CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 mai 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .sA2CEA1D7 { width:125.74pt; 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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s70EFFAA { width:5.14%; 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 } .s92830190 { width:11.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s407FDF4B { width:14.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCBEC4FA { width:13.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s773E884B { width:10.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s23BFE0FB { width:17.04%; 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 } .s4355827F { width:15.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE47EB2B1 { width:5.14%; 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 } .s30A055CD { width:11.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA32E384D { width:14.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7D7C7431 { width:13.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE517F707 { width:10.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF16BA58 { width:17.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFBB9B74D { width:15.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .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. 10399/22 Eustacchio LIUZZI and Others against Italy and 8 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17   May 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková , President ,   Gilberto Felici,   Raffaele Sabato , 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 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 “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. 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 “Pinto” 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 8 June 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Alena Poláčková   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 Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2]     10399/22 09/02/2022 (3 applicants) Eustacchio LIUZZI 1950   Antonio GENCHI 1947   Giovanni Francesco GENCHI 1948   Romito Domenico Bari Lecce Court of Appeal R.G. 1950/2015, 12/01/2017 05/01/2023 200 30     12592/22 25/02/2022 (26 applicants) Girolamo Adriano IZZO 1970   Livio TONNI 1956   Corrado TURELLA 1956   Stefano RUSSO 1964   Luca ROSSI 1971   Pierluigi RUSCA 1960   Alessandro MICOZZI 1964   Flavio MARIANI 1956   Pasquale LO IACONO 1966   Emilio GUIDA 1964   Remo GIOVANNETTI 1962   David DE BELLIS 1970   Fabio TUZI 1972   Giorgio PATTI 1972   Lucio MALATESTA 1956   Giuseppe Nunzio CASABONA 1958   Celestino CARENZA 1970   Lombardino DI STEFANO 1968   Tonino DI CICCO 1961   Osvaldo D’ARCANGELO 1962   Sergio D’ALESSANDRO 1965   Massimo VECE 1963   Ciro TRAMONTANO 1956   Marco MAZZALUPI 1974   Marco DE LAURENTIS 1963   Roberto D’ANGELI 1959   Alunni Marco Rome Perugia Court of Appeal, R.G. 4845/2011, 11/07/2016 05/01/2023 200 30     15203/22 16/03/2022 (9 applicants) Gianluca D’ALESSIO 1973   Carmine CUCCINIELLO 1936   Raffaele DI TELLA 1976   Stefano MANNOZZI 1974   Roberto DOMINICI 1976   Luciana MARRONI 1964   Achille MAZZARA 1947   Alberico FELEPPA 1962   Alessandro NAVARRA 1970   Alunni Marco Rome Perugia Court of Appeal V.G. 4848/2011, 23/06/2016 05/01/2023 200 30     20484/22 17/03/2022 Maria SOMMA 1991 Coticelli Feliciana Gragnano Naples Court of Appeal R.G. 1487/2020, 27/05/2021 05/01/2023 200 30     20781/22 23/03/2022 Eugenia DE LUTIIS 1940 Coticelli Pasquale Gragnano Naples Court of Appeal R.G. 64/2020, 04/06/2020 05/01/2023 200 30     20786/22 26/02/2022 Carmela COMENTALE 1974 Coticelli Pasquale Gragnano Rome Court of Appeal R.G. 58878/2011, 30/01/2017 05/01/2023 200 30     24124/22 05/05/2022 Stefania LUBRANI 1952 Katte Klitsche de La Grange Teodoro Rome Perugia Court of Appeal R.G. 4437/2011, 05/01/2016 05/01/2023 200 30     31015/22 09/06/2022 Biagio GAETANI 1955 Pasca Antonio Taviano Potenza Court of Appeal R.G.V.G. 315/2014, 09/10/2014 05/01/2023 200 30     31022/22 09/06/2022 (6 applicants) Angelo MIRTO 1955   Romolo PODO 1956   Francesco REGGIO 1952   Giuseppe ROLLO 1951   Sergio STEFANO 1955   Antonio Francesco OSTUNI 1962   Pasca Antonio Taviano Potenza Court of Appeal R.G.V.G. 315/2014, 09/10/2014 05/01/2023 200 30   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.