Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

CASE OF IMMOBILIARE SAFFI AND 156 OTHER CASES AGAINST ITALY

Doc ref: 22774/93, 66441/01, 22534/93, 20177/92, 30878/96, 38011/97, 35550/97, 66920/01, 64258/01, 64098/00, ... • ECHR ID: 001-81279

Document date: June 20, 2007

  • Inbound citations: 2
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 4

CASE OF IMMOBILIARE SAFFI AND 156 OTHER CASES AGAINST ITALY

Doc ref: 22774/93, 66441/01, 22534/93, 20177/92, 30878/96, 38011/97, 35550/97, 66920/01, 64258/01, 64098/00, ... • ECHR ID: 001-81279

Document date: June 20, 2007

Cited paragraphs only

Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)84 [1]

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Non-execution of court orders to evict tenants

Immobiliare Saffi and 156 other cases against Italy

(Applications, see Appendix)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final (see the list in Appendix II);

Recalling that the violations found by the Court in these cases are the result of systematic infringements of landlords ' right to respect for their property because of failure to implement domestic court decisions ordering the eviction of the tenants, this failure results from a combination of the staggering of executions, the lack of assistance from the police and legislation authorising temporary suspension (violations of Article 6; paragraph 1 and of Article 1 of P rotocol No. 1, see details in Appendix I);

Having invited the respondent state to inform it of measures taken in response to the Court ' s judgments, in the light of Italy ' s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to comply with them (see Appendix I);

Having examined the information supplied by the government in accordance with the Committee ' s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having assured itself that, within the deadline set, the respondent state has paid the applicants the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see details in Appendix II);

Recalling that findings of violations by the Court require, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of:

- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and

- general measures to prevent similar violations;

Having therefore asked Italy , since the first findings of violations, to take the necessary measures to erase the consequences of the violations of the applicants ' rights and to resolve the underlying structural problems which led to the violations;

Having examined the information supplied to the Committee of Ministers on the individual and general measures taken (see details in appendix I);

Having noted that, since 1998, Italy has introduced reforms in this area, in particular giving courts sole authority to determine the dates of tenants ' evictions, and that on a number of occasions the higher courts have made rulings protecting the rights of owners;

Noting nevertheless the persistent nature of the problem and having therefore adopted Interim Resolution ResDH(2004)72, which urged the Italian authorities to put an end without delay to the violations found in those cases where the applicants continued to be faced with the failure to execute domestic judgments and encouraged them to:

- adopt effective measures to remedy the problems in the housing sector, in particular in densely populated cities, without, however, having recourse to legislation preventing enforcement;

- make sure that the police are employed in a timely manner to enforce eviction orders;

- adopt legislative or other measures to make sure that the authorities and officials actually comply with final court judgments;

- strengthen the system of remedies in respect of failure to enforce court orders so as to enable all injured parties to establish the state ' s liability and obtain promptly satisfactory compensation for the losses caused by such failure;

Finding that all the domestic judgments concerning all these cases have now been enforced, thus putting an end to the violations found by the Court;

Finding also that all the measures that have now been adopted by the authorities have led to a significant reduction in the structural problem underlying these violations, as is shown by national statistical data and the very limited number of similar cases currently pending before Court, all of which relate to past events;

Noting in particular that the Italian legal system now offers several effective remedies for securing compensation where there are delays in enforcing court eviction orders, particularly through automatic compensation in the event of legislative suspension, proceedings against tenants, and proceedings against the state for failure of the police to provide assistance and for delays in judicial proceedings and enforcement (the Pinto Act);

Noting and stressing that the merits and scope of any new legislation on suspension of enforcement is now subject to review by the Italian Constitutional Court, which, in its judgment No. 155 of 2004, ruled that the existing legislative rationale could not be considered justified in the future;

Noting in this regard that this form of supervision corresponds to the requirements of the Convention;

DECLARES, after considering all the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix I), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases, and

DECIDES to close their examination.

