Information Note on the Court’s case-law 65

June 2004

Cataldo v. Italy (dec.) - 45656/99

Decision 3.6.2004 [Section I]

Article 13

Effective remedy

Effectiveness of remedy under the Pinto law, resulting in payment of compensation: inadmissible

Article 34

Victim

Loss of status of victim following use of the Pinto law remedy: inadmissible

The applicant had been under preliminary criminal investigation b etween 1991 and 1998. In July 2001 he availed himself of a remedy newly provided under the so-called “Pinto Act” to seek compensation for the length of the proceedings against him. The court of appeal to which the case was referred found that a reasonable time had been exceeded. It dismissed the applicant’s claim in respect of pecuniary damage and awarded him, on an equitable basis, an amount for non-pecuniary damage and an amount for costs and expenses, along with interest. Taken together, those sums were less than the applicant had claimed. The applicant did not appeal on points of law. The decision was enforced. The applicant complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy to complain of it.

Inadmissibl e under Article 6 § 1: The domestic court had expressly acknowledged the breach of Article 6 on account of the unreasonable length of the impugned proceedings. It had then afforded appropriate redress for that breach. The Court confirmed that, as the domes tic court had found, the pecuniary damage alleged by the applicant was a matter for speculation. As to the amounts of the sums awarded by the domestic court as compensation for the breach, the Court considered that, as a whole, they were adequate and capab le of affording redress for the violation suffered. In short, the domestic judicial decision was in conformity with the Court’s case-law (with regard to Article 41 of the Convention). Consequently, the applicant could no longer claim to be the “victim” of the alleged violation.

Inadmissible under Article 13: In so far as the domestic judicial decision complied with the Court’s case-law, the “Pinto” remedy had met the requirements of Article 13 in the instant case.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes