CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 mai 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 } .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 } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 30788/18 Nicola CAITO against Italy and 2 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 21   May   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 applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein; the decision to give notice of the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of domestic judgments to the Italian Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr L. D’Ascia; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The applications concern the non-enforcement of judgments nos.   5214/2017, 5225/2017 and 5261/2017 awarding compensation issued by the Palermo District Court on 5 October 2017. 2.     The applicants complained under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention of the non-enforcement of the above three domestic judgments in their favour. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 3.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 4.     The Government argued that, although judgments nos.   5214/2017, 5225/2017 and 5261/2017 of the Palermo District Court were filed on 5   October 2017, the applicants only sent the relevant documents to the debtor authority in order to recover the debt on 19 April 2018. Furthermore, they only provided the correct bank details for receiving the payment in February   2019. The payments were then ordered by the debtor authority between March and August 2019. 5.     The applicants reiterated that the domestic authorities had failed to enforce the judgments within a reasonable time. 6.     The Court recalls that a successful litigant may be required to undertake certain procedural steps in order to recover the judgment debt, be it during a voluntary execution of a judgment by the State or during its enforcement by compulsory means (see Shvedov v. Russia , no. 69306/01, §§   29-37, 20   October   2005). Accordingly, it is not unreasonable that the authorities request that the applicant produce additional documents, such as bank details, to allow or speed up the execution of a judgment (see, mutatis mutandis , Kosmidis and Kosmidou v. Greece , no. 32141/04, § 24, 8   November 2007; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) , no. 33509/04, § 69, ECHR 2009; and Arbačiauskienė v. Lithuania , no. 2971/08, § 86, 1 March 2016). The creditor’s uncooperative behaviour may be an obstacle to timely enforcement of a judgment, thus alleviating the authorities’ responsibility for delays (see Belayev v. Russia (dec.), no. 36020/02, 22 March 2011). In fact, while the primary responsibility for enforcement of a judgment against the State lies with the authorities, they cannot comply with their obligations without the applicants’ minimal cooperation to that effect ( Gadzhikhanov and Saukov v.   Russia , nos. 10511/08 and 5866/09, § 29, 31 January 2012; Kuzhelev and Others v. Russia , nos. 64098/09 and 6 others, § 106, 15 October 2019; and Di   Giuseppe v. Italy (dec.) [Committee], no. 7997/21, § 7, 5   December 2023, with further references). 7.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court agrees with the Government that the obligation to provide the debtor authority with the correct bank account details and the supporting documents constitutes a reasonable procedural step which the creditor is required to take in order to obtain sums awarded by domestic judgments. Failure by the creditor to comply with this obligation constitutes an obstacle to the enforcement of the decisions in his favour, for which the authorities cannot be held responsible (see Gadzhikhanov and Saukov , cited above, §   29) 8.     In this connection, the Court observes that the applicants did not provide the correct bank details and the relevant supporting documents until February   2019 and did not explain the reasons for the delay. The Court also notes that the debtor authority made the payment within six months from the date on which it received the correct bank details and the relevant documents. 9.     In these circumstances, the Court finds that the applications are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 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 13 June 2024.     Liv Tigerstedt   Péter Paczolay   Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant’s name Year of birth Represented by 1. 30788/18 Caito v. Italy 13/06/2018 Nicola CAITO 1939 Alessandro SAVOCA 2. 30893/18 Agostino and Others v. Italy 13/06/2018 Giuseppe AGOSTINO 1957 Gaspare BARRESI 1957 Calogero BARRILE 1938 Lorenzo BLANCATO 1949 Domenica BONIFACIO 1954 Salvatore BOSCO 1946 Pietro BUSCEMI 1936 Orlando CALDERONE 1935 Francesca Giusi CAMERANO 1987 Antonio CAMPOLO 1950 Biagio CAVALLARO 1949 Concettina CAVALLARO 1944 Concetto Lucio Maria CAVALLARO 1957 Grazia CAVALLARO 1947 Giuseppe CORSO 1948 Vincenzo COSTANZO ZAMMATARO 1954 Santo CUCINOTTA 1948 Francesco DI MARCO 1944 Gesualdo GENNARO 1949 Salvatore GENNARO 1959 Ugo GENOVESE 1931 Maria INFARINATO 1936 Giuseppe LA QUATRA 1944 Antonino LA SPINA 1946 Michelangelo LEANZA 1958 Giovanni LICCIARDI 1946 Carmelo LO PRESTI 1936 Angela LO VECCHIO 1955 Antonino LODATO 1962 Maria Concetta LODATO 1966 Carmelo LOREFICE 1951 Natale MAIMONE 1948 Francesco MANCUSO 1952 Luigi MARE 1964 Francesco MAURO 1920 Nicolò MIANI 1953 Lorenzo MILILLI 1945 Francesco MOLONIA 1934 Corrado PIAZZESE 1959 Giovanni RINZELLI 1947 Domenico SACCONE 1949 Francesco SANTOCONO 1948 Francesco SIMONE 1950 Benito Giuseppe SPATA 1941 Carmelo TARASCIO 1950 Gioacchino TRAINA 1962 Concetto VALVO 1947 Maria Catena VIOLA 1957 Filippo VISCONTI 1956 Alessandro SAVOCA 3. 31665/18 Baglio and Others v. Italy 13/06/2018 Giovanni BAGLIO 1946 Clemente BATTAGLIA 1959 Giovanna BORDIERI 1958 Giuseppe BORDONE BACARELLA 1941 Gioacchino BRUNO 1944 Giovanni BUGLISI 1955 Vincenzo CARLINO 1951 Vincenzo Eugenio CHIRCO 1950 Domenico CICERO 1941 Salvatore CIULLA 1957 Salvatore CRAPISI 1959 Mirco DI GRANDI 1986 Tiziana DI GRANDI 1980 Giuseppe DRAGO 1949 Gaetano FARAONE 1947 Antonino FRANCIAMORE 1950 Isidoro FRENDA 1955 Giacomo GELSOMINO 1947 Maddalena LETO 1938 Calogera LICATA 1943 Davide Antonio Graziano MANIGLIA 1970 Gianni Luca Maria MANIGLIA 1967 Rosalena MILIA 1966 Rosalinda MILIA 1970 Salvatore MILIA 1969 Stefano MILIA 1973 Teresa MILIA 1963 Giovanni PREDILETTO 1948 Giuseppa PREDILETTO 1953 Loredana PREDILETTO 1963 Francesco QUARTANA 1971 Giovanna QUARTANA 1960 Giuseppe QUARTANA 1964 Agata RAINERI 1956 Domenico SCIANNA 1959 Paolo TIRRITO 1951 Elena VITALE 1940 Tommaso VITANZA 1953 Alessandro SAVOCA