of

the case were not sufficient to justify the length of the

proceedings. It drew attention to a period of inactivity from

11 July 1986 to 1 July 1988.

17. The Court notes in the first place that the major part of

the period to be taken into consideration related to the appeal

proceedings; the magistrate's court gave judgment barely ten months

after the institution of proceedings. No doubt the District Court

and the magistrate's court did not comply with the shortened time-

limits applicable to disputes of this nature, but such a failure

does not in itself infringe Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) (see, as

the most recent authority, the Wiesinger v. Austria judgment of

30 October 1990, Series A no. 213, pp. 22-23, para. 60). In this

instance, regard must be had to the nature of the dispute, which

concerned the recognition of a higher professional qualification and

the payment of arrears of remuneration.

It is true that no investigative measure was taken during

the above-mentioned period between the filing of the appeal and the

appeal hearing. The Government pleaded the backlog of the cases in

the District Court, but Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) imposes on the

Contracting States the duty to organise their legal systems in such

a way that their courts can meet each of its requirements (see,

inter alia, the Vocaturo v. Italy judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A

no. 206-C, p. 32, para. 17). The period in question would nevertheless

seem to be acceptable if viewed in the context of the total duration

of the proceedings, as it must be.

18. Accordingly, the delays which occurred in the proceedings

were not so substantial as to violate Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1).

Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public

hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on

27 February 1992.

Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL

President

Signed: Marc-André EISSEN

Registrar