CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 novembre 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sA5CE4CD6 { height:14pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s816FE78A { height:14.8pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   562 10.11.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Italy   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following ten Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1] (These judgments are available only in French, with the exception of Cocchiarella v. Italy , Ernestina Zullo v. Italy and Ricardo Pizzati v. Italy , which are also available in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Apicella v. Italy (no. 64890/01) Carletti and Bonetti v. Italy (no. 62457/00) Cocchiarella v. Italy (no. 64886/01) Ernestina Zullo v. Italy (no. 64897/01) Finazzi v. Italy (no. 62152/00) Giuseppe Mostacciuolo v. Italy (no. 1) (no. 64705/01) Giuseppe Mostacciuolo v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 65102/01) Guiseppina and Orestina Procaccini v. Italy (no. 65075/01) Musci v. Italy (no. 64699/01) Riccardi Pizzati v. Italy (no. 62361/00)   The applicants in these ten cases are Italian nationals living in Italy who were born between 1923 and 1963.   The applicants sought reparation in the Italian courts under the “Pinto Act” (Law no.   89 of 24   March   2001) for losses they had sustained as a result of inordinate delays in proceedings to which they had been parties in the domestic courts.   In each case, the Italian courts found that the length of the proceedings had been unreasonable and awarded the applicants compensation ranging from 1,000 euros (EUR) to EUR 5,000.   The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the length of the proceedings to which they had been parties.   The Court observed that in its admissibility decisions in each of these cases it had found that the sums awarded to the applicants by the Italian courts for non-pecuniary damage under the Pinto Act did not constitute proper and adequate reparation for the alleged violations.   It noted that the length of the proceedings had ranged from seven years and six months for two levels of jurisdiction in the shortest case to more than twenty-six years and six months for one level of jurisdiction in the longest. It found that those periods exceeded a “reasonable time” for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 and held unanimously that there had been a violation of the Convention on that account in each of the cases.   With regards to just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention, the Court set out the criteria to be used to calculate compensation for non-pecuniary damage in length of proceedings cases and indicated the circumstances that might lead to an increase or decrease in the amount of the award.   Applying those criteria, the Court awarded the following sums in euros for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.   Name of case and length proceedings Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Apicella v. Italy + 12 years 2 months for 2 levels of jurisdiction 7,300 1,500 Carletti and Bonetti v. Italy + 7 years 6 months for 2 levels of jurisdiction - - Cocchiarella v. Italy 8 years 8 months for 2 levels of jurisdiction 4,600 2,000 Ernestina Zullo v. Italy + 9 years 3 months for 2 levels of jurisdiction      5,164.57 1,500 Finazzi v. Italy + 12 years 7 months for 1 level of jurisdiction - - Giuseppe Mostacciuolo v. Italy (no. 1) 15 years 6 months for 1 level of jurisdiction 10,900    200 Giuseppe Mostacciuolo v. Italy (no. 2) 14 years 8 months for 1 level of jurisdiction 13,400 1,300 Guiseppina and Orestina Procaccini v. Italy   13 years for 1 level of jurisdiction 5,875   750 Musci v. Italy + 18 years 1 month for 2 levels of jurisdiction 8,400 2,000 Riccardi Pizzati v. Italy + 26 years 6 months for 1 level of jurisdiction 20,200 -   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.