CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 septembre 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 } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sB6C44819 { width:3.74%; 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 } .s382DCD86 { width:11.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFBB71A2E { width:14.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3BDC173A { width:14.58%; 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 } .s92830190 { width:11.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBAD2CCF1 { width:31.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s4BA5A151 { width:12.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFEB3E38E { width:3.74%; 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 } .sC7364FC0 { width:11.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2802653D { width:14.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s27855A4F { width:14.58%; 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 } .sF4E152BD { width:31.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sBC1AA77B { width:12.26%; 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. 10315/22 Natasa GRBEC against Italy and 17 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14   September   2023 as a Committee composed of:   Krzysztof Wojtyczek , President ,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Ivana Jelić , 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 were represented by N. Zampieri, a lawyer practising in Schio (Vicenza). They are heirs of persons who performed functions of administrative assistants, collaborators, technical assistants, and administrative officers in schools. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the application of retrospective legislation (Article 1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005 of 23   December 2005) to pending national proceedings 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 that the applicants are heirs of the persons identified in the appended table and they further accepted that there had been the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article   1 of Protocol   No. 1 in the present applications. The Government 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 payment 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 against Italy emphasising that the adoption of Law no. 266/2005 which definitively and retroactively settled the merits of the pending dispute between the applicants and the State and rendered futile any continuation of the proceedings was not justified by overriding reasons of general interest (see, for example, Cicero and Others v.   Italy , nos. 29483/11 and 4 others, §§ 31-33, 30   January 2020; De   Rosa and Others v. Italy , nos. 52888/08 and 13 others, §§   48-54, 11   December 2012; and Agrati and Others v. Italy , nos.   43549/08, 6107/09 and 5087/09, §§ 59-66, 7 June 2011). When the Court found a violation of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention, it held that the applicants had suffered a real loss of opportunity and that, consequently, the violations found were likely to have caused the applicants material damage. The Court also considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself just satisfaction for the non ‑ pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants (see De Rosa and Others , cited above, §§ 60-62). Noting the admissions and undertakings contained in the Government’s declarations, 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 5 October 2023.     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 (Legislative interference) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of applicant’s comments Amount awarded for pecuniary damage (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [2]     10315/22 10/02/2022 Natasa GRBEC 1973 15/06/2023 17/07/2023 The Government offered not to proceed with the recovery of 40% of the sums paid to the applicants, Natasa Grbec and Michel Grbec, heirs of Claudio GRBEC, in execution of judgment no. 173/04 of the Trieste District Court, R.G. 82/02, 04/05/2004. 50     10488/22 10/02/2022 Michel GRBEC 1975     10319/22 10/02/2022 Jan VOLCIC 1974 The Government offered not to proceed with the recovery of 40% of the sums paid to the applicants, Jan Volcic and Roberto Volcic, heirs of Maria STREKELI, in execution of judgment of the Trieste District Court, R.G. 84/02, 04/05/2004.     10384/22 11/02/2022 Robert VOLCIC 1977     10322/22 10/02/2022 Emiliano ELISI 1974 The Government offered not to proceed with the recovery of 40% of the sums paid to the applicants, Emiliano Elisi and Tullia Pascutto, heirs of Roberto ELISI, in execution of judgment of the Trieste District Court, R.G.   81/02, 04/05/2004.     10330/22 10/02/2022 Tullia PASCUTTO 1947     10333/22 11/02/2022 Mauro MANFROI 1969 The Government offered to jointly pay the applicants, Mauro Manfroi, Marta Manfroi and Elena Manfroi, heirs of Maria SIRENA, 40% of the sums awarded by judgment no. 93/05 of the Belluno District Court, R.G.   232/04, 13/06/2005 if not already enforced.     10357/22 11/02/2022 Marta MANFROI 1974     10359/22 11/02/2022 Elena MANFROI 1974   24451/22 02/05/2022 Ferdinando BUSETTO 1951 The Government offered to jointly pay the applicants, Ferdinando   Busetto and Federico Silvio Busetto, heirs of Tiziana   SARTORE, 40% of the sums awarded by judgment no.   274/05 of the Vicenza District Court, R.G. 1171/04, 1175/04, 1177/04, 1179/04, 1211/04, 1219/04, 28/08/2005 and which the applicants returned, provided that they give proof of the restitution.   25498/22 02/05/2022 Federico Silvio BUSETTO 1989   24924/22 28/04/2022 Manuel TOMMASIN 1986 The Government offered to jointly pay the applicants, Manuel   Tommasin, Cristian Tommasin, Balinda Tommasin and Kety   Tommasin, heirs of Graziella TOMMASIN, 40% of the sums awarded by judgment no. 48/05 Venezia District Court, R.G.   996/03, 18/01/2005 if not already enforced.   25000/22 28/04/2022 Cristian TOMMASIN 1975   25209/22 28/04/2022 Balinda TOMMASIN 1970   24549/22 28/04/2022 Kety TOMMASIN 1967   24996/22 28/04/2022 Massimo RIGHETTO 1967 The Government offered to jointly pay the applicants, Massimo   Righetto, Sabrina Righetto and Nicola Righetto, heirs of Ernesta FASOLATO, 40% of the sums awarded by the first-instance judgment of the Venezia District Court, R.G. 1830/04, 04/11/2005 if not already enforced.   25070/22 28/04/2022 Sabrina RIGHETTO 1968   25491/22 28/04/2022 Nicola RIGHETTO 1969   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.