CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 mai 2024

.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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sF1F8E4D4 { width:130.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sF314C99F { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sBB8C798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 44249/16 CARLO COLOMBO S.P.A. against Italy (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 30   May 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Péter Paczolay , President ,   Gilberto Felici,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 23   July 2016, 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 applicant company’s reply to this declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant company’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant company was represented by Ms A. Roveda, a lawyer practising in Milan. The applicant company’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, concerning excessive formalism of the decision of the Court of Cassation declaring its appeal on points of law inadmissible, was communicated to the Italian Government (“the Government”). The Government submitted a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by this complaint. They further requested the Court to strike out the application. The Government acknowledged that the dismissal of the applicant company’s appeal on points of law amounted to a violation of Article 6   §   1 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant company 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 applicant company informed the Court that it agreed to the terms of the declaration. THE LAW The Court finds that, following the applicant company’s 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 20 June 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Péter Paczolay   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention (excessive formalism) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of registration Representative’s name and location Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of applicant’s acceptance Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (domestic proceedings) (in euros) Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (Strasbourg proceedings) (in euros) [2] 44249/16 23/07/2016   CARLO COLOMBO S.P.A. 1982 Roveda Angela Milan 29/02/2024 02/04/2024 6,000 The Government undertook not to request the payment of EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) – costs sustained by the respondent public authority (Tax Administration – Agenzia delle entrate ) – and of the amount for additional expenses of proceedings ( ulteriore importo a titolo di contributo unificato ) imposed on the applicant by the order of the Court of Cassation no. no. 1381/2016. If the applicant has already paid these amounts, the Government undertook to reimburse them, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant company. 1,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant company. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant company.