Appendix I to Resolution CM /ResDH(2007)84

Information on measures taken to comply with the judgments in 157 cases against Italy concerning failure to enforce court eviction orders

Introductory summary of the cases

These cases concern excessive delays in enforcing court decisions ordering the eviction of tenants. Since 1947, there have been a number of changes to Italian tenancy legislation with, first, the introduction of rent control, then the statutory extension of all existing tenancies and, finally, the suspension or staggering of evictions.

The Court found that the legislation pursued a legitimate aim, since the simultaneous enforcement of numerous evictions could have posed a threat to public order. However, in all the cases where the applicants had experienced excessive delays in recovering their properties, there had not been a fair balance between the interests of the community and the right of landlords (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

In its first judgments, the Court also ruled that the consequence of such measures should not be to prevent, invalidate or unduly delay execution of court decisions, and still less to undermine the substance of such decisions, since this would be incompatible with the principle of the rule of law (violations of Article 6§1).

I. Individual measures

All the judicial decisions in these cases have been executed and the applicants have been able to take possession of their property.

II. General measures

1) The nature of the problem underlying the violations

It should be specified from the outset that the evictions in these cases were not on account of the tenants ' failure to pay rent but because their tenancies had expired. The Committee of Ministers noted in Interim Resolution ResDH(2004)72 "that the failure to enforce the court orders in these cases was the result either of legislation suspending or staggering enforcement or simply of the applicants ' inability to obtain assistance from the police and that no satisfactory remedies were available to enable the applicants to establish the state ' s liability and obtain compensation for delays in, or lack of, enforcement".

2) 1998 reform – new procedure for staggering enforcement

The power granted to the administrative authorities – the prefects – to establish priorities for the implementation of eviction orders was abolished by Act No. 431 of 1998, which also freed rents. Following this reform, only the courts have power to order evictions, and they are also empowered to set the date of eviction (generally within six months) and to balance the interests of the owner and tenant.

Nevertheless, the Committee has found that "in spite of the legislative reforms adopted in 1998, the underlying problems which led to these cases have not been resolved, as demonstrated by the continuing stream of new applications to the Court and the fresh violations it continues to find on a systematic basis" (Interim Resolution ResDH(2004)72).

3)Further progress achieved

Three years after the adoption of the interim resolution, further progress has been made towards preventing new violations of this type. There follows an assessment of the current situation concerning the specific causes of violations and compensation for injured owners.

- Laws suspending execution

Italy has continued to enact suspensive legislation for varying periods. The scope of such laws has varied but their practical impact has continued to decline. Act No. 148 of 2005 had no tangible effect and its successor (No. 86 of 2006) limited such suspension to a few major cities and to fairly restricted categories of tenants: persons over 65, severely disabled persons and persons without the means to pay a rent. On the other hand, the most recent law (Act No. 9 of 2007) suspended implementation of eviction orders for eight months and extended its application to several other towns and cities and broader categories of tenants.

In its judgment No. 155 of 2004, the Constitutional Court ruled that the suspensions had been justified until 2003 because of their transitional and restricted nature. However, this legislative rationale could not be considered justified in the future. The matter has not been referred to the Constitutional Court since 2004, but the legislation in question is still subject to Constitutional Court review.

- Impossibility of obtaining police assistance

Under the law, police assistance must be provided, with immediate effect, via court bailiffs. However, certain violations were based on the refusal of the police, in practice, to grant assistance. Progress in this regard is shown by interior ministry statistics ( ). Over the last ten years (1995-2005), the annual number of evictions carried out has risen from 17 367 to 25 369, an increase of 46%, whereas court eviction orders have fallen from 23 175 to 10 953, a decline of 52%. It is clear that, on the one hand, evictions have become more numerous and more effective while, on the other, citizens find it less necessary to appeal to the courts to recover their properties.

- New applications before the European Court

Only a few applications are currently pending before the Court and all concern events in the past.

