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 } .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 } .sBA32C63A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s3695F815 { 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 } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 55930/21 Maria Serena COSTA against Italy and 8 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, and the applicants’ replies to these declarations, 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). 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 Government submitted declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications. The Government acknowledged the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 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 payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases. The applicants informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the declarations. 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 Court finds that, following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, the cases should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties. It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the applications. 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; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   39 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 acceptance Amount awarded for pecuniary damage per applicant [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2]     55930/21 11/11/2021 Maria Serena COSTA 1951 15/06/2023 17/07/2023 The Government offered to pay 40% of the sums awarded by judgment no.   272/05 of the Vicenza District Court, R.C.L. 1185/04, 01/09/2005 and that the applicant returned, provided that she gives proof of the restitution. 35.71     60870/21 02/12/2021 Maria Luisa FRACASSETTO 1958 The Government offered to pay 40% of the sums awarded by judgment no.   443/05 of the Rovigo District Court, R.G. 554/03, 21/07/2005 and that the applicant returned, provided that she gives proof of the restitution. 31.25     56300/21 11/11/2021 Gianfranca DAL CORTIVO 1956 The Government offered to pay 40% of the sums awarded by the first-instance judgment and that the applicant returned, provided that she gives proof of the restitution. 35.71     60911/21 02/12/2021 Fabio POZZA 1957 The Government offered to pay 40% of the sums awarded by judgment no.   374/05 of the Venice District Court, R.G. 347/04, 23/05/2005 and that the applicant returned, provided that he gives proof of the restitution. 31.25     55941/21 11/11/2021 Maria Luisa DALLA VECCHIA 1957 The Government offered to pay 40% of the sums awarded by judgment no.   164/2003 of the Treviso District Court, R.G. 817/02, 30/05/2003, if not already enforced. 31.25     1017/22 21/12/2021 Maria Raffaella MARSIGLIO 1957 The Government offered to pay 40% of the sums awarded by the first-instance judgment and that the applicant returned, provided that she gives proof of the restitution. 35.71     1019/22 21/12/2021 Chiara CUSIN 1965 The Government offered to pay 40% of the sums awarded by judgment no.   445/04 of the Rovigo District Court, R.G.C.L. 553/03, 21/07/2005 and that the applicant returned, provided that she gives proof of the restitution. 35.71     2815/22 22/12/2021 Virginia DALLA VECCHIA 1956 The Government offered to pay 40% of the sums awarded by judgment no.   132/05 of the Vicenza District Court, R.G. 16/04, 10/05/2005, if not already enforced. 35.71     24447/22 06/05/2022 Luciana MAZZOCCHETTI 1953 The Government offered to pay 40% of the sums awarded by judgment no.   766/07 of the Venice District Court, and that the applicant returned, provided that she gives proof of the restitution. 35.71   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.