SECOND SECTION

FINAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 30127/96 by Giacomo SCIORTINO against Italy

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) , sitting on 14 December 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr A.B. Baka , Mr B. Conforti , Mr P. Lorenzen , Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska , Mr E. Levits , Mr A. Kovler , judges , and Mr E. Fribergh , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 3 May 1993 and registered on 6 February 1996,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having regard to the Commission’s partial decision of 4 March 1998,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1925 and living in Palermo. He is represented before the Court by Mr Antonio Eduardo Amorello, a lawyer practising in Palermo.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant served in the administration of the Sicily Region from 1945 to 1978, holding different posts.

The method and the basis of calculation of the pension to which the applicant is entitled have been modified several times by a series of regional laws.

According to Regional Law No. 7/1971 the applicant acquired the right to a certain increase in salary and to a further biennial increase amounting to 4% of his salary. Regional Law No. 30/1974 modified the previous one in that the length of service necessary to obtain that increase in salary was raised from 20 to 23 years, which involved a reduction in the applicant's pension. On the basis of Regional Law No. 114/1979 the applicant was entitled to two biennial salary increases and was deemed to have served for 32 years, 6 months and 4 days. According to Regional Law No. 145/1980 the applicant's pension was recalculated and increased. Further modifications in the determination of the applicant's pension were made on the basis of Regional Law No. 41/1985.

In January 1975 the applicant filed an application with the Sicily Regional Administrative Court (RAC) seeking revocation of the decree applying Regional Law No. 30/1974 to his case. As Regional Law No. 145/1980, which interpreted the 1974 Law in accordance with the demands of the applicant, had in the meantime entered into force, on 24 October 1981 the Sicily RAC granted the applicant’s claim regarding the rights guaranteed to him by the previous Law No. 7/1971.

On July 1990 the applicant filed an application with the Court of Audit seeking recognition and payment of the increase of pension granted by Regional Law No. 41/1985. On 23 November 1993 the Court of Audit admitted the claim and ordered that the Sicily Region pay the applicant the increases of pension he was entitled to, the revaluation of the amounts due and the statutory interest, accrued from November 1985 to the date on which the applicant would actually receive them.

In relation to the delays in complying with the decision of the Court of Audit of 23 November 1993, the applicant filed “compliance” proceedings (“ ricorso per l’ottemperanza ”) with the Sicily RAC.

On 11 July 1997 the Sicily RAC granted the claim and ordered the competent regional administration to comply fully with the above-mentioned judgment within 60 days from th e date when the decision would be served or communicated to the applicant. The Sicily RAC also nominated a special commissioner (“ commissario ad acta ”) who was to intervene if, upon expiration of the 60 day-period, the administration of the Region had not paid. The commissioner was empowered to take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the decision within further 30 days at the latest.

According to the calculations made by the applicant’s counsel and covering a period up to the 1 st January 1998, at this date the applicant was entitled to receive 9,729,245 Italian lire (ITL). On 20 May 1998, the competent regional administration paid to the applicant 289,136 ITL. However, on 4 August 1998 the Presidency of the Sicily region urged the competent regional administration to speed up the compliance with a series of judgments favourable to the applicant, including the one at issue. Subsequently, on 21 June 1999 the applicant received 4,030,000 ITL.

Furthermore, on 19 April 1994 the applicant lodged another application with the Court of Audit (No. 1025/94) claiming that Regional Laws No. 7/1971 and No. 145/1980 had been erroneously enforced and seeking a recalculation of his pension. A first hearing was fixed at 6 November 1998.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains about the length of the proceedings still pending before the Court of Audit following Application No. 1025/94.

The applicant further complains that the Administration of the Sicily Region has not paid him all the sums of money, including interests, he is entitled to pursuant to the decision of the Court of Audit of 23 November 1993 and to the decision of the Sicily RAC of 11 July 1997.

THE LAW

1. In his submissions the applicant repeats the complaint that the Commission had already declared inadmissible, namely the one related to the applicant’s claim of a pension increase on the basis of the relevant Sicily laws.

The Court finds no reason to re-examine this complaint.

2. The applicant complains about the length of the proceedings before the Court of Audit following Application No. 1025/94.

Article 6 § 1 of the Convention provides as follows :

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”

The proceedings at issue started on 19 April 1994 and seem to be currently pending before the Court of Audit. They have thus lasted approximately six years and eight months to date, for one level of jurisdiction.

The Government stress that the applicant has lodged several other applications and argue that the latter has never asked for the proceedings to be expedited.

The applicant maintains that the duration of the proceedings has exceeded the reasonable time.

The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that this complaint raises complex issues of law and fact under the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits of the application. The Court concludes, therefore, that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established.

3. The applicant further complains that the Administration of the Sicily Region has not yet paid him all the sums of money, including interests, he is entitled to pursuant to the decision of the Court of Audit of 23 November 1993 and to the decision of the Sicily RAC of 11 July 1997.

According to the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1,

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

(...)”

The Government maintain that on 20 May 1998 the competent regional administration paid to the applicant the sums due.

The applicant argues that the two payments effected in 1998 and 1999 still correspond only to a fraction of the sums he is entitled to.

The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that this complaint raises complex issues of law and fact under the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits of the application. The Court concludes, therefore, that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares admissible the remainder of the application , without prejudging the merits of the case.

Erik Fribergh Christos Rozakis Registrar President