- Compensation for delays in enforcement

a) Proceedings against tenants, including those connected with suspension of evictions

Under Article 1591 of the Civil Code, tenants must compensate landlords for the late return of housing. The Court of Cassation has ruled (No. 13628 of 22/07/2004) that the burden of proof lies with the owner, but that the assessment may be based on the particular circumstances of each case and may also rely on indirect evidence ( presunzioni ).

The suspension laws referred to above set a ceiling on compensation equal to the rent, adjusted to take account of cost of living rises, plus 20% for the entire period when the owner was unable to benefit from his or her property (see Act No. 61/1989). In the event of suspension, owners are not required to take court action or show that they have suffered detriment. Owners are also granted tax benefits. The most recent law (Act No. 9 of 2007) stipulates that if payment is more than twenty days overdue, the suspension ceases to apply.

In its judgment No. 482 of 2000, the Constitutional Court ruled that the maximum level of compensation should not apply in any case where the conduct of the tenant rather than legislation made it impossible to re-establish possession of the property. The Court of Cassation has also ruled that the ceiling on compensation only applies during periods of suspension of eviction laid down in law.

b) Remedies against the state for failure of the police to provide assistance

In its judgment No. 3873 of 2004, confirming its previous case-law, the Court of Cassation ruled that owners who had been granted a court order were entitled to all the assistance they required from the authorities to secure its enforcement. For their part, the authorities were obliged to make police assistance available and only had technical discretion to decide on the precise moment when this should be granted.

In exercising their discretion, the authorities must abide by the following principles: a. court orders must be carried out at once, b. rapid assistance must be provided, c. structural deficiencies in police arrangements do not exempt the authorities, d. court bailiffs must be informed in advance of any occasional inability of the authorities to take action, e. refusal to provide assistance on a date indicated by a bailiff must be assessed in terms of whether an alternative time or, exceptionally, day has been specified and whether reasons for not providing assistance have been given for each case in question, f. any inability to offer assistance must be assessed with particular strictness.

The Court of Cassation has also stated that where the police fail to provide assistance, owners are entitled to seek damages from the authorities in the ordinary courts. Effectively, the Court has made it clear that compensation is an essential minimum safeguard to protect constitutional rights, including the enforcement of a court order, since the right to bring legal proceedings extends to the execution of judicial decisions. In actions for damages, the authorities must show that it was impossible for them to provide assistance and can only be exempted from this requirement in exceptional and unforeseeable circumstances. The Court has stated in this regard that, far from constituting such a circumstance, situations of permanent judicial or administrative crisis create a presumption that the authorities do bear responsibility.

c) Remedies against the state under the Pinto Act

Act No. 89 of 2001, which makes the state liable for detriment suffered as a result of excessively lengthy judicial proceedings, is applicable to delays in eviction proceedings against tenants. This remedy enables citizens to obtain compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered.

In its judgment No. 14885 of 2002, the Court of Cassation stated that in assessing length of proceedings, account also had to be taken of delays caused by the application of legislation suspending enforcement. In its inadmissibility decision in the P rovvedi case (2/12/2004, application No. 66644/01), the Court ruled that proceedings under the P into Act were one of the remedies to be exhausted in this type of case to comply with Article 35§1 of the Convention, in connection with complaints based on both Article 6§1 and Article 1 of P rotocol No. 1.

4. Publication and dissemination of the European Court ' s judgment

The Immobiliare Saffi judgment and the Court ' s case-law concerning this group of cases has been published and commented on in several legal journals, including Rivista internazionale dei diritti dell ' uomo , No. 1/2000, Documenti Giustizia n. 1-2/2000, Guida al diritto n.5/2003. Some of the judgments concerning this group of cases have been published on Italian legal sites on the Internet (see ).

