CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 décembre 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 } .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 } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s779875C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .s4A084500 { height:30.2pt } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s4A6B4500 { height:30.1pt } .sE52A5D7A { height:21.15pt } .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. 24550/22 Virginia ANDREOLI and Others against Italy (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14   December 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 application lodged on 28   April 2022, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases, and the applicants’ replies to this declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants were represented by Mrs E. Merlino, a lawyer practising in Lanciano. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and under 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”). Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. The Government submitted a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application. The Government acknowledged the violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of 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 application 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 case. The applicants informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the declaration. THE LAW The Court finds that, following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, the case 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 application. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   39 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 18 January 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Krzysztof Wojtyczek   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Legislative interference) 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 (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [2] 24550/22 28/04/2022 (7 applicants) Virginia ANDREOLI 1954 13/10/2023 13/11/2023 The Government offered not to proceed with the recovery of 40% of the sums paid to the applicant in execution of judgment R.G. no. 92/04 of the Lanciano District Court. 142.85 Anna Maria DEL ROSARIO 1953 The Government offered not to proceed with the recovery of 40% of the sums paid to the applicant in execution of judgment R.G. no. 449/02 of the Lanciano District Court. Anna Maria   D’ELISEO 1957 The Government offered not to proceed with the recovery of 40% of the sums paid to the applicant in execution of judgment R.G. no. 92/04 of the Lanciano District Court. Marisa   DI NUNZIO 1951 The Government offered not to proceed with the recovery of 40% of the sums paid to the applicant in execution of judgment R.G. no. 87/04 of the Lanciano District Court. Nicola DI NUNZIO 1956 The Government offered not to proceed with the recovery of 40% of the sums paid to the applicant in execution of judgment R.G. no. 90/04 of the Lanciano District Court. Valerio SCACCIA 1958 The Government offered not to proceed with the recovery of 40% of the sums paid to the applicant in execution of judgment R.G. no. 88/04 of the Lanciano District Court. Maria Domenica VALENTE 1937 The Government offered not to proceed with the recovery of 40% of the sums paid to the applicant in execution of judgment R.G. no. 93/04 of the Lanciano District Court.   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.