CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 juin 2007

.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 } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .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. 98 June 2007 Delle Cave and Corrado v. Italy - 14626/03 Judgment 5.6.2007 [Section II] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Delays in payment of compensation awarded by the domestic court in a length-of-proceedings case: objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies (execution proceedings) dismissed   Article 13 Effective remedy Low level of compensation award by the domestic court in a length-of-proceedings case: no violation   Article 34 Victim Low level of compensation award by the domestic court in a length-of-proceedings case: victim status upheld   Facts : The applicants sued their insurance company to obtain compensation for the injuries sustained by their child in a road accident. The court delivered its judgment eight years later. Relying on the Pinto Act, they applied for compensation for the fact that the proceedings had taken so long. The Court of Appeal found in their favour. It rejected the claim of pecuniary damage for lack of evidence and awarded each applicant EUR 1,032.92 on an equitable basis in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus EUR 620   for costs and expenses. The applicants did not appeal on points of law. They did begin enforcement proceedings.The compensation was paid three years after the Court of Appeal's decision became final. Law : Article   35 § 1 – Appealing on points of law had not been one of the remedies that needed to be exhausted in this case as the Strasbourg Court had considered it “effective” after the time during which the applicants could appeal to the Court of Cassation had expired. The sums awarded to the applicants by the Court of Appeal under the Pinto Act – to compensate for the excessive length of the proceedings – should have been paid within six months of the time when the compensation decision became enforceable, without the applicants having to bring execution proceedings. Instead, they had been paid belatedly, and only after enforcement proceedings. That being so, their payment had not remedied the authorities' prolonged refusal to comply with the Court of Appeal's decision. The preliminary objections for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies were rejected. Article   34 – The Court of Appeal had found, in “Pinto” proceedings which had lasted only five months, that the applicants' case had taken longer than a reasonable time, but the sum it had awarded them in respect of non-pecuniary damage was only   about 10   % of that generally awarded by the Court in similar Italian cases. The applicants could still, therefore, claim to be “victims”. Article   6 § 1 (reasonable time) – The proceedings had lasted eight years and five months, and the compensation awarded by the domestic court based on the Pinto Act, considering the sum awarded and its belated payment, was insufficient. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   13 – The mere fact that the amount of the compensation awarded under the “Pinto” Act was not large was not in itself a sufficient ground to dispute the   effectiveness of the remedy concerned. Conclusion : non-violation (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR 3,600 to each applicant and EUR 3,800 in respect of the additional frustration caused by the belated payment by the Italian authorities of the EUR 1,032.92. See also the judgment Cocchiarella v . Italy [GC], n o 64886/01, 29 March 2006, Information Note no.   85.   © 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