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures taken have erased the consequences of the violations found in respect of applicants and will prevent further violations of this sort and that Italy has therefore fulfilled its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Appendix II to Resolution CM /ResDH(2007)84

Application

Case, date of judgment, final on

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Currency

Date of payment

22774/93

Immobiliare Saffi, judgment of 28/07/99

28 440 150

5 000 000

ITL

14/10/1999

66441/01

A.G. No. 4, judgment of 09/10/03, final on 09/01/04

7 000

1 786,83

04/02/2004

22534/93

A.O., judgment of 30/05/00, final on 30/08/00

50 000 000

6 000 000

6 789 823

ITL

12/12/2000

20177/92

Aldini, Interim Resolution DH(97)413 of 17/09/97

1 000 000

16 000 000

4 000 000

ITL

26/03/1999

30878/96

Alfano, judgment of 11/12/03, final on 11/03/04

8 750

3 000

2 000

20/05/2004

38011/97

Aponte, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

3 000

1 500

30/10/2003

35550/97

Auditore, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

1 200

3 000

1 500

19/05/2003

66920/01

Battistoni, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

3 000

2 000

28/01/2004

64098/00

Bellini Franco No. 2, judgment of 11/03/2004, final on 11/06/2004

3 000

4 500

29/11/2004

64258/01

Bellini, judgment of 29/01/04, final on 29/04/04

3 000

4 500

01/08/2004

37110/97

Bertuccelli Marco, judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

5 000

2 500

21/05/2004

65413/01

Bonamassa, judgment of 02/10/03, final on 02/01/04

6 000

3 500

09/03/2004

62849/00

Brienza, judgment of 16/10/03, final on 16/01/04

16 000

6 000

3 000

09/03/2004

34999/97

C. Spa, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

35 000

2 000

12/11/2003

35428/97

C.T. No. 2, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

8 000

2 250

09/07/2003

63947/00

Calosi, judgment of 16/10/03, final on 16/01/04

3 000

1 000

09/03/2004

61665/00

Calvanese and Spitaletta, judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

