SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 61244/09 Samo PAHOR and others against Italy

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 3 June 2014 as a Committee composed of:

András Sajó , President, Helen Keller , Robert Spano , judges, and Abel Campos , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 November 2009 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicants are members of the Slovene minority living in Italy. A list of the applic ants is set out in the appendix.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

3. According to the applicants , from 1970 to 1977 the Italian tax authorities provided them with the Slovene translation of their car tax assessment s . However, in 1977 this practice was stopped . T he relevant international agreements and the Constitution g iving them the right to use the Slovene minority language, the applicants requested , i n 1985 , the car ta x assessment to be translated to Slovene. However, the domestic authorities had persistently rejected their requests. Subsequently, when the applicants refused to use the Italian language when paying the car tax, several disputes arose as to the interpretation of domestic law concerning the use of the minority language in the communication with the public authorities. On one hand, the Italian State initiated several enforcement proceedings against the applicants for failure to pay the car tax. On the other hand, the applicants filed several criminal complaints ; in each case the criminal proceedings were discontinued .

4 . On 4 November 2004 the applicants lodged a crimina l complaint drafted in Italian with the Trieste Public Prosecutor ’ s Office. The criminal complaint was directed against a number of Italian politicians, who had allegedly failed to adopt adequate legislation for the protection of the Slovene minority , and several public officials, judicial officers and residents of Trieste, who had allegedly been trying to prevent the exercise of the applicants ’ minority rights. The applicants argued that the continuing refusal to accept the payment of the car tax in Slovene, the erroneous interpretation of the domestic law by the domestic authorities and the failure to initiate criminal proceedings against the persons responsible for obstructing the use of the minority language amounted to an interference with their right to use the Slovene minority language and to racial discrimination. Finally, they requested to be informed of every entry made in the public prosecutor ’ s office ’ s registry of persons suspected of having committed a crime . The applicants also requested to be informed of the prosecutor ’ s request concerning the extension of the deadline for investigation and of the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings.

5 . On 12 November 2004 a copy of the case-file was sent to the Bologna Public Prosecutor ’ s Office, which had jurisdiction over the applicant ’ s criminal complaint concerning the Trieste judicial officers.

6. On 16 November 2004 a copy of the case-file was also sent to the Rome Public Prosecutor ’ s Office which had jurisdiction for the investigation of the ministers of the Italian Government. On 6 February 2007 the Rome Public Prosecutor ’ s Office sent the case-file back to the Trieste Public Prosecutor ’ s Office .

7. On 30 November 2007 the Trieste Public Prosecutor ’ s Office requested the discontinuance of the case. He considered that at the relevant time the domestic legislation concerning the payment of tax in Slovene had been confusing and vague. He further noted that the State ’ s deferral of the adoption of adequate legislative and administrative measures and the absence of a dialogue between the opposing parties might have entailed political responsibility, but not responsibility of criminal nature.

8. On 31 December 2007 the firs t applicant lodged an objection. On 10 and 19 January 2008 the applicants lodged further objections.

9. On 30 March 2009 the Trieste investigating judge rejected the applicants ’ objections and ordered the case to be discontinued . In particular, the investigating judge held that the applicants had not been victims of any criminal act and they were simply not satisfied with the Prosecutor ’ s assessment that the case did not entail any criminal responsibility. Admitting that in the past there existed strong nationalistic and anti-Slavic sentiments, he observed that such situation had come to an end and the State had adopted legislation regulating the protection of the Slovene minority. Finally, the investigating judge found that the allegations of intimidation and pressure on the judiciary were unsubstantiated.

10. On 28 May 2009 this decision was served on the first applicant.

11 . Meanwhile , on 16 June 2005 the applicants were informed that the Bologna P ublic P rosecutor had requested the discontinuance of the proceedings. O n 1 July 2005 the applicants lodged an objection . O n 11 January 2007 the case was discontinued . The applicants alleged that they had been given no information in that regard.

B. Relevant domestic law

12. The relevant domestic provisions concerning the status of injured and civil parties in criminal proceedings are set out in Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy ( no. 23458/02, §§ 150-151, 25 August 2009 ) and Sottani v. Italy ( (dec.), no. 26775/02, ECHR 2005 ‑ III ) .

COMPLAINTS

13. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings as a whole and the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation. They further complained under Article 14 of the Convention that they could not use their mother tongue.

THE LAW

A . Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of t he Convention

14. The applicants complained about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings and about their length (in particular about the failure to respect certain time-limits). They alleged that the investigation was ineffective, that the authorities tried to obstruct the examination of their case and that the final decision was wrong . They invoked Article 6 § 1 , which , in so far as relevant , provides :

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing .. .”

15. The Court first has to assess whether Article 6 is applicable in its civil limb to the proceedings at issue. In this respect, it notes that the applicants did not join the criminal proceedings as a civil party.

16. However, Article 6 may be applicable even in the absence of a claim for financial reparation: it suffices if the outcome of the proceedings is decisive for the “civil rights” in question (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 65 , ECHR 2004 - I ). The Court further observes that by their criminal complaint the applicants were claiming their purported right to the adoption of adequate legislation for the protection of the Slovene minority and to the effective exercise of their minority rights (see paragraph 4 above). However, the Court considers that the rights claimed by the applicants were political, and not civil in nature. They basically concerned the action of the public authorities, and of the legislative power in particular, to apply certain constitutional provisions on minority rights.

17. As far as the applicants might have considered that the outcome of the criminal proceedings could have had some effect on the payment of the car tax, the Court first notes that such an effect would have been a hypothetical and remote consequence of the proceedings complained of. In any event, it recalls that tax disputes fall outside the scope of civil rights and obligations, despite the pecuniary effects which they necessarily produce for the taxpayer (see Ferrazzini v. Italy [GC], no. 44759/98, § 29 , ECHR 2001 ‑ VII ).

18. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

B . Complaint under Article 14 of t he Convention

19. The applicants complained that they have been denied the right to use their mother tongue in the criminal proceedings at issue . They invoked Article 14 of the Convention which reads as follows:

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

20. The Court reiterates that Article 14 complements the other substantive provisions of the Convention and its Protocols. It has no independent existence since it has effect solely in relation to “the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms” safeguarded by those provisions. Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of those provisions – and to this extent it is autonomous – there can be no room for its application unless the facts in issue fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter (see, among many other authorities, Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06 , § 384 , ECHR 2012 (extracts) ).

21. Having rega rd to the finding that Article 6 is inapplicable, the Court holds that Article 14 of the Convention cannot be taken into account in the present case.

22. It follows that the co mplaint under Article 14 is also incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3, and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

C . Complaint under Article 13 of t he Convention

23. Finally, t he applicants complained that they had been deprived of an effective remedy because of the discontinuance of the investigation. They invoked Article 13 of the Convention which reads as follows:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in the Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

24. A ccording to the Court ’ s case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52). The Cou rt has found that the applicant s ’ complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and Article 1 4 are incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention . It follows that the applicants do not have an “arguable claim” and their complaints do not attract the guarantees of Article 13.

25. This complaint must also be rejected as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention in accordance with Article 35 § 4 .

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Abel Campos András Sajó              Deputy Registrar President

Appe ndix