[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> VORRASI v. ITALY - 12706/87 [1992] ECHR 39 (27 February 1992) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1992/39.html Cite as: [1992] ECHR 39

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

In the case of Vorrasi 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 20/1991/272/343. 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. 12706/87) against the Italian Republic lodged with the

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

Mrs Maria Vorrasi, on 31 October 1986.

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 stated that she

wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who

would represent her (Rule 30).

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, Cappello, G. v. Italy, 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; 22/1991/274/345; 24/1991/276/347;

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 15 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. Mrs Maria Vorrasi is an Italian national and resides in

Rome. She is a housewife. The facts established by the Commission

pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 (art. 31-1) of the Convention are as

follows (paragraphs 16-23 of its report):

"16. By a writ served on 15 March 1978 the applicant

instituted proceedings against her mother, Mrs L., and her

three brothers before the Melfi District Court, asking for

the division of her father's estate.

17. The investigation commenced at the hearing of

10 May 1978. At the hearing of 21 June 1978 the applicant

made a request for the appointment of an expert to assess

the property constituting the estate and to put forward a

plan of apportionment. The investigating judge deferred his

decision on this request.

18. The next hearing did not take place until

19 February 1980, on which date the proceedings in the case

were adjourned because Mrs L.'s counsel could not attend.

19. The parties then entered into negotiations for a

friendly settlement and this prompted a series of

postponements of the following hearings:

- 15 April 1980 (postponed at Mrs L.'s request);

- 17 June 1980 (postponed at the parties' request);

- 31 March 1981 (postponed at Mrs L.'s request);

- 1 December 1981 (postponed at the parties' request);

- 16 March 1982 (postponed at the parties' request);

- 23 November 1982 (postponed at the parties' request);

- 16 March 1983 (postponed at Mrs L.'s request);

- 1 June 1983 (postponed at Mrs L.'s request);

- 21 December 1983 (postponed at Mrs L.'s request);

- 4 April 1984 (postponed at the parties' request);

- 11 July 1984 (postponed at Mrs L.'s request).

20. At the hearing on 12 March 1985 the applicant

reiterated her request for an expert opinion, but at

Mrs L.'s request the investigating judge adjourned the case

firstly to 4 June 1985 and then to 10 December 1985. On

that date the applicant again called for an expert opinion.

On 27 December 1985 the investigating judge ruled that an

expert opinion could not be given on the basis of the

documents produced by the parties, and directed them to

complete the case-file.

21. The applicant complied at the hearing of

18 February 1986 and reiterated her request for an expert

opinion. Mrs L. requested a further adjournment. The

investigating judge set the next hearing down for

13 May 1986. However, the hearing did not take place until

10 March 1988, on which date the investigating judge

reserved his decision on the request for an expert opinion.

On 6 April 1988 he directed that an expert be summoned.

22. At the hearing on 30 June 1988 the expert was sworn

in and given one hundred and twenty days to deliver his

opinion. The investigating judge adjourned the case to

17 November 1988.

23. The expert opinion, however, was not lodged within

the time stipulated and the hearing was postponed to

23 March 1989. ... ."

10. According to the information supplied to the European Court

by the applicant and the Government, on 23 March 1989 the parties

requested an adjournment in order to study the expert's report,

which had been lodged on 22 November 1988. The following hearing

which had been set down for 22 June was not held until 5 October.

On that occasion Mrs Vorrasi's lawyer asked that, in the light of

the report, the estate be attributed to one of the heirs only; to

this end, he requested the judge to direct that they appear in

person in order to determine which of them was interested in the

holdings of the others. As one of the lawyers had asked for time to

consult his clients, the investigation, which was first adjourned

until 23 November 1989, reopened in fact on 24 May 1990. As the

applicant repeated her request for the appearance in person of the

other heirs, the judge reserved his decision until 28 June 1990. On

25 July he ordered the joinder of the case with another which was

also pending before him and concerned the same property and persons.

On a date which has not been specified, he ordered that the

heirs appear in person on 31 January 1991, but this did not occur on

that date because he had been transferred in the meantime. His

replacement, who was appointed on 14 May 1991, set down a hearing

for 24 September 1991. The Court has no information on what

happened at that hearing.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

11. Mrs Vorrasi lodged her application with the Commission on

31 October 1986. She complained of the length of the civil

proceedings brought by her and relied on Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)

of the Convention.

12. On 11 May 1990 the Commission declared the application

(no. 12706/87) admissible. In its report of 15 January 1991

(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 230-E

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 her 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

15 March 1978 when the proceedings were instituted against the

defendants in the Melfi District Court. It has not yet ended since

it appears that that court has still not given judgment.

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 conduct of the applicant - who

had not requested that her case be examined more rapidly - and the

lack of judges at the Melfi District Court.

17. The Court notes in the first place that the problem to be

determined was a complex one concerning the apportionment of

indivisible property among several heirs. It stresses in addition,

like the Government, that the State was not responsible for the long

period - from 15 April 1980 to 11 July 1984 - during which the

parties sought a number of adjournments in connection with their

attempt to achieve an out-of-court settlement. It may be

questioned, moreover, why the parties found it necessary to seek, on

23 March 1989, additional time to study the expert's report, which

had been filed four months previously.

Nevertheless, the Commission rightly drew attention to two

periods of inactivity for which the State was wholly responsible

(21 June 1978 to 19 February 1980 and 18 February 1986 to

10 March 1988). There was a third such period: the new

investigating judge did not hold a hearing until, at the earliest,

four months and ten days after his appointment (14 May -

24 September 1991), which appointment had occurred several months

after his predecessor's transfer, which had taken place some time

between 25 July 1990 and 31 January 1991.

The Government pleaded the lack of judges appointed to the

Melfi 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).

18. Taking the proceedings as a whole, the Court cannot regard

as "reasonable" in this instance a lapse of time which is already

more than thirteen and a half years.

There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1).

II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50)

19. According to Article 50 (art. 50):

"If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a

legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting

Party is completely or partially in conflict with the

obligations arising from the ... Convention, and if the

internal law of the said Party allows only partial

reparation to be made for the consequences of this decision

or measure, the decision of the Court shall, if necessary,

afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

A. Damage

20. Mrs Vorrasi claimed in the first place financial

compensation for pecuniary damage. She did not make any claim for

non-pecuniary damage and this is not a matter for the Court to

examine of its own motion.

The Commission took the view that the applicant was entitled

to compensation for any pecuniary damage sustained by her if she

succeeded in establishing its existence and that of a causal

connection with the violation found.

21. There is no evidence that these conditions have been

satisfied. Accordingly, the claim must be dismissed.

B. Costs and expenses

22. The applicant also sought the reimbursement of 7,103,000

Italian lire in respect of costs which she had incurred before the

Convention organs.

Having regard to the evidence at its disposal and its

case-law in this field, the Court awards 4,000,000 lire under this

head.

C. Interest

23. The Commission invited the Court to fix for the Government

- who did not give their opinion - a compulsory time-limit for

executing the present judgment and to make provision for the payment

of interest in the event of their failure to comply therewith.

24. The first of these proposals is in conformity with a

practice followed by the Court since October 1991.

As to the second, the Court does not consider it appropriate

to require any payment of interest in this instance, particularly as

no such request was made by the applicant.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1);

2. Holds that the respondent State is to pay to the applicant,

within three months, 4,000,000 (four million) Italian lire

for costs and expenses;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction.

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