15 000

4 600

07/04/2004

59636/00

Calvo, judgment of 11/03/2004, final on 11/06/2004

15 000

1 500

17/11/2004

28724/95

Capitanio, judgment of 11/07/02, final on 11/10/02

16 500

5 000

7 241,70

21/01/2003

45006/98

Capurso, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

28 000

10 000

500

10/09/2003

52081/99

Caracciolo, judgment of 14/10/2004, final on 14/01/2005

3 000

4 000

31/01/2005

48842/99

Carbone Anna, judgment of 22/05/03, final on 22/08/03

3 000

1 000

24/10/2003

31925/96

Carignani, judgment of 11/12/03, final on 11/03/04

8 000

8 000

1 500

21/04/2004

35777/97

Carloni and Bruni, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

12 800

20 000

30/06/2003

34819/97

Cau, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

3 995,51

4 000

1 500

07/05/2003

56717/00

Cavicchi and Ruggeri, judgment of 30/10/03, final on 30/01/04

32 793

9 000

2 100

23/03/2004

34412/97

Ciccariello Franca, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

13 000

6 000

2 000

01/07/2003

30879/96

Ciliberti Raffaele, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

3 000

4 000

2 000

19/05/2003

Application

Case, date of judgment, final on

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Currency

Date of payment

55161/00

Cima, judgment of 28/07/2005, final on 28/10/2005

3 000

3 000

27/02/2006

68345/01

Ciucci, judgment of 01/06/2006, final on 01/09/2006

0

0

0

36268/97

Clucher No. 2, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 24/09/03

57 000

9 000

900

28/11/2003

45356/99

Conti Lorenza, judgment of 10/07/03, final on 03/12/03

10 000

1 700

04/02/2004

19830/03

Cuccaro Granatelli, judgment of 08/12/2005, final on 08/03/2006

8 000

3 500

28/03/2006

63938/00

Cucinotta Rosario and Giovanni, judgment of 30/10/03, final on 30/01/04

3 000

600

09/03/2004

32589/96

D.V. No. 2, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

32 000

9 000

17/03/2003

61667/00

D ' Aloe and others, judgment of 13/11/03, final on 13/02/04

27 600

7 746,84

3 000

23/03/2004

33113/96

D ' Ottavi, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03

3 000

2 000

20/01/2004

37117/97

De Benedittis, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

1 200

7 000

2 000

31/07/2003

59634/00

De Gennaro, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

85 700

3 000

4 059,52

28/01/2004

41427/98

Del Beato, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

9 000

6 000

2 000

27/08/2003

36254/97

Del Sole, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03

6 000

4 000

12/12/2003

37511/97

Di Matteo, judgment of 11/12/03, final on 11/03/04

65 000

3 000

2 000

19/04/2004

34658/97

E.P. No. 4, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

6 000

25/08/2003

30883/96

Esposito Paola, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

4 356,96

8 000

07/05/2003

58413/00

Fabbri, judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

3 000

2 500

01/04/2004

48145/99

Fabi, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

3 000

1 000

10/11/2003

66327/01

Federici C. and L., judgment of 09/10/03, final on 09/01/04

12 000

5 000

04/04/2006

67917/01

Federici Mario and others, judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

