[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> PIZZETTI v. ITALY - 12444/86 [1993] ECHR 13 (26 February 1993) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1993/13.html Cite as: [1993] ECHR 13

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

In the case of Pizzetti 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. Bernhardt, President,

Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson,

Mr F. Matscher,

Mr L.-E. Pettiti,

Mr C. Russo,

Mr N. Valticos,

Mr S.K. Martens,

Mrs E. Palm,

Mr F. Bigi,

and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen, Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 29 October 1992 and

2 February 1993,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the

last mentioned date:

_______________

Notes by the Registrar

* The case is numbered 8/1992/353/427. 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 by the European

Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 13 April 1992,

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. 12444/86) against the Italian Republic

lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by an

Italian national, Mr Bartolomeo Pizzetti, on 29 July 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 Articles 6 para. 1

and 13 (art. 6-1, art. 13).

2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with

Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicant stated

that he wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the

lawyer who would represent him (Rule 30).

3. On 25 April 1992 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 De Micheli,

F.M., Salesi, Trevisan, Billi and Messina v. Italy* should be

heard by the same Chamber.

_______________

* Cases nos 9/1992/354/428 to 14/1992/359/433.

_______________

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 Thór Vilhjálmsson,

Mr F. Matscher, Mr L.-E. Pettiti, Mr N. Valticos,

Mr S.K. Martens, Mrs E. Palm and Mr F. Bigi (Article 43 in fine

of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).

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).

Pursuant to the order made in consequence, the Registrar

received, on 6 July 1992, the memorial of the applicant, whom the

President had given leave to use the Italian language

(Rule 27 para. 3). By a letter of 21 July, the Government stated

that they wished to refer the Court to their observations before

the Commission. The Delegate of the Commission did not submit

written observations.

6. On 26 May the Chamber had decided to dispense with a

hearing, having found that the conditions for such a derogation

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

7. On 3 September the Commission produced the file on the

proceedings before it, as requested by the Registrar on the

President's instructions.

8. As Mr Ryssdal was unable to attend the deliberations on

29 October, he was replaced as President of the Chamber by

Mr R. Bernhardt, the Vice-President of the Court (Rule 21

para. 5, second sub-paragraph).

9. On 20 October and 8 November 1992 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

10. Mr Bartolomeo Pizzetti resides at Fontanella (Bergamo

province). The facts established by the Commission pursuant to

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

(paragraphs 16-25 of its report):

"16. On 6 September 1983 the applicant brought an action

for damages against Mr G. before the Bergamo District

Court in respect of the injuries he sustained when he was

assaulted during an argument.

17. Investigation of the case began at the hearing of

27 October 1983, which was followed by four further

hearings, on 14 November 1983 and on 2 February, 6 April

and 14 June 1984. The following hearing, initially due to

be held on 22 November 1984, was adjourned by the court

proprio motu," - until 11 April 1985 - "because the

investigating judge had been assigned to other duties.

The judge in question was subsequently transferred.

18. On 21 June 1986 the Bergamo District Court rejected

a request by the applicant that a different investigating

judge be appointed and that a date be set for a new

hearing, on the ground that the workload of the various

judges made it impossible to ask them to deal with other

cases.

19. On 3 February 1988 the applicant repeated his

request, and on 9 February 1988 a new investigating judge

was appointed. Examination of the case was resumed at the

hearing of 31 March 1988, which was adjourned at the

applicant's request until 22 September 1988. The

following hearing took place on 19 January 1989.

20. In a decision dated 15 March 1989 the investigating

judge, granting a request made by the applicant, summoned

certain witnesses to appear at the hearing of

31 October 1989 and an expert to appear at that of

2 November 1989.

21. These two hearings were adjourned on the ground that

an attempt to reach a friendly settlement was in progress.

At the hearing of 7 November 1989 the investigating judge

noted that this attempt had been unsuccessful.

22. In the meantime the applicant had dismissed his

lawyer, so that the hearing of 7 November 1989 and that of

22 March 1990 were adjourned in order to give him time to

engage new counsel.

23. The following hearing, initially due to take place

on 5 July 1990, was adjourned by the investigating judge

proprio motu until 11 April 1991, and then - at the

applicant's request - brought forward to 4 October 1990.

24. On that date the investigating judge, granting a

request made by the lawyer representing the applicant, who

had been reappointed, ordered an expert opinion and

designated an expert for that purpose.

25. A hearing was arranged for 18 October 1990 so that

the expert could take the oath. However, this hearing was

adjourned until 29 November 1990, as the expert failed to

appear. On the latter date the expert appointed took the

oath.

26. ..."

11. According to the information supplied to the Court by the

Government, on 24 January 1991 the expert relinquished his task

because the applicant refused to undergo a medical examination

which was to have taken place on 7 December 1990.

