CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 mai 1999

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 6 May 1999 Arbore v. Italy (dec.) - 41840/98 Decision 25.5.1999 [Section IV] Article 35 Article 35-1 Six-month period Date of the final domestic decision: inadmissible In April 1962, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Court of Audit, seeking to have a decision refusing him a pension quashed. In January 1970, the case-file was transferred to the Minister of Finance, who ruled that the applicant was not entitled to a war invalid’s pension. In June 1971, he lodged a second appeal with the Court of Audit, seeking to have that ruling quashed. In 1989 Principal State Counsel filed final submissions in both cases and asked for them to be joined. In March 1992, the Court of Audit gave a judgment in which it found partly for the applicant, severed the second case and transferred it to the Division dealing with war pensions. The applicant maintains that he did not know of this judgment until November 1997 since the court registry apparently failed to inform him of the date it was deposited (August 1992). In January 1993, the Division sent the applicant a copy of the operative provisions of that judgment. Proceedings in the Court of Audit are governed by the ordinary rules of civil procedure, including the rule on res judicata . Since the whole judgment had not been served on the applicant, the issues decided in it became res judicata one year and 45 days after it had been deposited with the registry, namely in September 1993. The second case is still pending in the Division which deals with war pensions. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: the proceedings which commenced in April 1962. The two sets of proceedings were joined in 1989 then severed by a judgment of 1992, the second being transferred to a special court. The two sets are therefore distinct. As to the first, the Court of Audit judgment was deposited with the registry in August 1992 and its ruling become res judicata in September 1993 – that is, more than 6 months before application lodged: out of time. Admissible under Article 6 § 1: the proceedings which commenced in June 1971 and which were still pending on 15 January 1999 (25 years and 5 months).   © 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