CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 septembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .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 } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 23 September 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 50601/17 Federica PANTALEONI against Italy lodged on 17 July 2017 communicated on 5 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, resulting from the excessive length of civil proceedings, and the effectiveness of the domestic remedies to complain about the related pecuniary damage. Civil proceedings were brought against the applicant for the annulment of a will in her favour and lasted for almost twelve years before finally acknowledging her inheritance rights. While the proceedings were pending, the applicant was unable to dispose of the inherited properties, which suffered significant depreciation, since her counterparts had obtained the judicial transcription of their writ of summons ( trascrizione giudiziale dell’atto di citazione ). In order to seek compensation for the pecuniary damages deriving from the prolonged inability to dispose of the inherited properties the applicant lodged both a claim for damages under Article   96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and an application under Law no.   89 of 24   March   2001, known as the “Pinto Act”. In both cases, her claims for pecuniary damages were dismissed by the domestic courts. The applicant complains under Article   1   of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention of her prolonged inability to dispose of the inherited properties and the lack of an effective remedy to complain about the resulting pecuniary damage. Under Article 6 § 1 she also complains of excessive length of the “Pinto” proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the principles established by the Court in relation to the length of the "Pinto" proceedings ( Gagliano   Giorgi   v.   Italy , no.   23563/07, §§   69-73, ECHR 2012), has there been a violation of Article   6 §   1 on account of the alleged length of those proceedings?   2.     Given the applicant’s inability to dispose of the inherited properties while the proceedings were pending, has there been an interference with her peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article   1   of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? If so, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see   Immobiliare Saffi v.   Italy , [GC], no.   22774/93,   §   59, ECHR   1999-V; Mascolo v. Italy , no.   68792/01, 16   December   2004; Machard c.   France , no.   42928/02, 25   April   2006; and Kunić v.   Croatia , no.   22344/02, 11   January   2007)?   In particular, can it be established that there was a causal link between the alleged pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant due to the interference and the length of the civil proceedings (see   Mascolo v.   Italy (dec.), no.   68792/01, 16   October   2003; Provvedi v.   Italy   (dec.), no.   66644/01, 2   December 2004; and Coggiola   and   Alba   v.   Italy   (dec.), no.   28513/02, 24   February 2005)?   3.     Did the applicant have an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   In answering this question, the parties are invited to take into account whether and under what conditions compensation for such pecuniary damage could be awarded: (i) under the “Pinto” remedy; and (ii) under Article 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.