Information Note on the Court’s case-law 208

June 2017

Izzo and Others v. Italy (dec.) - 46141/12, 72275/12, 72284/12 et al.

Decision 30.5.2017 [Section I]

Article 6

Enforcement proceedings

Article 6-1

Reasonable time

Length of time taken to comply with court orders for payment of costs of “Pinto” proceedings directly to the plaintiffs’ lawyers: inadmissible

Facts – The applicants were lawyers who acted as co unsel for a number of clients seeking compensation under the Pinto Act* in length-of-proceedings cases. Having advanced the court costs on behalf of their clients the applicants requested and were granted an order for the legal costs and fees (totalling be tween EUR 150 and EUR 2,180) to be paid directly to them. The sums were paid only after delays of between 16 and 23 months. In the Convention proceedings, the applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of th e delays in payment.

Law – Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The Court reiterated that, in the light of the particular nature of the “Pinto” remedy, decisions adopted within the framework of proceedings instituted under the P into Act should in principle be complied with within a particularly short time, specifically within a period not exceeding six months from the date on which the decision awarding compensation became enforceable.

However, that short time-limit stemmed from the compensatory nature of the “Pinto” remedy which was relevant only as regards the plaintiff who brought the claim under the Pinto Act, not the lawyers who represented them. A “Pinto” decision awarding a certain sum directly to the lawyer had no compensa tory value and merely represented a credit instrument evidencing a debt owed by the State. Adherence to the particularly short time-limit for the execution of the “Pinto” decisions in such cases was not warranted. In the instant case, the judgments of the “Pinto” courts were complied with following delays ranging from 16 to 23 months. Those periods were not unreasonable for the purposes of either Article 6 § 1 of the Convention or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded ).

* Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001 (the “Pinto Act”).

© 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