CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 novembre 2025

.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 } .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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s459D9084 { width:131.09pt; 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 } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sCA408D5C { width:22.58%; 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 } .s47ADB2C3 { width:23.3%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD2FFCD1 { width:27.68%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6269A8DB { width:26.42%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7A673FBE { width:22.58%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32844CDE { width:23.3%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s70D9AB7B { width:27.68%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s10924062 { width:26.42%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 32993/24 Rita BARONE and Ignazio BARONE against Italy (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 20   November 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Frédéric Krenc , President ,   Davor Derenčinović,   Alain Chablais , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 26   October 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants were represented by Mr F. Di Salvo, a lawyer practising in Florence. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of “Pinto” domestic decisions were communicated to the Italian Government (“the Government”) On 9   September 2025 the applicants informed the Registry that they wanted to withdraw the application to the Court since they were satisfied with the outcome in D’Alba and Others v. Italy (Committee), no.   58442/09, 19   September 2024, where, however, they were not listed among the heirs of the deceased original applicant. Accordingly, they made it clear that they did not intend to pursue the present application, either on the merits or in relation to any financial claims, to avoid any duplication in the award of damages. THE LAW In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue the application (Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention). Furthermore, in accordance with Article   37   §   1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto which require the continued examination of the application. Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 11 December 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Frédéric Krenc   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of Pinto domestic decisions) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Date of the applicant’s last letter to the Court   32993/24   26/10/2009 Rita BARONE 1978   Ignazio BARONE 1957 Federico Di Salvo   Florence 09/09/2025