Lexploria

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 10479/21 Daniele ACAMPORA and Others against Italy and 7 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10 November 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Krzysztof Wojtyczek , President , Ivana Jelić, Erik Wennerström , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of “Pinto” domestic decisions were communicated to the Italian Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government acknowledged the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The Government also undertook to ensure the enforcement of the domestic decisions under consideration in the cases concerned (see appended table) within the same three-month period, and to pay any costs of the domestic enforcement proceedings.

The payment and the enforcement of the domestic decisions in the cases concerned will constitute the final resolution of the cases.

The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions (see, for example, Gaglione and Others v. Italy, nos. 45867/07 and 69 others, 21 December 2010 and Gagliano Giorgi v. Italy, no. 23563/07, 6 March 2012).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 1 December 2022.

Viktoriya Maradudina Krzysztof Wojtyczek Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of “Pinto” domestic decisions)

No.

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Relevant

domestic

decision

Date of receipt of Government’s declaration

Date of receipt of applicant’s comments,

if any

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant

(in euros) [1]

Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application

(in euros) [2]

10479/21

09/02/2021

(59 applicants)

Daniele ACAMPORA

1960Massimiliano ATTILI

1965Giovanni IACHETTA

1947Lorenzo LEONI

1968Sergio GIANCASPRO

1962Massimiliano DI IANNI

1966Giuseppe ESPOSITO

1961Alessandro BOGGIANI

1957Mauro TETI

1963Alberto DELLAI

1961Mario RUDA

1967Giovanni MAIORANA

1964Pierantonio CENTARO

1962Antonio Giovanni CALO’

1962Giuseppe GUIDA

1952Salvatore BIANCHINI

1959Silverio INSOGNA

1964Salvatore CAPASSO

1964Raffaele IANNELLA

1965Nicola SIGNORILE

1969Antonio MINGOLLA

1955Luigi FAELLA

1961Nicola TONTI

1963Valter UTILI

1960Nicola Marcello FUSCO

1956Lorenzo CELLA

1958Antonio BISOGNO

1947Liberato GUIDA

1964Claudio DENTE

1964Giovanni RENZI

1959Natale LAUDANI

1960Rosario MONTEMAGNO

1960Maurizio ETTORI

1962Giuliano OLIVIERI

1964Domenico RAVIDA’

1965Giuseppe ANDREOLI

1960Marco QUATTROCCHI

1966Luciano APETINO

1967Umberto PELLEGRINI

1965Vincenzo NARDIELLO

1966Franco Maurizio MALTESE

1964Rosario FERMO

1961Santo NIGRELLI

1945Saverio D’ALESSIO

1955Antonio MAIELLO

1964Salvatore MILITANO

1962Adriano DUCA

1966Angelo OLIVIERO

1961Maurizio PETTINARI

1960Pasquale CICALESE

1966Giuseppe COLAZZO

1960Lorenzo DE DONATIS

1965Romano FADDA

1968Domenico ANASTASIO

1951Luciano BERNABITI

1956Michele SESSA

1956Mauro POZONE

1962Stefano DELLE MONACHE

1963Marco BETTINI

1961Alunni Marco

Rome

Court of

Cassation RG 18089/2014,

03/09/2015

07/07/2022

200

30

17253/21

23/03/2021

(7 applicants)

Carmela FORINO

1931Vincenzo PETROSINO

1962Maria Rosaria PETROSINO

1956Rosa PETROSINO

1953Patrizia PETROSINO

1971Salvatore PETROSINO

1958Francesco PETROSINO

1960D’Alessio Dario

Salerno

Naples Court of

Appeal

RG 1178/2019,

19/09/2019

07/07/2022

200

30

38207/21

20/07/2021

(55 applicants)

Vincenzo ALBANESE

1970Antonio Giuseppe PIREDDA

1951Sabatino PAGANO

1963Massimo ANGELINI

1967Mauro ANGELINI

1949Daniele DE PASCALI

1967Giuseppe ANNUNZIATA

1967Roberto ARGANESE

1962Lorenzo FENNI

1964Roberto BLASETTI

1969Marco PIERONI

1964Enzo OSANNA

1970Celestino LABIANCA

1970Francesco PALAMARA

1962Aldo Gabriele NICOLETTI

1954Giuseppe DI NUZZO

1971Francesco PELLEGRINO

1972Mauro ERCOLI

1967Fabiop D’ERAMO

1972Giampiero FERRI

1973Marino SIMONETTI

1972Fabio SEBASTIANI

1966Francesco SANTORO

1964Salvatore CAFARO

1963Eugenio CAPONE

1959Mauro CATALANO

1965Antonio DE BIASIO

1955Pasquale MANDILE

1969Roberto Nicola PAVONE

1967Angelo PESANTE

1961Gino PETROSELLI

1966Domenico QUARANTA

1950Giuseppe QUARANTA

1968Filippo DE LUCIA

1968Rolando Luigi D’ANGELO

1948Adriano POLESI

1952Angelo MOSCATELLI

1964Nicola RAINONE

1966Daniele SPINELLI

1969Diamante VITO

1966Nicola PELLECCHIA

1941Michele BOVINO

1967Massimo CEDRONI

1968Massimo CAMPAGNA

1966Mario CALI’

1958Marco CALABRETTA

1967Antonio BONFITTO

1969Guido BIANCHI

1968Rino BORBONE

1968Giuseppe CIVETTA

1968Carmine PROIETTI

1955Vincenzo RICCARDI

1966Mario RICCOBENE

1966Franco ROTONDO

1951Alfredo TUZI

1970Abbate Ferdinando Emilio

Orte

Perugia Court of

Appeal

RG 3321/2012,

20/06/2018

07/07/2022

200

30

44438/21

31/08/2021

Walter TARANTO

1950Di Febbraro Agostino

Naples

Naples Court of

Appeal RG 1873/2018,

25/10/2018

07/07/2022

200

30

45206/21

06/09/2021

Rosina LONGO

1974De Francesco Iolanda

Corsano

Potenza Court of

Appeal RG 429/15,

15/03/2016

07/07/2022

200

30

47232/21

16/09/2021

Luigi TEMPORIN GRUER

1932Parola Stefania

Rome

Roma Court of

Appeal RG 52373/17,

06/12/2017

07/07/2022

01/08/2022

200

30

54542/21

25/10/2021

(10 applicants)

Eugenio MERULLO

1968Fabrizio Giuseppe DE SIMONE

1966Giovanni GRANATA

1966Oronzo GRECO

1965Tommaso GRECO

1957Brizio Leonardo MAZZEI

1970Luigi MENNILLO

1967Sergio MERIGHI

1967Claudio MASCIARELLI

1961Michele FAVATÀ

1968Abbate Ferdinando Emilio

Orte

Perugia Court of

Appeal RG

3321/2012,

20/06/2018

07/07/2022

200

30

55201/21

29/10/2021

Stefano CIOTOLA

1962Ruggiero Aurelio

Naples

Rome Court of

Appeal RG

57849/2011,

24/06/2016

07/07/2022

11/08/2022

200

30[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

Menu

ACAMPORA AND OTHERS v. ITALY

ACAMPORA AND OTHERS v. ITALY

LEXI