CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 juin 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 } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s68D1564D { width:34.89pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; 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 } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7BE5FA79 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 16450/18 Oscar LOJODICE against Italy and 3 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 25   June   2024 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková , 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 Mr Oscar Lojodice (“the applicant”), who was born in 1955 and lives in Bari, on the various dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice of the applications 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 Facts of the case 1.     The applicant is a lawyer who represented several plaintiffs in proceedings against the National Social Security Agency ( Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale – “the INPS”) and declared that he advanced legal fees in respect of his clients ( avvocato antistatario ). With the decisions listed in the appended table, the domestic courts awarded legal fees directly to him. 2.     In order to enforce the judicial decisions given in his favour, the applicant instituted separate sets of enforcement proceedings which, according to the information available in the case file, are still pending. 3.     As further follows from the documents and information provided by the Government, within the framework of the different sets of enforcement proceedings brought by the applicant, the INPS objected that the applicant’s requests for enforcement were to be considered inadmissible because of the existence of a garnishee order for tax debts, issued by the entity entrusted with tax collection ( concessionario della riscossione ) under Article 72 bis of Decree no. 602/73 ( pignoramento dei crediti verso i terzi ) on all the applicant’s present and future credits towards the INPS. In particular, in   2010 the entity entrusted with tax collection issued a garnishee order for an amount of approximately 3,500,000 euros (EUR), equivalent to the applicant’s alleged tax debt. In 2013, the garnishee order was in part declared null and void but remained in force for a reduced amount of approximately EUR   177,000. 4.     With regard to application no. 8550/22, following the INPS’s objection to the existence of the garnishee order, on 10 May 2016 the enforcement judge suspended the enforcement proceedings brought by the applicant, setting a time-limit for the introduction of the proceedings on the merits in order to ascertain the INPS’s objection. 5.     With regard to applications nos. 16450/18, 18879/18 and 18883/18, it appears from the material in the case file that the different sets of enforcement proceedings brought by the applicant were interrupted several times for procedural reasons. Once the applicant resumed them, the enforcement judge did not expressly decide on the INPS’s request for suspension but set the time ‑ limit for the introduction of proceedings on the merits. 6.     In all the cases at hand, the applicant subsequently instituted sets of proceedings on the merits in order to assess the INPS’s objection.   It appears from the material in the case file that these proceedings, as well as the different proceedings also brought by the applicant in order to challenge the garnishee order, are still pending. 7.     In respect of applications nos. 16450/18 and 18879/18, the Government also submitted that the INPS had already paid part of the legal fees awarded to the applicant in relation to the decisions in issue. 8.     Furthermore, the Government provided copies of judgments delivered in similar proceedings in which the applicant was ordered to pay legal fees to the INPS, as well as judgments overturning previous domestic decisions in favour of the applicant and ordering him to reimburse to the INPS the legal fees it had already paid him. As a result of such judgments, the applicant appears to owe the INPS a total amount of more than EUR   300,000. Relevant domestic law 9.     Under Article 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a debtor raises issues concerning the judicial decision to be enforced, the enforcement judge may suspend the enforcement proceedings. In any case, the enforcement judge sets a peremptory time-limit for the introduction of proceedings on the merits. Such proceedings shall be brought, within the time-limit indicated by the enforcement judge, by the interested party. 10.     Presidential Decree no. 602 of 29 September 1973 (Decree no.   602/1973) includes the following provisions on garnishee orders against third parties ( pignoramento presso terzi ): Article 72 bis Garnishee order against third parties “1. ... the garnishee order on the debtor’s claims against third parties may contain, instead of the summons pursuant to Article 543, second paragraph, number 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure, an order to the third party to pay the relevant amount directly to the entity entrusted with tax collection ( concessionario della riscossione ), up to the amount of the credit in respect of which the proceedings are being conducted: (a) within a period of sixty days from service of the garnishee order, for sums in respect of which the right to obtain the payment accrued prior to the date of such notification; (b) on the respective deadlines, for the remaining sums. 1- bis . The order referred to in paragraph 1 may also be drawn up by employees of the collection agency who are not authorised to perform the functions of collection officer ... 