CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 14 novembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .sA10C00D6 { width:14.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s82A83336 { width:116.76pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s935FFEBF { width:7.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sDCEB1D12 { width:138.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .sEC2C3242 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s6CDC6B81 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }         FIRST SECTION CASE OF VOTTA RONZA v. ITALY (Application no. 38083/10)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 14 November 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Votta Ronza v. Italy, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Krzysztof Wojtyczek , President ,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Erik Wennerström , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 17 October 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application against Italy lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 7 July 2010. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr G. Romano, a lawyer practising in Rome. 3.     The Italian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.     The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5.     The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision. She also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW         ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicant complained principally of the non-enforcement of the domestic decision given in her favour. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 7.     The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article   6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v.   Greece , no.   18357/91, §   40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ II). 8.     In the leading cases of Ventorino v. Italy, no. 357/07, 17 May 2011, De Trana v. Italy, no. 64215/01, 16 October 2007, Nicola Silvestri v.   Italy, no.   16861/02, 9 June 2009, Antonetto v. Italy, no. 15918/89, 20 July 2000 and De Luca v. Italy, no. 43870/04, 24 September 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decision in the applicant’s favour. 10.     This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention.       OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     The applicant also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the same final domestic judgment, which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in the above cited case of Ventorino .     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     The applicant considers the enforcement of the domestic decision referred to in the appended table as adequate just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award any sum on that account. 13.     Therefore, the Court notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the decision which remains enforceable. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of the domestic decision; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 Protocol No. 1 as regards the other complaint raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decision referred to in the appended table. Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 November 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Krzysztof Wojtyczek   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)   Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Relevant domestic decision Start date of non ‑ enforcement period End date of non ‑ enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings Domestic court order Case-law Other complaints under well-established case-law 38083/10 07/07/2010 Anna VOTTA RONZA 1957   Campania Regional Administrative Court,   R.G. 5620/2012, 28/12/2013   28/12/2013   Pending   More than 10 years and 7 months and 16 days   Consorzio AS.CO.S.A. - Associazione Costruttori S. Antimo   Payment of compensation for the unlawful occupation of the applicant’s land in view of its expropriation.   Arnaboldi v. Italy,   no.   43422/07, 14 March 2019   Prot. 1 Art. 1 - lack of or delayed payment of a debt by State authorities