CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s25B3CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:16pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s16DC539 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s68D1564D { width:34.89pt; display:inline-block } .sC6B6F7B3 { width:150.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s690D3F57 { width:117.62%; margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s768A8BC1 { width:6.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s1E4E3B1D { width:14.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7441BD44 { width:18.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s38AE08A1 { width:13.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4521A9B1 { width:26.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD8C5F87B { width:21.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8C4E97D1 { width:6.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s80D1569D { width:14.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7033CD84 { width:18.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1B2CA6A8 { width:13.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEC72E764 { width:26.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC9BAF4E0 { width:21.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC6AB5D7A { height:26.75pt } .sBA32C63A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 39282/22 Monica MANZITTI against Italy and 2 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26   March   2024 as a Committee composed of:   Péter Paczolay , President ,   Gilberto Felici,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the individuals listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The applications concern the alleged excessive length of civil proceedings and the effectiveness of the relevant remedy in domestic law as provided for by Law no.   89 of   24   March   2001, known as the “Pinto   Act”, with particular reference to its Article 1   ter paragraph   1 entitled “Preventive remedies”, which was introduced by Law no. 208 of 28   December   2015. 2.     Article 1 ter paragraph   1 established a list of preventive remedies, at least one of which potential claimants had to have availed themselves of in order to subsequently lodge an application for compensation for excessive length of proceedings under the Pinto Act. The first possibility was to bring proceedings in the form of a simplified procedure, as established by Articles   702   bis et seq. of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure (the “CPC”). The second possibility was to request summary proceedings in the form of an oral hearing as provided for by Article   183   bis of the CPC, before the main hearing and, in any case, at least six months before the expiry of the time ‑ limits referred to in Article 2 paragraph 2 bis of the Pinto Act. Lastly, in cases where summary proceedings are not applicable, including those that are pending at the appeal stage, the requirement to have availed oneself of a preventive remedy may be complied with by a request for a decision following an oral hearing in accordance with Article 281   sexies of the CPC, at least six months before the expiry of the time-limits referred to in Article   2 paragraph   2   bis of the Pinto Act. 3.     Concerning application no. 39282/22, the applicant submitted that she had not lodged an application for compensation under the Pinto Act because it would have been rejected for lack of compliance with the aforementioned Article 1   ter paragraph 1. The applicant complained that the national remedy was therefore not effective. 4.     In the other applications, the applicants had lodged a request for compensation for the excessive length of the civil proceedings they were part of, but that was denied as they had not requested a decision under Article   281   sexies of the CPC but merely lodged an application under the Pinto   Act. 5.     Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained of the excessive length of their civil proceedings and of a restriction of their defence rights. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, they complained of the lack of an effective remedy. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 6.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 7.     The Court notes that the general principles on excessive length of proceedings and domestic remedies have been outlined in Olivieri   and   Others v. Italy , (nos. 17708/12 and 3 others, §§   39-47, 25 February 2016). In   particular, it reiterates that, in order to be deemed effective, an appeal must be capable of directly remedying the situation complained of and present reasonable prospects for success (ibid., §   43). With regard to the duration of proceedings, the remedies available to a litigant at the national level are “effective” within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention if they allow a decision to be expedited and provide adequate reparation to the litigant for delays that have already occurred ( see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no.   75529/01, §§ 99-100, ECHR 2006-VII, and Vassilios Athanasiou and Others v. Greece , no. 50973/08, 21 December 2010). It also reiterates that it has repeatedly stated that the best solution in absolute terms is prevention (see, among others, Cocchiarella v. Italy   [GC], no.   64886/01, §   74,   ECHR 2006-V). 8.     In the applications at stake, the Court finds that the requirement imposed by Article 1   ter paragraph   1 of the Pinto Act can be considered to be in compliance with Article   13 firstly because the remedies it refers to are capable of hastening a decision on cases before the competent tribunal, and secondly because it merely sets out a condition that should be complied with in order for a request for compensation to be examined by the judicial authorities ( see Verrascina and Others v. Italy , nos.   15566/13 and 5 others, §   29, 28   April   2022). 9.     In fact, as pointed out in the domestic decisions, the applicants should have availed themselves of the last option mentioned in Article 1   ter paragraph   1 of the Pinto Act, which is to say that they should have requested a decision following an oral procedure, at least six months before the reasonable length of proceedings had elapsed, in order to subsequently introduce a claim for just satisfaction under that Act. 10.     