A hearing set down for 28 March 1991 was adjourned by

order of the investigating judge until 3 October 1991.

At a date which has not been specified, the applicant was

granted legal aid. His new lawyer was formally appointed on

12 April 1991. On 3 June he requested the replacement of the

investigating judge, but to no avail. On 1 October 1991 the case

was finally assigned to another judge.

A new expert was appointed on 26 March 1992 and received

his instructions on 14 May.

The following hearing was to be held on 3 December 1992.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

12. Mr Pizzetti lodged his application with the Commission on

29 July 1986. He complained of the time taken to hear his civil

action and the lack, in Italian law, of an effective remedy

against the excessive length of proceedings. He relied on

Articles 6 para. 1 and 13 (art. 6-1, art. 13) of the Convention.

13. On 2 July 1990 the Commission declared his application

(no. 12444/86) admissible. In its report of 10 December 1991

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

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

(unanimously), but not of Article 13 (art. 13) (fourteen votes

to six). The full text of the Commission's opinion and of the

dissenting opinion contained in the report 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 257-C of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but

a copy of the Commission's report is available from the registry.

_______________

AS TO THE LAW

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

14. The applicant alleged that his civil action had not been

tried within a "reasonable time" as required by 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 contested this claim, whereas the

Commission accepted it.

15. The period to be taken into consideration began on

6 September 1983, when Mr G. was summonsed before the Bergamo

District Court. It has not yet ended as the proceedings are

still pending in the same court at the stage of the

investigation.

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

determined 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.

17. The Government pleaded the applicant's conduct: by

refusing to attend the first medical examination, arranged for

7 December 1990 (see paragraph 11 above), Mr Pizzetti had

contributed to slowing down the proceedings. The transfer of the

investigating judge and the excessive workload of the Bergamo

District Court had been additional factors.

18. The Court, like the Commission, notes that the applicant's

attitude is not sufficient in itself to explain the total

duration of the proceedings. In particular, his attempt to

secure a friendly settlement and the fact that he failed to

attend the medical examination cannot justify the period of

inactivity which lasted from 14 June 1984 to 31 March 1988 (see

paragraph 10 above, nos. 17-19). Moreover, although some

hearings were adjourned at his request, he also asked for three

others to be scheduled or brought forward (see the same

paragraph, nos. 18, 19 and 23).

As regards the argument based on the backlog of cases

pending before the Bergamo District Court, it should be recalled

that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) imposes on the Contracting

States the duty to organise their judicial systems in such a way

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

many other authorities, the Tusa v. Italy judgment of

27 February 1992, Series A no. 231-D, p. 41, para. 17).

19. Accordingly, it cannot regard as "reasonable" a lapse of

time which is already more than nine years.

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

(art. 6-1).

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 (art. 13)

20. Mr Pizzetti complained that no effective remedy had been

available to him before a national "authority" to challenge the

excessive duration of the civil proceedings brought by him. He

relied on Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention, which is worded

as follows:

"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the]

Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy

before a national authority notwithstanding that the

violation has been committed by persons acting in an

official capacity."

The Commission took the view that this provision was

inapplicable where, as here, the alleged violation took place in

the context of judicial proceedings.

The Government did not express a view.

21. In view of its decision concerning Article 6 (art. 6), the

Court does not consider it necessary also to examine the case

under Article 13 (art. 13).

III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50)

22. Under 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

23. The applicant claimed 30,000,000 Italian lire for

non-pecuniary damage, a claim which the Commission regarded as

justified.

In the Government's opinion, on the other hand, a finding

of a violation, if such a finding were to be made, would in

itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction for the purposes

of Article 50 (art. 50), in view of the applicant's conduct.

24. The Court finds that the applicant sustained clear

non-pecuniary damage, for which it considers it fair to award him

10,000,000 lire.

B. Costs and expenses

25. Mr Pizzetti also sought 3,715,800 lire in respect of costs

and expenses referable to the proceedings before the Convention

organs.

The Government considered that this claim was founded on

provisions, concerning lawyer's fees, which were part of the

Italian domestic legal system and which did not therefore apply

in the present case. However, they left the matter to be

determined by the Court.

26. The Court shares the view of the Delegate of the

Commission that the costs in question were genuinely and

necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum, and

accordingly orders their reimbursement to the applicant in full.

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 it is not necessary also to examine the case

under Article 13 (art. 13);

3. Holds that the respondent State is to pay to the

applicant, within three months, 10,000,000 (ten million)

Italian lire for non-pecuniary damage and 3,715,800 (three

million seven hundred and fifteen thousand eight hundred)

lire for costs and expenses;

4. 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

26 February 1993.

Signed: Rudolf BERNHARDT

President

Signed: Marc-André EISSEN

Registrar