CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 novembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s4EC3C151 { width:116.76pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2C1120B0 { width:4.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s56C85B5A { width:10.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s94CF84A6 { width:13.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s40AC96BA { width:11.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA5F74829 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:5.75pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-5.75pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s5A311C5D { width:11.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD10C8DD8 { width:14.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sB5B1C99F { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s92830190 { width:11.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s86B1AFDE { width:4.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s429CD60F { width:10.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF070EDF7 { width:13.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .s55CA29BB { width:11.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B7CF416 { width:11.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEF244201 { width:14.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s30A055CD { width:11.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 10479/21 Daniele ACAMPORA and Others against Italy and 7 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10   November 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Krzysztof Wojtyczek , President ,   Ivana Jelić,   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”). 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 Government informed the Court 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 domestic decisions. 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 the applicants 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 domestic decisions (see, for example, Gaglione and Others v. Italy, nos.   45867/07 and 69 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; 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 1 December 2022.     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 Relevant domestic decision 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]     10479/21 09/02/2021 (59 applicants) Daniele ACAMPORA 1960   Massimiliano ATTILI 1965   Giovanni IACHETTA 1947   Lorenzo LEONI 1968   Sergio GIANCASPRO 1962   Massimiliano DI   IANNI 1966   Giuseppe ESPOSITO 1961   Alessandro BOGGIANI 1957 Mauro TETI 1963   Alberto DELLAI 1961   Mario RUDA 1967   Giovanni MAIORANA 1964   Pierantonio CENTARO 1962   Antonio Giovanni CALO’ 1962   Giuseppe GUIDA 1952   Salvatore BIANCHINI 1959 Silverio INSOGNA 1964   Salvatore CAPASSO 1964   Raffaele IANNELLA 1965 Nicola SIGNORILE 1969   Antonio MINGOLLA 1955   Luigi FAELLA 1961   Nicola TONTI 1963   Valter UTILI 1960   Nicola Marcello FUSCO 1956   Lorenzo CELLA 1958   Antonio BISOGNO 1947   Liberato GUIDA 1964   Claudio DENTE 1964   Giovanni RENZI 1959     Natale LAUDANI 1960   Rosario MONTEMAGNO 1960   Maurizio ETTORI 1962   Giuliano OLIVIERI 1964   Domenico RAVIDA’ 1965   Giuseppe ANDREOLI 1960   Marco QUATTROCCHI 1966   Luciano APETINO 1967   Umberto PELLEGRINI 1965   Vincenzo NARDIELLO 1966   Franco Maurizio MALTESE 1964   Rosario FERMO 1961   Santo NIGRELLI 1945   Saverio D’ALESSIO 1955   Antonio MAIELLO 1964   Salvatore MILITANO 1962     Adriano DUCA 1966   Angelo OLIVIERO 1961   Maurizio PETTINARI 1960   Pasquale CICALESE 1966   Giuseppe COLAZZO 1960   Lorenzo DE DONATIS 1965   Romano FADDA 1968   Domenico ANASTASIO 1951   Luciano BERNABITI 1956     Michele SESSA 1956   Mauro POZONE 1962   Stefano DELLE MONACHE 1963   Marco BETTINI 1961 Alunni Marco Rome Court of Cassation RG 18089/2014, 03/09/2015 07/07/2022   200 30     17253/21 23/03/2021 (7 applicants) Carmela FORINO 1931   Vincenzo PETROSINO 1962   Maria Rosaria PETROSINO 1956   Rosa PETROSINO 1953   Patrizia PETROSINO 1971     Salvatore PETROSINO 1958   Francesco PETROSINO 1960 D’Alessio Dario Salerno Naples Court of Appeal RG 1178/2019, 19/09/2019 07/07/2022   200 30     38207/21 20/07/2021 (55 applicants) Vincenzo ALBANESE 1970   Antonio Giuseppe PIREDDA 1951   Sabatino PAGANO 1963     Massimo ANGELINI 1967   Mauro ANGELINI 1949   Daniele DE PASCALI 1967   Giuseppe ANNUNZIATA 1967   Roberto ARGANESE 1962   Lorenzo FENNI 1964   Roberto BLASETTI 1969   Marco PIERONI 1964   Enzo OSANNA 1970   Celestino LABIANCA 1970   Francesco PALAMARA 1962   Aldo Gabriele NICOLETTI 1954   Giuseppe DI NUZZO 1971   Francesco PELLEGRINO 1972   Mauro ERCOLI 1967   Fabiop D’ERAMO 1972   Giampiero FERRI 1973   Marino SIMONETTI 1972   Fabio SEBASTIANI 1966   Francesco SANTORO 1964   Salvatore CAFARO 1963   Eugenio CAPONE 1959     Mauro CATALANO 1965   Antonio DE BIASIO 1955   Pasquale MANDILE 1969     Roberto Nicola PAVONE 1967   Angelo PESANTE 1961   Gino PETROSELLI 1966   Domenico QUARANTA 1950   Giuseppe QUARANTA 1968   Filippo DE LUCIA 1968   Rolando Luigi D’ANGELO 1948   Adriano POLESI 1952   Angelo MOSCATELLI 1964   Nicola RAINONE 1966   Daniele SPINELLI 1969     Diamante VITO 1966   Nicola PELLECCHIA 1941   Michele BOVINO 1967     Massimo CEDRONI 1968   Massimo CAMPAGNA 1966   Mario CALI’ 1958     Marco CALABRETTA 1967   Antonio BONFITTO 1969   Guido BIANCHI 1968   Rino BORBONE 1968   Giuseppe CIVETTA 1968   Carmine PROIETTI 1955   Vincenzo RICCARDI 1966 Mario RICCOBENE 1966   Franco ROTONDO 1951   Alfredo TUZI 1970   Abbate Ferdinando Emilio Orte Perugia Court of Appeal RG 3321/2012, 20/06/2018 07/07/2022   200 30     44438/21 31/08/2021 Walter TARANTO 1950 Di Febbraro Agostino Naples Naples Court of Appeal RG 1873/2018, 25/10/2018 07/07/2022   200 30     45206/21 06/09/2021 Rosina LONGO 1974 De Francesco Iolanda Corsano Potenza Court of Appeal RG 429/15, 15/03/2016 07/07/2022   200 30     47232/21 16/09/2021 Luigi TEMPORIN GRUER 1932 Parola Stefania Rome Roma Court of Appeal RG 52373/17, 06/12/2017 07/07/2022 01/08/2022 200 30     54542/21 25/10/2021 (10 applicants) Eugenio MERULLO 1968   Fabrizio Giuseppe DE SIMONE 1966   Giovanni GRANATA 1966 Oronzo GRECO 1965     Tommaso GRECO 1957   Brizio Leonardo MAZZEI 1970   Luigi MENNILLO 1967   Sergio MERIGHI 1967   Claudio MASCIARELLI 1961     Michele FAVATÀ 1968 Abbate Ferdinando Emilio Orte Perugia Court of Appeal RG 3321/2012, 20/06/2018 07/07/2022   200 30     55201/21 29/10/2021 Stefano CIOTOLA 1962 Ruggiero Aurelio Naples Rome Court of Appeal RG 57849/2011, 24/06/2016 07/07/2022 11/08/2022 200 30   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.