The oral proceedings provided for by Article 281   sexies of the CPC have to be considered a fully-fledged procedural model as provided for in Italian procedural law. According to this model, the sitting judge may order the case to be heard orally at the same hearing or, upon request of the parties, at a subsequent hearing, and deliver the judgment at the end of it by reading the operative part and a concise statement of the reasons of fact and law for the decision. Alternatively, the final written judgment should be delivered in the following thirty days. 11.     The Court reiterates that member States are required to organise their judicial systems in such a way that their courts are able to guarantee everyone’s right to a final decision on disputes concerning civil rights and obligations within a reasonable time ( see Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 142, 29   November   2016). When   necessary, States are requested to increase resources in response to unreasonable delays and to take a range of legislative, organisational, budgetary and other measures ( see Bieliński v. Poland , no.   48762/19, §   44, 21   July 2022). 12.     Furthermore, it should be noted that when a different procedural option is applied according to the relevant provisions (see paragraph 2 above), the defence rights of applicants are not per se diminished. The Court considers that the efforts of the national legislator to provide preventive remedies such as those created to address the excessive length of proceedings in civil matters do not restrict the defence rights of applicants to submit any observations that they consider relevant to their case ( see Perez   v.   France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 80, ECHR 2004-I) or the right to adversarial proceedings involving the opportunity for the parties to learn of the observations or evidence produced by the other party and to make submissions in that regard ( see Regner v. the   Czech   Republic [GC], no.   35289/11, § 71, 19 September 2017). 13.     By Article 1   ter paragraph   1 of the Pinto Act, the legislator merely asks the parties to pursue the possibility of switching to a simplified procedure which is already provided for in the CPC. Within the said procedure, the parties are not requested to submit their final statements and conclusions, as would be the case in ordinary proceedings, and the sitting judge may nonetheless decide to continue under the ordinary procedure if the matter at stake is considered too complex (see paragraph 3.6 of the judgment of the Italian Constitutional Court no. 121 of 10   July 2020). In that case, the parties are still allowed to complain of the length of the proceedings under the Pinto Act. 14.     Therefore, the Court observes that in the present case any possible degree of restriction of judicial protection is only limited to procedural aspects and does not concern the quality of the judicial assessment. 15.     For the sake of completeness, the Court notes that the Italian Constitutional Court, quoting the cases of Scordino v.   Italy (no.   1) ([GC], no.   36813/97, ECHR 2006-V) and   Olivieri (cited above), found the requirements imposed by Article 1   ter paragraph 1 to be constitutional (see   judgment no.   121 of 10   July   2020 of the Constitutional Court). In   particular, the Constitutional Court held that the opportunity for parties to request that their proceedings be moved to a speedier procedure corresponds to the necessity for the legislator to establish a preventive remedy where all the rights at stake are balanced. 16.     Therefore, the Court, in the light of all the material in its possession, finds that when the oral proceedings provided for by Article 281 sexies of the CPC were applied, the defence rights of the applicants were not restricted. 17.     In view of the foregoing, basing its conclusions on an assessment of the legislative provisions as they stand and the applicant’s allegations, the Court is satisfied that the remedy provided for by the Pinto Act is an effective one (see Scordino , cited above, § 142). Consequently, the Court considers that the applicants were required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention to lodge a claim under the Pinto Act (in compliance with its relevant conditions, including Article 1 ter paragraph 1), in order to allow the domestic courts to intervene earlier, before complaining of the excessive length of the proceedings to the Court. Furthermore, it does not appear that there exist special circumstances which absolve them from doing so (see Atanasov and Apostolov v.   Bulgaria (dec.), nos.   65540/16 and   22368/17, §   69, 27   June   2017). 18.     It follows that the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for   non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 19.     As regards the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court has already found that the remedy provided for by the Pinto Act, as amended by Law no. 208 of 28   December   2015, is in principle effective for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In view of the close link between that provision and Article 13 of the Convention, the Court’s finding above is equally valid within the context of this complaint (see Szaxon v.   Hungary (dec.), no.   54421/21, §   51, 21   March   2023). It follows that the remainder of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §   3   (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 18 April 2024.     Liv Tigerstedt   Péter Paczolay   Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications: No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Represented by 1. 39282/22 Manzitti v. Italy 01/08/2022 Monica MANZITTI 1977 Campobasso Italian Ennio CERIO 2. 4934/23 Antonetti and Others v. Italy 13/01/2023 Giuseppe Antonio ANTONETTI 1948 Termoli Italian Basso ANTONETTI 1974 Termoli Italian Timoteo ANTONETTI 1956 Termoli Italian   Vincenzo ANTONETTI 1950 Termoli Italian Vittorio ANTONETTI 1967 Termoli Italian Giuseppina BALLETTA 1971 Termoli Italian Raffaele BALLETTA 1962 Termoli Italian Donato FILADELFIA 1943 Termoli Italian Carmela PALLADINETTI 1948 Termoli Italian Sabiano PALLADINETTI 1983 Termoli Italian Giovanna PICCINOCCHI 1953 Termoli Italian Gianni TOZZI 1978 Termoli Italian Ennio CERIO 3. 19323/23 Bullaro v. Italy 03/05/2023 Nino BULLARO 1952 Palermo Italian Alessandro SAVOCA