10 000

5 000

29/09/2006

63523/00

Federici No. 2, judgment of 08/12/2005, final on 08/03/2006

14 600

3 000

1 500

09/03/2004

62764/00

Federici No. 2, judgment of 15/06/2006, final on 15/09/2006

26 400

3 000

3 500

01/04/2004

39735/98

Fegatelli, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

734,42

10 000

2 000

26/08/2003

63408/00

Ferroni Rossi, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

6 000

4 000

28/01/2004

60464/00

Fezia and others, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

12 000

3 600

29/01/2004

33909/96

Fiorani, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

21 000

8 000

2 000

21/05/2003

34454/97

Fleres, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

61 600

10 000

2 000

21/05/2003

32577/96

Folli Carè, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

36 060,05

3 000

2 500

23/04/2003

33376/96

Folliero, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

1 500

3 000

2 000

01/07/2003

Application

Case, date of judgment, final on

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Currency

Date of payment

48171/99

Fossi and Mignolli, judgment of 04/03/04, final on 04/06/04

25 000

9 000

5 100

05/08/2004

68008/01

Frateschi, judgment of 08/12/2005, final on 08/03/2006

10 000

2 000

30/03/2006

31740/96

G. and M., judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03

12 000

05/11/2003

43580/98

G.G. No. 6, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 09/07/03

1 200

5 000

2 000

08/10/2003

22671/93

G.L. No. 4, judgment of 03/08/00, final on 03/11/00

47 600 000

20 000 000

1 135 670

ITL

12/12/2000

59635/00

Gamberini Mongenet and 2 autres, judgment of 28/07/2005, final on 28/10/2005

9 000

1 200

02/04/2004

68707/01

Gamberini Mongenet, judgment of 06/11/03, final on 06/02/04

9 000

600

27/01/2006

59454/00

Gatti and others, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

7 746,83

3 999,94

04/02/2004

63417/00

Gelsomini Sigeri S.r.L., judgment of 18/12/03, final on 18/03/04

13 285

2 829,03

21/04/2004

32662/96

Geni Srl, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

9 000

2 000

30/06/2003

53233/99

Ghelardini and Brunori, judgment of 09/10/03, final on 09/01/04

20 833,88

18 000

3 541,06

04/02/2004

28272/95

Ghidotti, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

10 000

09/08/2002

31663/96

Giagnoni and Finotello, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

18 000

2 000

23/04/2003

62842/00

Giuliani, judgment of 04/12/23, final on 04/03/04

3 000

5 500

19/04/2004

63514/00

Giunta, judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

10 000

3 000

2 500

21/04/2004

32006/96

Gnecchi and Barigazzi, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

38 126,96

10 000

2 000

07/05/2003

32374/96

Guidi I. and F., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

1 000

6 000

1 500

21/05/2003

32766/96

Immobiliare Sole Srl, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

11 400

2 000

21/05/2003

34442/97

Indelicato Antonio, judgment of 06/11/03, final on 06/02/04

3 000

2 000

22/03/2004

64151/00

Kraszewski, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

3 000

3 000

28/01/2004

32392/96

L. and P. No. 2, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

1 800

1 250

750

07/05/2003

33696/96

L. and P. No.1, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

8 380

5 000

1 500

05/09/2003

32542/96

L.B. No. 3, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

10 500

8 000

1 500

21/05/2003

41610/98

L.M. No. 7, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

15 500

3 000

2 000

21/08/2003

62020/00

La Paglia, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

9 296,22

4 000

28/01/2004

63336/00

Lari, judgment of 09/10/03, final on 09/01/04

3 000

3 500

04/02/2004

52071/99

Leonardi Anselmo, judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

3 000

2 000

01/04/2004

60659/00

Lerario, judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

3 000

2 400

01/04/2004

64254/01

Liguori, judgment of 11/12/03, final on 11/03/04

16 200

3 000

3 500

21/04/2004

64663/01

Lo Tufo, judgment of 21/04/2005, final on 21/07/2005

10 000

10/11/2005

Application

Case, date of judgment, final on

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Currency

Date of payment

36149/97

Losanno and Vanacore, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

7 500

14 000

2 000

20/01/2004

21463/93

Lunari, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 11/04/01

330 000

15 000 000

5 800 000

ITL

22/06/2001

32391/96

M.C. No. 11, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

3 000

1 500

22/05/2003

31923/96

M.P., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

36 532,37

2 000

21/05/2003

69143/01

Magherini, judgment of 01/06/2006, final on 01/09/2006

18 000

3 000

11/09/2006

42343/98

Malescia, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

10 000

3 000

500

08/07/2003

31548/96

Maltoni, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

6 300

6 000

19/05/2003

60388/00

Marigliano, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

5 000

3 229,90

28/01/2004

35088/97

Marini E., C., A.M., R. and S., judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

