CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 juillet 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s500FE7C1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-align:justify } .sFF32AF6B { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:justify } .s57D3DF84 { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:justify } .s89B1A738 { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-align:justify } .sC85F7863 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s19E53254 { width:2.39pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   550   20.7.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF PELLEGRINI v. ITALY   The European Court of Human Rights today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Pellegrini v. Italy (no. 30882/96). (The judgment is only available in French).   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, in that the Italian courts had failed to ensure that the applicant had had a fair hearing in the ecclesiastical proceedings before issuing an authority to enforce a judgment of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court unanimously awarded the applicant 10,000,000 Italian lire (ITL) for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 18,253,940 for legal costs and expenses.   1.     Principal facts The applicant married Mr Gigliozzi in 1962 in a religious ceremony that was valid under civil law. In 1987 she petitioned for a judicial separation in the Rome Court of First Instance. The proceedings ended with a judgment of 2 October 1990, in which the court of first instance ordered the applicant’s former husband to pay her monthly maintenance instalments. Meanwhile, on 20 November 1987 the applicant was summoned to appear before the Latium Regional Ecclesiastical Court in the Vicariate of Rome “to give evidence in the matrimonial case of Gigliozzi-Pellegrini”. She attended the Court on the appointed day and was informed that her husband had petitioned for a decree that the marriage was a nullity on the ground that they were too closely related. On examination by the judge, she admitted that she was a close relative of her husband but was unable to say whether she had obtained a special licence at the time of the marriage. On 12 December 1987 the applicant received notice from the registry of the ecclesiastical court informing her that a decree of nullity had been issued in expedited proceedings on 6 November 1987 on the ground that she and her husband were too closely related. She appealed against the judgment of the ecclesiastical court to the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, her main ground of appeal being breaches of her defence rights and of the adversarial principle in that she had been summoned to appear before the ecclesiastical court without first being informed of the nullity petition or of the grounds on which it had been made. Moreover, she had not been assisted by a lawyer. In a judgment of 13 April 1988, which was lodged with the registry on 10 May 1988, the Tribunal of the Roman Rota upheld the decree that the marriage was a nullity because the spouses were close relatives. The applicant’s request for a complete copy of the judgment was refused and she received only the operative provisions.   In September 1989 the applicant’s former husband served a summons on her to appear before the Florence Court of Appeal on an application to obtain an authority to enforce the judgment of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota. The applicant entered an appearance in the proceedings and sought an order quashing that judgment on the ground that her defence rights had been infringed. She pointed out that she had neither received a copy of the nullity petition nor had sight of the procedural documents.   On 8 November 1991 the Florence Court of Appeal issued an authority to enforce the judgment. It held that the fact that the applicant had been questioned on 1 December 1987   sufficed to guarantee compliance with the adversarial principle and that she had chosen to bring the proceedings before the Tribunal of the Rota of her own free will and had been able to exercise her defence rights before that court “independently of the special aspects of canon-law procedure”. The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation, again on the ground that her defence rights had been infringed in the proceedings before the ecclesiastical courts in that she had not been given detailed information about the nullity petition or of her right to assistance by counsel. She also alleged that the court of appeal appeared to have omitted to examine the case file in the proceedings before the ecclesiastical courts and that it might have provided evidence to support her case. Furthermore, her application to the registry of the ecclesiastical court for a copy of the documents in the nullity-proceedings file, which she wished to lodge with the Court of Cassation, had been turned down.   On 10 March 1995 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal, holding that the adversarial principle had been observed in the proceedings before the ecclesiastical courts. It added that there was authority to the effect that while the assistance of a lawyer was not mandatory under canon law, neither was it prohibited; accordingly the applicant could have sought legal assistance. The Court of Cassation did not comment on the failure to produce the case file in the ecclesiastical proceedings.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was brought before the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998 and declared admissible on 28 June 2000.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Benedetto Conforti (Italian), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonia), Egils Levits (Latvian), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), judges ,   and also Erik Fribergh , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in that the Italian courts had granted an authority to enforce a decree of nullity of marriage issued by the ecclesiastical courts in proceedings in which her defence rights had been infringed.   Decision of the Court   The Court noted firstly that the decree of nullity of marriage had been issued by the courts of the Vatican, and had been made enforceable by an authority granted by the Italian courts. As the Vatican had not ratified the Convention and the application was against Italy, the Court’s task was not to examine whether the ecclesiastical proceedings satisfied Article 6 of the Convention, but to consider whether the Italian courts had duly verified whether the Article 6 guarantees had been secured in the proceedings concerned before granting the authority to enforce the decree. The Court explained that such a review was necessary when the decision in respect of which an authority to enforce was sought emanated from the courts of a country that did not apply the Convention, especially where a matter of capital importance to the parties was at stake in the application for the authority.   The Court examined the reasons given by the Florence Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation for dismissing the applicant’s complaints about the ecclesiastical proceedings. It noted that the Italian courts did not appear to have attached any importance to the fact that the applicant had been denied an opportunity to see the evidence relied on by her former husband and by the – alleged – witnesses. Inherent in the right to adversarial process was the opportunity which each party to the proceedings, whether criminal or civil, had in principle to be given to examine and contest any evidence or observation submitted to the court with a view to influencing its decision. That opportunity could not be denied, as the Government had suggested that it should, on the ground that the applicant had no defence to the petition for a decree of nullity as it was based on an undisputed objectively verifiable fact, the reason being that it was solely for the parties to a dispute to decide whether a response to evidence adduced by the other party or witnesses was called for.   In addition, the Court considered that the applicant should have been afforded an opportunity to seek assistance from a lawyer, if she so wished. The ecclesiastical courts should have presumed that the applicant, who was not represented, was unfamiliar with the case-law regarding legal assistance in canon-law proceedings. As the applicant had been summoned to appear before the ecclesiastical court without knowing the purpose of the proceedings, it had had an obligation to inform her of her right to request a lawyer’s assistance before she came to court to give evidence. In those circumstances, the Court held that the Italian courts had failed to ensure that the applicant had had a fair hearing in the ecclesiastical proceedings before issuing the authority to enforce the judgment of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota. There had therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   ***   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 Contact:   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [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 the case to the Grand Chamber.   [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.