CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 18 février 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s44EC9D0F { width:404pt; display:inline-block } .s9E7DF94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s36603326 { width:18.34pt; display:inline-block } .s2637CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sF559FC96 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sD2B055E8 { width:13.95pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sEDC5336B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     89 18.2.1999 Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF LAINO v. ITALY       In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 18 February 1999 in the case of Laino v. Italy (application no.   33158/96), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant a specified sum for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.     1.   Principal facts     The applicant, Mr Michele Laino, an Italian national, was born in 1960 and lives in Naples.     On 15 March 1990 the applicant petitioned the Naples District Court for judicial separation from his wife, Mrs R. He also requested the court to determine the arrangements for custody of the children and use of the family home.     On 22 March 1990 the presiding judge of the court set down for 12 July 1990 the hearing on the attempt that had been made to reach a settlement . After finding that the attempt had failed, the presiding judge provisionally awarded custody of the children (born in 1984 and 1988) and use of the house to Mrs R., granted the father access twice a week and ordered him to pay Mrs R. maintenance. After six hearings, three of which were adjourned at the applicant’s request, the judge responsible for preparing the case for trial ordered, on 15 December 1994, that the case file should be sent to the District Court at Nola (province of Naples), which now had territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The date set for the hearing before that court was not until 8   May   1997. On that day, however, the proceedings were adjourned by the court of its own motion to 10 July 1997 because the judge was absent. The parties filed their pleadings on 13   November 1997, and the hearing before the relevant division was held on 8 May 1998. In a judgment of 27 May 1998, the text of which was deposited with the registry on that day, the court pronounced the couple judicially separated, confirmed the provisional measures regarding custody of the children and use of the family home and increased the maintenance. Neither of the parties appealed.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court     The application to the Commission, which was lodged on 12 June 1996, was declared admissible on 28 May 1997.     Having attempted unsuccessfully to secure a friendly settlement, the Commission adopted a report on 16 September 1997 in which it expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that it was unnecessary to consider whether there had been a violation of Article 8.     The applicant lodged an application with the Court on 29 January 1998.     Under the transitional provisions of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case was transmitted to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on the entry into force of the Protocol, on 1 November 1998. Judgment was given by a Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Luigi Ferrari Bravo (Italian), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Jerzy Makarczyk (Polish), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), András Baka (Hungarian), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Judges,   and also Mr Paul Mahoney , Deputy Registrar.   3.   Summary of the judgment [1]     Complaints     The applicant complained that his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time, as provided in Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights, had been disregarded and that the length of the proceedings had also infringed his right to respect for his family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention.     Decision of the Court     Article 6 § 1 of the Convention     According to the Court’s case-law, the reasonableness of the length of proceedings has to be assessed, in particular, in the light of the complexity of the case and of the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities. In cases relating to civil status, what is at stake for the applicant is also a relevant consideration and special diligence is required in view of the possible consequences which the excessive length of proceedings may have, notably on enjoyment of the right to respect for family life.     The Court noted one period of delay which could not be attributed to the respondent State and found that the case was not particularly complex.   As to the conduct of the authorities dealing with the case, the Court considered that, having regard to what had been at stake for the applicant (judicial separation and determination of the arrangements for custody of the children and access rights), the domestic courts had failed to act with the special diligence required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention in such cases. The various periods of inactivity attributable to the State, in particular the ones from 25   November 1993 to 15 December 1994 and from the latter date to 10 July 1997, had failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement.     Having regard also to the total duration of the proceedings, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.     Article 8 of the Convention     Having regard to the finding in respect of Article 6 § 1, the Court held that it was unnecessary to examine whether there had been a violation of Article 8.     Application of Article 41 of the Convention     Mr Laino had claimed 70,000,000 Italian lire (ITL) for the non-pecuniary damage which he alleged that he had sustained. The Court held that the applicant had undoubtedly sustained non-pecuniary damage. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it decided to award him ITL   25,000,000.     The applicant also claimed reimbursement of ITL 16,305,440 in respect of his costs and expenses before the Commission and the Court.     Judge Ferrari Bravo and Judges Tulkens and Casadevall expressed separate opinions, and these are annexed to the judgment.       The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (www.dhcour.coe.fr) on the day of their delivery.       Subject to his duty of discretion, the Registrar is responsible under the Rules of Court for replying to requests for information concerning the work of the Court, and in particular to enquiries from the press.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contact: Mr Roderick LIDDELL Telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92; fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   1.     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.