20 000

15 000

1 500

07/07/2003

68792/01

Mascolo Sergio, judgment of 16/12/2004, final on 16/03/2005

3 000

700

16/05/2005

69502/01

Mazzei, judgment of 06/04/2006, final on 06/07/2006

640

6 000

2 000

14/09/2006

31129/96

Merico, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

10 169,12

07/05/2003

58408/00

Miscioscia, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

3 000

3 500

28/01/2004

67911/01

Molteni and Ghisi, judgment of 28/07/2005, final on 28/10/2005

6 000

2 800

28/12/2005

61995/00

Montanari, judgment of 11/03/2004, final on 11/06/2004

5 000

2 500

17/08/2004

68011/01

Mosconi, judgment of 01/06/2006, final on 01/09/2006

6 000

1 000

02/10/2006

58191/00

Mottola, judgment of 22/05/03, final on 22/08/03

3 000

2 000

22/10/2003

62848/00

Nicolai, judgment of 27/11/03, final on 27/02/04

3 000

01/04/2004

35024/97

Nigiotti and Mori, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

13 000

15 493,70

2 000

08/10/2003

24650/94

P.M. No. 1, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 5/09/01

27 784 000

20 000 000

2 000 000

ITL

03/12/2001

34998/97

P.M. No. 2, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

42 000

6 000

2 000

24/10/2003

15919/89

Palumbo, judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

44 017 840

30 000 000

15 000 000

ITL

05/04/2001

37008/97

Pannocchia, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

10 000

6 197,48

2 000

08/10/2003

46161/99

Pepe Giuseppa, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

2 000

3 000

2 000

27/05/2004

60431/00

Petitta, judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

6 000

3 211,48

19/04/2004

63543/00

Petrini Fernando, judgment of 27/11/03, final on 27/02/04

6 000

5 000

3 680

01/04/2004

59273/00

Picone, judgment of 11/03/2004, final on 11/06/2004

10 000

3 500

13/08/2004

57635/00

Poci, judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

7 000

3 000

01/04/2004

60391/00

Pollifrone, judgment of 11/03/2004, final on 11/06/2004

5 164,56

3 500

24/06/2004

Application

Case, date of judgment, final on

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Currency

Date of payment

59367/00

Pozzi, judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

100 000

3 000

4 200

13/04/2004

59539/00

Pulcini, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

18 000

10 000

08/10/2003

67412/01

Ragone, judgment of 02/10/03, final on 02/01/04

7 000

3 000

28/01/2004

67796/01

Recchi, judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

56 300

3 000

4 500

01/04/2004

32385/96

Ricci Onorato, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03

5 000

4 000

28/11/2003

55388/00

Rispoli, judgment of 30/10/03, final on 30/01/04

6 275

6 000

2 500

01/04/2004

50293/99

Robba, judgment of 09/10/03, final on 09/01/04

6 000

1 000

04/02/2004

36249/97

Rosa Massimo, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

6 700

5 000

1 500

24/10/2003

55725/00

Rosati, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03

6 000

1 500

01/12/2003

30530/96

Rossi Luciano, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

6 500

6 000

07/05/2003

59538/00

Sabatini and Di Giovanni, judgment of 02/10/03, final on 02/01/04

1 540

6 000

3 800

28/01/2004

32644/96

Sanella, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

12 500

3 000

2 000

07/05/2003

31012/96

Savio Delfino, judgment of 16/10/03, final on 16/01/04

5 300

5 000

2 000

30/06/2003

59537/00

Savio, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

3 000

3 500

09/03/2004

56924/00

Scalera, judgment of 13/11/03, final on 13/02/04

87 800

3 000

8 000

Within deadline

61282/00

Scamaccia, judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

6 000

3 000

01/04/2004

63414/00

Scaravaggi, judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

15 000

3 000

5 000

19/04/2004

69834/01

Sciortino Giovanna, judgment of 28/07/2005, final on 28/10/2005

8 000

3 500

22/12/2005

15483/02

Scorzolini, judgment of 29/06/2006, final on 29/09/2006

3 000

2 000

02/11/2006

33227/96

Scurci Chimenti, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

4 740

10 000

07/05/2003

58607/00

Serafini, judgment of 16/10/03, final on 16/01/04

300

3 000

3 000

09/03/2004

47703/99

Serni, judgment of 09/10/03, final on 09/01/04

3 000

04/02/2004

65120/01

Siena Antonio, judgment of 11/03/2004, final on 11/06/2004

3 000

2 000

13/08/2004

64449/01

Soc. De.ro.sa., judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

46 481

5 000

07/04/2004

40465/98

Sorrentino Prota, judgment of 29/01/04, final on 29/04/04

6 000

3 000

7 800

18/06/2004

61666/00

Spalletta, judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

3 000

4 000

01/04/2004

68706/01

Stornelli and 3 others, judgment of 28/07/2005, final on 28/10/2005

4 100

4 000

29/12/2005

31223/96

T.C.U., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

21 700

3 000

1 500

17/03/2003

23424/94

Tanganelli, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 11/04/01

36 318 060

15 000 000

14 726 000

ITL

04/07/2001

Application

Case, date of judgment, final on

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Currency

Date of payment

47758/99

Tassinari, judgment of 16/10/03, final on 16/01/04

3 000

29 000

3 296,49

23/03/2004

62000/00

Tempesti Chiesi and Chiesi, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

15 493,70

4 000

28/01/2004

62844/00

Todaro, judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

32 000

3 000

5 000

01/04/2004

35637/97

Tolomei, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

5 000

4 000

2 000

26/06/2003

33252/96

Tona, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

20 422,80

6 000

07/05/2003

33204/96

Tosi, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

19 000

21/05/2003

33692/96

Traino, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03

5 000

3 500

20/01/2004

30972/96

V.T., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

19 000

5 000

1 000

23/04/2003

66373/01

Vietri, judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

6 400

7 000

3 400

01/04/2004

48730/99

Voglino, judgment of 22/05/03, final on 22/08/03

3 000

2 000

31/10/2003

36377/97

Zannetti, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

7 400

5 000

2 000

29/10/2003

35006/97

Zazzeri, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

11 000

9 000

2 000

11/04/2003

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 June 2007 at the 997th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 400211 • Paragraphs parsed: 44892118 • Citations processed 3448707