CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 avril 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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 }   349 28.04.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SAVINO AND OTHERS v. ITALY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Savino and Others v. Italy (applications nos. 17214/05, 20329/05 and 42113/04), concerning the issue of whether the Judicial Committee and Judicial Section of the Italian Chamber of Deputies can be classified as a “tribunal”.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants 10,000   euros   (EUR) for costs and expenses and held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. ( The judgment is available only in French. )   1.     Principal facts   Applications nos. 17214/05 and 20329/05 The applicants, Pericle Savino and Attilio Persichetti, are Italian nationals who were born in 1955 and 1948 respectively and live in Civitella San Paolo and Rome.   The applicants, a surveyor and an architect, are employees of the Italian Chamber of Deputies. They applied to their administration for a special project allowance and the first applicant also requested the reimbursement of insurance contributions. The case was brought before the Judicial Committee for officials of the Chamber of Deputies. In decisions of February 2004 the Committee partly upheld the applicants’ claims and granted the first applicant’s specific request. The administration appealed to the Judicial Section of the Bureau of the Chamber of Deputies and requested a stay of execution of the decisions. In decisions of October 2004 the Judicial Section of the Bureau of the Chamber of Deputies, while finding inadmissible the requests for a stay of execution as they were out of time, upheld the administration’s appeals on the merits and set aside the Committee’s decisions.     Application no. 42113/04 The applicants, Andrea Borgo, Davide Carbonara, Andrea Fantoni, Domenico Giordani and Daniela Colasanti, are Italian nationals who were born in 1966, 1976, 1976, 1971 and 1974 respectively and live in Rome.   They were selected and invited to sit a written examination organised by the Chamber of Deputies, but were not included on the shortlist of candidates who passed the written examination. They appealed to the Judicial Committee for officials of the Chamber of Deputies. They complained about the organisation of the examination and the criteria adopted for assessment of the papers. They sought the annulment of the administration’s decision not to include them on the shortlist of candidates invited to the oral examination and, at the same time, a stay of execution of that decision. In decisions of May 2002 the Committee upheld the applicants’ appeals. The administration of the Chamber of Deputies appealed to the Judicial Section of the Bureau of the Chamber of Deputies and also requested a stay of execution of the Committee’s decisions. The Section upheld the administration’s appeals. The applicants appealed to the Court of Cassation, which declared inadmissible their appeal against the decisions of the Chamber of Deputies’ internal judicial bodies.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 17 November 2004, 19 April 2005 and 18 May 2005. A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 2 December 2008.   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 Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   In all three cases the applicants complained that they had not had access to a “tribunal” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the adjudication of their claims. They argued that the Judicial Committee and Judicial Section for officials of the Chamber of Deputies were not tribunals established by law and were not independent and impartial as required by the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Admissibility   The Court observed that the applicants’ claims had indeed concerned “rights” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. It noted that the judicial bodies to which the applicants had appealed had considered their cases on the merits and had not deemed it necessary to dismiss them as being ill-founded. Furthermore, domestic law afforded judicial protection to the applicants, since the Judicial Committee and Judicial Section of the Chamber of Deputies were competent to determine any dispute against the Chamber’s administration and, in the Court’s opinion, performed a judicial function. Nor was there any special bond of trust between the State and the applicants such as to justify excluding them from the rights safeguarded by the Convention. The applications were therefore admissible.   Merits - “tribunal established by law”:   The Court considered that the Judicial Committee and Judicial Section of the Chamber of Deputies satisfied the requirement of having a legal basis in domestic law, since the Chamber’s secondary regulations establishing those bodies derived from its rule-making powers under the Constitution and were designed to preserve the legislature from any outside interference, including by the executive.   Merits - “independent and impartial”:   The Court observed that the Judicial Section (an appellate body whose decisions were final) was entirely made up of members of the Bureau (the Chamber’s competent body for ruling on its main administrative matters). In the present case the administrative decisions complained of had been adopted by the Bureau in accordance with its rule-making powers. That factual situation was sufficient to give rise to doubts as to the objective impartiality of the appellate body. The Court further noted the close connection between the subject of the judicial proceedings before the Section and the decisions taken by the Bureau. There had therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on that account.     ***   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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.