CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 janvier 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 60 January 2004 Finazzi v. Italy (dec.) - 62152/00 Decision 22.1.2004 [Section I] Article 34 Victim Applicant complaining of the insufficiency of compensation awarded under the Pinto law: admissible Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Insufficiency of compensation awarded under the Pinto law: admissible Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Applicant complaining about the amount of compensation awarded under the Pinto law not having lodged an appeal to the Court of Cassation: admissible The application concerns the length of civil proceedings which lasted slightly more than twelve years and seven months. Following the entry into force of the Pinto Act, the Government objected that domestic remedies had not been exhausted. The applicant applied to the appropriate Court of Appeal under the Pinto Act. The Court of Appeal held that the length of the proceedings had been unreasonable and awarded the applicant   1,500 euros for non-pecuniary damage. The applicant did not appeal to the Court of Cassation. He complained before the Court that the amount he had been awarded for non-pecuniary damage was not sufficient to make good the damage resulting from the violation of Article 6. Admissible under Article 6 § 1: Where an applicant’s complaints related solely to the amount of compensation awarded under the Pinto Act, the applicant was not required to appeal to the Court of Cassation against the Court of Appeal’s decision for the purpose of exhausting domestic remedies, and could still claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention in that, although the Court of Appeal had acknowledged that the length of the proceedings had been excessive, the amount awarded could not be considered sufficient to make good the alleged damage and breach.   © 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