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

Finazzi v. Italy (dec.)

Doc ref: 62152/00 • ECHR ID: 002-4517

Document date: January 22, 2004

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

Finazzi v. Italy (dec.)

Doc ref: 62152/00 • ECHR ID: 002-4517

Document date: January 22, 2004

Cited paragraphs only

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 60

January 2004

Finazzi v. Italy (dec.) - 62152/00

Decision 22.1.2004 [Section I]

Article 34

Victim

Applicant complaining of the insufficiency of compensation awarded under the Pinto law: admissible

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Reasonable time

Insufficiency of compensation awarded under the Pinto law: admissible

Article 35

Article 35-1

Exhaustion of domestic remedies

Effective domestic remedy

Applicant complaining about the amount of compensation awarded under the Pinto law not having lodged an appeal to the Court of Cassation: admissible

The application concerns the length of civil proc eedings which lasted slightly more than twelve years and seven months. Following the entry into force of the Pinto Act, the Government objected that domestic remedies had not been exhausted. The applicant applied to the appropriate Court of Appeal under th e Pinto Act. The Court of Appeal held that the length of the proceedings had been unreasonable and awarded the applicant 1,500 euros for non-pecuniary damage. The applicant did not appeal to the Court of Cassation. He complained before the Court that the a mount he had been awarded for non-pecuniary damage was not sufficient to make good the damage resulting from the violation of Article 6.

Admissible under Article 6 § 1: Where an applicant’s complaints related solely to the amount of compensation awarded un der the Pinto Act, the applicant was not required to appeal to the Court of Cassation against the Court of Appeal’s decision for the purpose of exhausting domestic remedies, and could still claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Con vention in that, although the Court of Appeal had acknowledged that the length of the proceedings had been excessive, the amount awarded could not be considered sufficient to make good the alleged damage and breach.

© 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

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 401132 • Paragraphs parsed: 45279850 • Citations processed 3468846