CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 juin 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 }   453 09.06.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SILVESTRI v. ITALY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Silvestri v. Italy (application no. 16861/02) concerning the non-enforcement of a judgment delivered in favour of the applicant, who was transferred from his job as governor of Empoli Women’s Prison (Italy).   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 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 13,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   13,500 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in French .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Nicola Silvestri, is an Italian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Casalguidi (Italy). He has been an employee of the prison service management staff since 1977.   In September 1996 Mr Silvestri was appointed governor of Empoli Women’s Prison, which is a prison for drug addicts. By a decision of 21 March 1997, the Director-General of the Prison Administration Department decided to transfer him to the Regional Inspectorate ( Provveditorato regionale ) of Tuscany, in Florence, on grounds of a “workplace” incompatibility. The applicant had allegedly had relational difficulties both with his direct colleagues and with outside operators.   Mr Silvestri challenged the decision in the Tuscany Regional Administrative Court. In a judgment of 29 October 1997, the court found in his favour and set the decision aside for failure to hear submissions from both sides. The court noted, in particular, that the applicant had not been informed of the procedure arranging his transfer until 20   March 1997, that is, one day before the decision was issued. The prison service did not appeal and the judgment became final.   Subsequently, the applicant was first transferred to another prison and then reassigned to Empoli Prison, but on a lower grade than the one he had previously held. He made two attempts to be reinstated in his former post of governor at Empoli Prison, in accordance with the judgment given in his favour, but these were unsuccessful despite the favourable outcome of various sets of enforcement proceedings he had instituted.   In the meantime, on 10 April 2002, the prison service terminated the applicant’s employment contract and established that he was entitled to compensation of four months’ salary. Mr   Silvestri tried unsuccessfully to obtain payment of this amount.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 March 2002 and declared admissible on 25 September 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 Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article   6   §   1, Mr Silvestri complained of the prison service’s refusal to enforce the judgment of 29 October 1997 and reinstate him in his former post. He also complained, under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, of his inability to obtain his severance pay.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1   The Court reiterated that, according to its case-law, the obligation to enforce a court judgment was not limited to the operative provisions of the judgment in question. The substance of the judgment also had to be observed and applied. By lodging an application for judicial review with the State’s administrative court the litigant sought not only annulment of the impugned act or omission, but also and above all the removal of its effects.   Whilst the Court acknowledged that there might be circumstances justifying failure to order specific performance of an obligation imposed by a final court decision, it noted that the Italian courts had referred neither to factual circumstances precluding enforcement nor legal obstacles to enforcement of the judgment in question. Consequently, the authorities’ failure to comply with the judgment of the Administrative Court had breached the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection, contrary to Article 6 § 1.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The Court held that in the circumstances of the case, by refusing to pay the applicant the amount due to him, the relevant authorities had interfered with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. There had been no valid justification for that interference. It had accordingly been arbitrary and amounted to a violation of the principle of lawfulness. Consequently, there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1.     ***   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.