CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 29 juin 2005

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   357 29.6.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING RICCARDI PIZZATI AND SEVEN OTHER CASES v. ITALY   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today Wednesday 29 June 2005 at 2.30 p.m., in the cases of Riccardi Pizzati v. Italy (application no.   62361/00), Musci v. Italy (no. 64699/01), Giuseppe Mostacciuolo v. Italy (no. 1 and no. 2) (nos.   64705/01 and 65102/01), Cocchiarella v. Italy (no. 64886/01), Apicella v. Italy (no.   64890/01), Ernestina Zullo v. Italy (no. 64897/01), and Guiseppina and Orestina Procaccini v. Italy (no. 65075/01).   The applicants   Gina Riccardi Pizzati, Francesco Musci, Guiseppe Mostacciuolo, Giovanni Cocchiarella, Angelina Apicella, Ernestina Zullo and Guiseppina and Orestina Procaccini are all Italian nationals living in Italy.   Summary of the facts   Under Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001 (the “Pinto Act”), they applied to the Italian courts for a ruling that the length of proceedings to which they had been parties for years in the domestic courts had been excessive, and for compensation for the damage sustained in consequence.   In each of the cases, 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.   Complaint   The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights of the excessive length of the proceedings to which they had been parties.   Procedure   The applications were lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 29   October 1998, 22 December 1997, 4 September 1998, 4 March 1998, 25 February 1998, 19 November 1997, 10 February 1998 and 2 April 1998 respectively. On 20 November 2003, the Court declared the second application admissible. The other seven cases were declared admissible on 22 January 2004.   In Chamber judgments of 10 November 2004 the Court held unanimously in each case that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It set out criteria for the calculation of compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the excessive length of proceedings and indicated the circumstances that might lead to an increase or decrease in the amount awarded. The cases were referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request [1] .   Third party observations were submitted in writing by the Polish, Czech and Slovak Governments.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Nicolas Bratza (British), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss) [2] , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian) Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , Luigi Ferrari Bravo (Italian) , ad hoc judge , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), substitute judges , and also Lawrence Early , Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Nicola Lettieri , Co-agent ;   Applicant :   Sebastiano de Nigris de Maria , Togo Verrilli , Cosimo Marcellino , Antonio Nardone , Vincenzo Collarile, Carmela Cavuoto , Counsel .   One of the applicants, Giuseppina Procaccini, will also attend the hearing.   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private.   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. [2] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein.