Information Note on the Court’s case-law 23

October 2000

Leoni v. Italy - 43269/98

Judgment 26.10.2000 [Section II]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Access to court

Dismissal of a cassation appeal as out of time, the failure to comply with the formalities being due to the lower court: violation

Facts : The applicant applied to be registered as a surveyor. His application was refused by the National Inst itute of Surveyors and his appeal against that decision dismissed by the Court of Cassation in May 1987. In April 1995 the applicant brought an action before Rome Court of First Instance for compensation for the damage he had sustained as a result of an al leged fault by the judges of the Court of Cassation in its 1987 judgment. Rome Court of First Instance dismissed the action on the ground that it was manifestly unfounded. The applicant appealed against that decision. In a decision of 24 October 1995, whic h was lodged with the registry on 16 November 1995, the court of appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant appealed to the Court to Cassation and on 31 October 1996 that court declared the appeal inadmissible as being out of time since, inter alia , the notice of appeal had been lodged with the registry of the Court of Cassation and not with the registry of the court of appeal, as required by the legislation. Furthermore, the notice had been lodged on 25 January 1996, that is after 29 December 1 995 when the statutory time-limit of twenty days from the date of final notification expired. The applicant has produced a certificate from Rome Court of Appeal dated 29 December 1995 which shows that his appeal to the Court of Cassation was served on 21 D ecember 1995 and was lodged with the registry of the Court of Appeal on 29 December 1995.

Law : Article 6 § 1 – The Court of Cassation had declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible as being out of time, observing that the notice of appeal had been lodged with the registry after the statutory twenty-day period from the date of final notification had expired. However, the document produced by the applicant showed that the notice served on 21 December 1995 had been lodged with the registry of the court of ap peal on 29 December 1995. It was quite clear that the applicant had complied with the statutory time-limit of ten days from the date of final notification for lodging the appeal with the registry of the court of appeal and thereafter it had been the respon sibility of the court of appeal to send all the relevant documents to the Court of Cassation as soon as possible and, in any event, within ten days. In the light of the foregoing, the applicant could not be said to have been negligent. Nor could he be held responsible for Rome Court of Appeal’s failure to comply with the procedural formalities. Consequently, the dismissal of the applicant’s appeal for being out of time amounted to an unjustified interference with his right of access to the Court.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – The Court made an award in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

© 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