CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 juin 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 120 June 2009 Daddi v. Italy (dec.) - 15476/09 Decision 2.6.2009 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Effectiveness of Pinto remedy for length of administrative proceedings where no application for expedited hearing was made: inadmissible   Article 13 Effective remedy Effectiveness of Pinto remedy for length of administrative proceedings where no application for expedited hearing was made: inadmissible   Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Effectiveness of Pinto remedy for length of administrative proceedings where no application for expedited hearing was made: inadmissible   In 1994 the applicant asked the regional administrative court to set aside a number of planning decisions. On the same day she asked for a date to be set for the case to be heard. In 2006 she again asked for a date to be set for a hearing. The hearing was held in 2007 and the court gave a decision in the applicant’s favour. As the decision had not been served beforehand, it became final in October 2008, the applicant having decided not to appeal. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings before the regional administrative court had been excessive and that the “Pinto” remedy was ineffective on account of the entry into force of the second paragraph of Article 54 of Legislative Decree no. 112/2008. In the applicant’s view, that article covered “Pinto” applications concerning the length of main proceedings which had taken place, wholly or in part, before the entry into force of the aforementioned legislative decree. Consequently, as she had not made an urgent request for a hearing during the main proceedings, the applicant maintained that, even if she had made an application under the “Pinto” procedure, it would have been declared inadmissible. Inadmissible : The Court had already found that applications to the courts of appeal under the Pinto Act were an accessible remedy, and that there was no cause for the time being to doubt the effectiveness of that remedy. The question in the present case was whether the second paragraph of Article 54 of Legislative Decree no. 112/2008 cast doubt on that finding in relation to cases concerning the length of administrative proceedings where no urgent request for a hearing had been made before the entry into force of the legislative decree. An obligation to make such a request could not be said to exist in domestic law until 25 June 2008, the date of entry into force of Legislative Decree no. 112/2008, and then only with a view to complaining at a later stage, by means of an application under the “Pinto” procedure, of the unreasonable length of the proceedings. Accordingly, a practice of interpreting and applying the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Legislative Decree in such a way as to make applications under the “Pinto” procedure concerning the length of administrative proceedings which had ended before 25 June 2008 inadmissible solely because no urgent request for a hearing had been made might indeed give cause to absolve applicants in that position from the obligation to make use of the “Pinto” procedure. The same would apply to proceedings still pending in which an urgent request for a hearing had not been made until after the entry into force of the provision in question. However, the Court considered that mere doubt about the prospects of success of a particular remedy which was not quite evidently bound to fail did not constitute a valid reason to justify a decision not to avail oneself of it. Moreover, the applicant had not provided any example of a domestic decision to the effect she had relied on in her submissions. In the light of the foregoing, the applicant ought to have applied to the competent court of appeal by virtue of the Pinto Act: failure to exhaust domestic remedies .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes