CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mai 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } Published on 21 May 2024   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 41473/23 and 42517/23 G.A.M. GRUPPO ALIMENTARE MERIDIONALE S.R.L. against Italy and Rosaria MATTALIANO and Others against Italy lodged on 14 November 2023 and 1 December 2023 respectively communicated on 3 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications mainly concern the fairness of civil proceedings before the Court of Cassation. In application no. 41473/23 the applicant company complains under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention that it was not informed of the hearing before the Court of Cassation as the registry failed to send it a direction scheduling the hearings of the case ( comunicazione della fissazione dell’udienza ). It further complains under the same Article of the Convention that its request for revocation ( revocazione ) pursuant to Articles 391 bis and 395 no. 4) of the Code of Civil Procedure – whereby it sought redress for the alleged unfairness of proceedings – was declared inadmissible for failure to comply with the principle of the autonomy of the appeal on points of law ( autosufficienza del ricorso in cassazione ). In application no. 42517/23 the applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the decision of the Court of Cassation declaring their appeal on points of law inadmissible was arbitrary as it blamed the applicants for not having addressed one of the grounds allegedly relied on by the court of second instance to reject their appeal, whereas in reality the Court of Appeal had not ruled, not even implicitly, on that ground. The applicants sought redress by means of a request for revocation pursuant to Articles   391   bis and 395 no.   4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which the Court of Cassation declared inadmissible. The applicants also invoke Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, complaining that by building a public road on their plot of land the national authorities unlawfully interfered with their property rights. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Concerning both applications: 1.     Did the applicants lodge their complaints under Article   6 §   1 (unfairness of proceedings) within four months from the date of the final decision, as required under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the revocation proceedings instituted by the applicants under Articles   391 bis and 395 no. 4) of the Code of Civil Procedure an effective remedy within the meaning of Article   35 §   1 of the Convention in the specific circumstances of each case? The Government are also requested to provide examples of relevant domestic case-law. 2.     Assuming that the proceedings in question were an effective remedy, did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? 3.     Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to revocation proceedings pursuant to Articles 391 bis and 395 no. 4) of the Code of Civil Procedure (see, mutatis mutandis, Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no.   22251/08, §§   44 ‑ 50, ECHR 2015, and Munteanu v. Romania (dec.), no.   54640/13, 11   February 2020; see also, with specific regard to proceedings under Article   395 no. 4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Cirigliano v.   Italy , no.   31338/96, Commission decision of 10 April 1997, and Pierucci v.   Italy , no.   29140/95, Commission’s report of 10 September 1997)? Concerning application no. 41473/23: 4.     Assuming that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable to revocation proceedings (see question no. 3 above), did the dismissal of the request for revocation by the Court of Cassation on the ground that the applicant company had not complied with the principle of autonomy of the appeal on points of law impose a disproportionate restriction on the applicant company’s right to a court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Succi and Others v.   Italy , nos. 55064/11 and 2 others, §§ 71-85, 28   October 2021)? Was the application of this principle compatible with the Court’s case-law on “excessive formalism” (see, among many others , Zubac v.   Croatia [GC], no.   40160/12, §§ 80-82, 87-89 and 96-99, 5 April 2018, and Succi , cited above, §§ 86-95)? Concerning application no. 42517/23: 5.     Assuming that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable to revocation proceedings (see question no. 3 above), has there been a violation of that Article in view of the reasoning of the Court of Cassation in dismissing the applicants’ request for revocation? 6.     Did the applicants lodge their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention within four months from the date of the final decision, as required under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see question no.   1 above)? 7.     If so, did the applicants have a “possession” for the purposes of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In the affirmative, has there been a violation of that Article in the present case?