Information Note on the Court’s case-law 25

December 2000

La Parola and Others v. Italy (dec.) - 39712/98

Decision 30.11.2000 [Section IV]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Civil rights and obligations

Request for additional financial assistance: Article 6 inapplicable

The first two applicants were the parents of the third applicant, a minor who had been disabled since birth, on whose behalf they also acted. The third applicant was born in 1983 and at birth presented serious injuries and deformities. In 1989 the civil-invalidity board of the département accepted that she was suffering from 100% invalidity. After several requests, the applicants benefite d from assistance measures including a subsidy from the President of the Republic. In November 1996 the regional head office of the welfare department communicated a further request by the applicant for a subsidy to the municipality of Palermo. In support of that request, the Prefecture of Palermo invited the municipality to do whatever was in the child’s interest and indicated that the first applicant had complained that a 1986 regional statute containing provisions for financial aid was not being applied. In March 1999 a certificate of the third applicant’s entitlement to such aid was issued by a medical department. The applicants indicated that since no decision had been made regarding such aid, they were unable to bring any legal action. It appeared, fur thermore, that the applicants had a permanent entitlement and were already in receipt of what, according to the Government, was a substantial amount of benefit, a fact which they have not disputed. The applicants complained that they had not received the f inancial aid in question and relied on Articles 2, 5 and 8. They also complained of the length of the administrative procedure for obtaining such aid.

Inadmissible under Articles 2, 5 and 8. It was unnecessary to examine the objection that domestic remedie s had not been exhausted as the complaints had to be dismissed on other grounds. Firstly, Articles 2 and 5 could not be relied on as the application did not concern a threat to the third applicant’s life, an infringement of her right to life, or a restrict ion on her liberty. Secondly, even supposing that the applicants were entitled to the statutory aid, which was not a matter for the Court to decide, they were already in receipt of benefit on a permanent basis to assist them to cope with the third applican t’s disabilities. The scale of that benefit showed that Italy was already discharging its positive obligations under Article 8: manifestly ill-founded.

Inadmissible under Article 6: The applicants had complained about the length of administrative proceedin gs; those proceedings were not aimed at determining a dispute but the entitlement to the aid requested. Article 6 was, therefore, not applicable.

© 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