CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 31 mars 2009

.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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   269 31.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SIMALDONE v. ITALY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Simaldone v. Italy (application no. 22644/03) concerning the length of proceedings before the administrative courts and the delay in payment of compensation awarded under the Pinto Act [2] for the excessive length of those proceedings.   The Court held unanimously that there had been:   a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the excessive length of the main proceedings; a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the delay by the national authorities in complying with the decision issued under the Pinto Act; and, no violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) with regard to the effectiveness of the remedy provided for in the Pinto Act.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 3,950   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in French .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Francesco Simaldone, is an Italian national who was born in 1929 and lives in Benevento (Italy).   On 6 October 1992 he brought proceedings before the Campania Regional Administrative Court against his employer, the local public health service “Unità Sanitaria Locale” (“the USL”), seeking reimbursement of the cost of his daily meals. Those proceedings were still pending in January 2003.   On 17 April 2002 the applicant applied to the Rome Court of Appeal under the Pinto Act, complaining about the length of the proceedings. By a decision of 27 January 2003, the text of which was filed with the registry on 26 March 2003, the court of appeal found that a reasonable time had been exceeded and awarded Mr Simaldone EUR   700 on an equitable basis in compensation for the non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   1,000 to his lawyer for costs and expenses.   The amount awarded in execution of the “Pinto decision” was paid on 6 April 2004.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 July 2003 and declared and communicated to the Government on 20 November 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and also Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13, Mr   Simaldone complained about the length of the main proceedings and alleged that the compensation awarded under the Pinto Act for this delay had been insufficient; he also complained about the time taken by the domestic authorities to comply with the court of appeal’s decision under the Pinto Act, and of the ineffectiveness of the remedy provided for in the Pinto Act.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1   Concerning the main proceedings   The Court noted that the proceedings brought by the applicant on 6 October 1992 had lasted more than ten years and three months for one level of jurisdiction, and considered that the amount awarded in compensation for this excessive length of proceedings had been insufficient, especially given that it was paid belatedly at the close of Pinto proceedings that had lasted 11 months.   Article 6 § 1 and Protocol No. 1   Concerning payment of the “Pinto” compensation   The Court reiterated that a compensatory remedy designed to redress the consequences of excessively lengthy proceedings should not generally exceed six months from the date on which the decision awarding compensation became enforceable. It noted that the sum awarded to Mr Simaldone had been paid 12 months after the court of appeal’s decision under the Pinto Act had been filed with its registry, and did not accept the Government’s arguments concerning the calculation of the time-limit.   The Court concluded that, by failing for 12 months to take the necessary measures to comply with the court of appeal’s Pinto decision, the Italian authorities had deprived the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of all useful effect, and held that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1.   The Court also considered that the delay in question had amounted to an unjustified interference by the authorities with Mr Simaldone’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. It noted that the applicant, after bringing proceedings for compensation, had been subjected to additional frustration resulting from the difficulty in obtaining payment of that compensation. The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Article 13   The Court considered that where a State had made a significant move by introducing a compensatory remedy, the Court had to leave a wider margin of appreciation to the State to allow it to organise the remedy in question.   The Court emphasised, however, that in eight Grand Chamber judgments delivered in March 2006 it had found that the sums awarded by courts of appeal under the Pinto Act had been paid belatedly or not at all, and that, since 29 March 2006, it had delivered more than 50 judgments against Italy finding a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of delays in the payment of compensation under the Pinto Act.   The Court also observed that since September 2007 a very high number of new applications had been lodged against Italy (about 500 had recently been communicated), solely concerning delays in the payment of Pinto compensation, which indicated the existence of a problem in the functioning of this remedy.   Nonetheless, the Court noted that between 2005 and 2007 about 16,000 decisions had been delivered by the national courts of appeal with jurisdiction under the Pinto Act, and considered that, for the moment, the remedy provided under the Pinto Act was not structurally ineffective. It concluded that there had been no violation of Article 13.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, 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] A law adopted in 2001 which introduced the possibility of lodging a complaint with the Italian courts in respect of excessively long proceedings, within the meaning of the European Convention. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.