2. In the event of non-compliance with the order to pay, the provisions of Article 72, paragraph 2 shall apply.” 11.     Article 72, paragraph 2, of Decree no. 602/1973, reads as follows: “In the event of non-compliance with the order to pay, proceedings are taken after summoning the third party and the debtor, according to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.” 12.     The Court of Cassation has clarified that garnishee orders provided for by Article 72 bis of Decree no. 602/1973 are issued following a simplified extra-judicial procedure, subject to judicial review only in case of opposition of the person concerned before the competent Tax Court (see ex multis Court of Cassation, judgments nos. 32203 of 2019 and 26830 of 2017). Complaints 13.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention of the non-enforcement of the domestic decisions, listed in the appended table, awarding him legal fees. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 14.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 15.     The Government submitted, inter alia , that the applicant   had abused the right of individual application by omitting to inform the Court of elements in his possession that were essential for the examination of the applications. In particular, at the time of lodging the applications, between March 2018 and January 2022, the applicant had been aware both of the garnishee order for tax debts concerning all his present and future credits towards the INPS – which in one of the cases at hand also gave reason for the suspension of the enforcement proceedings brought before the domestic courts – and, at least in part, of the debts he owed the INPS as a result of other judgments issued in similar proceedings. 16.     The applicant generically submitted that in his applications he had provided information which he had deemed relevant for the legal analysis of the complaints. 17.     The Court notes that relevant principles applicable to the abuse of a right of individual application have been summarised in the Court’s judgments Zhdanov and Others v. Russia , nos. 12200/08 and 2 others, 16   July 2019, and Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, ECHR 2014. 18.     Having regard to the documents and information submitted by the Government and their content, the Court considers that they concern the very core of the case. 19.     In particular, the Court notes that the applicant did not provide any explanation for his failure to mention in his applications and in subsequent communications with the Court the fact that the INPS had already paid part of the legal fees awarded to him with regard to two of the applications at issue, as well as the garnishee order on all his present and future credits towards the INPS and the judgments in the INPS’s favour, of the existence of which he had been notified. 20.     The Court observes in this regard that such elements concerned the essence of the case and could not be ignored when assessing whether the non-enforcement was caused by a delay attributable to the respondent State itself, or whether the existence of a garnishee order and of higher INPS credits could have made it objectively impossible for the respondent State to honour its obligation to enforce the judicial decisions in the applicant’s favour. 21.     The Court thus finds that by omitting to disclose the information in question, the applicant failed to inform the Court at the outset of factors essential for the examination of the case, thereby preventing it from ruling on the case in full knowledge of the facts (see   Gross , cited above, §   28; Gevorgyan and Other s v. Armenia (dec.), no. 66535/10, § 33, 14   January 2020; and Safaryan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 16346/10, § 24, 14   January   2020). 22.     Accordingly, it is appropriate to reject the applications as an abuse of the right of individual application, pursuant to 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 29 August 2024.     Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of cases: No. Application no. Date of introduction Relevant domestic decisions 1. 16450/18 30/03/2018 Bari District Court R.G. 8100/1998, 16/11/2005   Bari Court of Appeal R.G. 189/2005, 26/01/2012   2. 18879/18 09/04/2018 Bari Court of Appeal R.G. 4214/02, 20/05/2008 (quashed on 14/01/2010)   Bari Court of Appeal R.G. 8117/10, 04/07/2013   3. 18883/18 09/04/2018 Trani District Court R.G. 904/A/02, 26/10/2005 (quashed on 26/03/2010)   Bari Court of Appeal R.G. 4469/10, 01/12/2014   4. 8550/22 25/01/2022 Trani District Court R.G. 1123/05, 06/05/2008   as modified by Bari Court of Appeal R.G. 4295/08, 17/01/2011